24.2.2023 | 15:44

How is higher education policy adopted in the educational practices of Finnish higher education institutions?

Authors: Carvalho, Carolina; Friman, Mervi; Postareff, Liisa; Mahlamäki-Kultanen, Seija & Alaniska, Hanna

Abstract

Politics and various reform initiatives challenge higher education institutions (HEI) to develop and transform. During the last few years, demands to enhance education and to research sustainable development have increased strongly. While policies aim to promote change, the institutional norms embedded in HEIs’ practices may not adapt to them and may even hinder concrete actions. This research aims to provide a national overview of European and national key policy aspects and how they have been adopted in educational practices in Finnish HEIs. The data consists of policy documents and interviews with pedagogical experts in HEIs which have been subject to a content analysis. The results show that educational practices related to digitalisation, working life orientation, the competence-based curriculum, improving the competences and methods of the teaching staff, learning environments and their quality, and student counselling and guidance are strongly emphasised in practice at the HEIs. Internationalisation, entrepreneurship and sustainable development were mentioned rarely. The different missions of universities and universities of applied sciences (UAS) are evidently clear, especially in their orientation towards working life. In the universities, the curricula draw strongly from the latest research while in the UASs the orientation was strongly practice-based.

Keywords: Higher education policy; policy implementation; educational practices; university; university of applied sciences

Introduction

Higher education institutions (HEI) face pressure to adapt to new demands in the constantly evolving environment. These new demands are communicated through policies and various reform initiatives. Studies examining how the external pressure for change has affected higher education are scarce (see Maassen & Stensaker, 2011). European higher education is familiar with expectations for change as it has been targeted by specific higher education reforms (Maassen, 2008). Despite the large reforms universities have undergone during the last decades (such as the Bologna Declaration in 1999 and the general Lisbon Strategy in 2000), it has been claimed that national university reforms have not been successful enough, and therefore, there is a need for further reform in the higher education sector (Välimaa, 2004; Commission, 2006; Olsen & Maassen, 2007; Melin et al., 2015). During the last few years, the demands to enhance education and for research into sustainable development have increased strongly (UNECE, 2019; MoEC, 2019).

While policies aim to promote change, the institutional norms that are embedded in the practices of HEIs may not adapt to these changes but may even hinder or impede concrete action (see Chan, 2005; Melin et al., 2015; Rinne, 2016). Traditional characteristics of universities may survive even the most radical reforms and pressures for change (Clark, 2004; Melin et al., 2015). Stensaker (2007) showed that some institutions have managed to reinterpret and translate external organisational ideals to fit institutional characteristics and traditions by integrating new activities and existing ones. However, sometimes institutional adaptation has resulted in hybrid organisational practices and more complex organisational identities. Challenges may arise, if for example, the content of the policies and the instruments used to implement the policies are not fully aligned (see Ahola et al., 2012; Ylijoki et al., 2011).

The present study analyses the educational policy documents and educational practices in Finnish HEIs´, consisting of two sub-studies: the first analyses key aspects of higher education policy papers and the second focuses on educational practices in HEIs as described by higher education representatives. The aim of this study is to investigate the educational strengths and development areas in Finish HEIs and how key European and national Finnish higher education policy is adopted into the educational practices in Finnish HEIs. As the context, the national higher education policy and structure are shortly explained.

Finnish higher education in national policy framework

In Finland, the development of higher education activities has been influenced by both national and international trends. The international trends are mainly linked to European higher education policy. During the 2000s the Bologna Process has been the most important driver in Europe (Bologna 1999). In Finland, the link between national policy and higher education has been strengthened and made explicit by several policy initiatives and reforms both within the university and UAS sectors. The higher education system is seen more concretely than before as an essential element of the national innovation systems and regional ecosystems (Aarrevaara, 2007).

The Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) and the HEIs interact regularly in negotiations and agreements. The four-year agreements cover the following: common objectives for the HE system; key measures for each HEI; the tasks, profile, core areas and newly emerging scientific fields in each HEI; degree objectives as well as the appropriations allocated based on these. Other steering tools, such as steering by information, aim to encourage and engage HEIs in mutual interaction to develop education, research and other responsibilities of higher education. The financing model of Finnish higher education is largely based on a so-called tournament model, in which higher education institutions gain MoEc´s pre-fixed total funding depending on how well they score compared to others according to different indicators. They also gain funding based on how well their strategies match national policy targets. The tournament model has been tentatively analysed by Ansala and Pääkkönen (2013, 162-177) in the Finnish context, but there is no further research on its implementation in Finnish higher education. Melin et al. (2015) suggest a stronger connection between the financing model, audits and quality of education, linked to the missions of the HEI. The targets of Finnish higher education are connected to the national competitiveness in global markets, which means, for example, the ability to develop innovations and participation in global and local ecosystems. Additionally, social welfare and equality are emphasised. In the steering policy these targets are concretized in the emphasis of quality in teaching and learning, support of fast graduations and strong connections with companies.

Among international recommendations, the expert panel Technopolis Group (Melin, 2015), invited by MoEC, have noted the following issues: curricula reforms should be undertaken to include “general” or “transferable” skills as creativity and entrepreneurial attitudes, new ways of teaching and learning, traditional classroom-based education is no sufficient, and teacher education is in the remarkable role in making these reforms. The recommendations have been taken into consideration in the developing projects which MoEC has financed 2018-2020. Digitalisation was dominating the theme, it was linked as well to learning analytics and environments as different professions. The projects were focused also in language skills, future competences in different disciplines, and entrepreneurship. Also recycling economy was mentioned as well as work-based pedagogy. Typical to the projects was that they were mostly common to both universities and UASs which is a difference compare the previous project periods.

Duties of HEIs in Finnish higher education system

Higher education in Finland has been provided by universities (14) and Universities of Applied Sciences (UASs, 24) since 1.1.2005 when the law on permanent UASs was established (2005/351). The Finnish dual model reminds the higher education systems in a number of OECD countries, as Austria, Germany, Portugal, South Korea and Switzerland.

Both institutions provide education at bachelor and master levels and conduct research and development activities. Universities have the right to provide doctoral degrees. The activities of all HEIs are based on extensive autonomy and the freedom of science. However, according to legislation the higher education institution types also have differences, for example, the UASs have a specific mission to support the professional growth of students and thus a high incentive to develop their education. The mission of the universities is to promote independent academic research as well as academic and artistic education, to provide research-based higher education and to educate students to serve their country and humanity at large. In carrying out their mission, the universities promote lifelong learning, interact with the surrounding society, and promote the social impact of university research findings and artistic activities (University Act 558/2009, amended 315/2011, 932/2014).

The mission of UASs is to provide higher education for expert professional jobs based on the requirements of working life and its development and on the premises of academic research and to support the professional growth of students. They must also carry out applied research, development and innovation activities and artistic activities that serve education in UASs, promote industry, business and regional development and regenerate the industrial structure of the region. In carrying out their mission, universities of applied sciences must also promote lifelong learning (UAS Act 932/2014). Finnish Education Evaluation Centre audits HEIs every sixth year ensuring the progress in varying special topics (FINEEC 2018).

Linking to the Technopolis Group´s recommendations, the discourse about competence/competency as the learning outcome has been actual during the last years. Both general and professional outcomes have been in the focus. Mäkinen and Annala (2010) point out that the large variety of meanings given to the concepts of competence and competency is a result of a diversity of both professional and scientific/epistemological approaches from where the discourse is approached. The same remark is made by Shephard et al (2019) who estimate that the terminological ambiguity might be due to the multidisciplinary literature or might be connected to the varied cultural and language origins. The central focus of the competence paradigm is in learning outcomes and performing learning. Competency paradigm on the other hand focuses on the potential of a person, their capabilities and motifs and how they see themselves (Mäkinen & Annala, 2010). Another analysis on the meanings connected to competencies is made by Lozano, Boni, Peris & Hueso (2012) who compared the competencies discourse in the context of Bologna process (Bologna 1999). They identified critical differences between the meanings connected to the concepts. Aligned with the conclusion of Mäkinen and Annala (2010), Lozano et al. (2012) found that competencies approach focused on educating professionals to working life. They note that competencies approach fails to take in consideration the need of social transformation and students’ capability to be agents of social change.

In spite of the targets of higher education policy and the steering mechanisms, there is no evidence on the adaptation of the targets in Finnish HEI education. Are the policy aims already strengths of HEIs’ education or are they still under development?

Aims and research questions

The aim of this study is to investigate the educational strengths and development areas in Finnish HEIs and how key aspects of European and national Finnish higher education policy are adopted into the educational practices in Finnish HEIs. The autonomous HEIs can implement the policy guidelines and recommendations according to their specific needs and interests. However, the autonomy has its limitations in reality, for example, due to the indicators used for funding. Therefore, it is important to analyse how strongly the policy guidelines actually guide educational practices.

Four research questions were formulated to respond to this aim. The data consists of documents and interviews, and therefore, the article is divided into two sub-studies. Study 1 focuses on document analysis and responds to the first research question. Study 2 focuses on analysing interview data and combines the results of document analysis and interview data, responding to research questions 2-4.

RQ1: What are the common key aspects in the European and national-level policy documents?

RQ2: What educational strengths and development areas do Finnish HEIs describe related to their educational practices?

RQ3: How do universities and UASs differ in terms of their educational strengths and development areas?

RQ4: How do the key aspects of policy guidelines and recommendations correspond with the educational practices in Finnish HEIs?

Study 1 – Document analysis

Data and analyses

The document data consists of public documents from the European Union (EU), the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) and FINEEC (Finnish Education Evaluation Center). The EU and the Finnish MoEC are the current authorities responsible for establishing and suggesting guidelines for Finnish higher education. FINEEC is an independent government agency responsible for auditing the quality systems of the Finnish HEIs, evaluating HEIs regarding education policy, and reviewing individual degree programmes. These three authorities were chosen because they are important drivers for Finnish HEIs, with the European Union representing international guidelines and the others national guidelines. The data analysed was retrieved from the European Union’s website (Euro Union, 2018), the MoEC website (Finnish MoEC, 2018) and the FINEEC website (Finnish Education Evaluation Center, 2018).

Each of these websites has a specific area for higher education issues that was carefully read in order to search for policies and guidelines that guide Finnish HEIs. Additionally, there was a free search on the websites in which the following keywords were combined in different ways: “higher education”, “policies” and “Finland”. Through this search, the following documents were found: The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, 2015 (23 pages); the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions on a Renewed EU Agenda for Higher Education, 2017 (12 pages); Supporting Growth and Jobs – An Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education Systems, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011 (32 pages); the Audit Manual for Higher Education Institutions 2018–2024, 2017 (33 pages); and the Report to the European Commission on New Modes of Learning and Teaching in Higher education, 2014 (68 pages).

To search for suggestions on educational practices for Finnish HEIs in European and national-level policy documents, the method of content analysis was used. Content analysis investigates, interprets and identifies themes and/or patterns in data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Bauer, 2007; Yan, 2015). The analysis was organised in four phases. In the first phase, the websites and documents were read for the first time to get an overview of the whole information. In the second phase the material was condensed to include the guidelines and recommendations concerning educational practices. The third phase focused on identifying different aspects of the educational practices. Once these 10 aspects were identified, related aspects were further combined under three main categories (see Table 1) in the fourth phase.

Results

Key aspects of policy documents and recommendations concerning educational practices of HEIs (RQ1)

As a response to the first research question, the document analysis resulted in a framework of the aspects that emerged from the policy documents and recommendations, aiming to guide educational practices of the HEIs. The framework presents ten key aspects grouped under three categories: general guidelines, development of education and learning environment, and trends in Higher education. The guideline and recommendations from each aspect were described in Table 1.

Table 1. Key aspects of policy documents and recommendations concerning educational practices of HEIs (RQ1) (identified from European Union, the Finnish MoEC and FINEEC documents).

Aspects concerning to the general guidelines for HEIs:
Working life orientation	New forms of co-operation between HEIs’, working life and companies are encouraged. The aim is to develop projects based on working life and support teachers in working with this new approach.
Student-centred approach	The HEIs should encourage and motivate the use of a student-centred approach to stimulate student’s self-reflection, engage them in the learning process and develop various competences. Students are encouraged to be active in the learning process and the teacher’s role is to be a facilitator. This is considered an important approach to promoting lifelong learning.
Aspects concerning to the development of education and learning environments:
Competence-based curriculum	According to the Bologna Process, The European Higher Education Area has decided to change curricula towards competence-based learning. The change emphasises a shift from individual subjects to a competence-based core curriculum module that provides holistic development and supports professional growth.
The quality of learning environments	The HEIs should develop the quality of learning environments to enhance possibilities of learning in different ways, and enlarge the learning environments from traditional classroom setting to outside of university (e.g., in companies).
Student counselling and guidance	HEIs should offer guidance and counselling to support students on their academic paths and help them in their transition to working life. Teachers and other staff should be involved in this process.
Teachers’ pedagogical competences	HEIs’ should support teachers in developing their pedagogical competence and digital skills through providing them with pedagogical training.
Aspects concerning to the recent trends of higher education:
Digitalisation	The HEIs should encourage teachers and students to enhance digitalisation in higher education. Digitalisation is seen as a way to make study paths more flexible and provides opportunities for students to develop their digital competences. The use of electronic devices in teaching and learning is encouraged.
Internationalisation	HEIs should encourage students to develop their abilities and willingness to be involved in international, multicultural settings and understand diversity, global challenges and the principles of a sustainable society. Mobility and international perspectives should be incorporated as elements of students’ studies.
Entrepreneurship	Changes in the job market emphasise the need to develop entrepreneurial skills. Promoting environments and situations in which students can develop creativity, be innovative, take risks, make plans, set goals and manage activities is an important requirement for the future of HEIs.
Sustainable development	Developing curricula and encouraging teachers to provide activities that allow students to develop competences and solve problems related to sustainable development, involving ecological, economic, and social-cultural issues is encouraged.

Study 2 – Interview data analysis

Data and analyses

In the interviews the concept of education was approached using the concept of pedagogy which was regarded as more authentic and concrete for the people interviewed. The concept of pedagogy means the daily educational activities: teaching, learning, and studying. The main actors to be interviewed were teachers and students, but also those who are responsible for the planning and development of education in HEIs.

The interviews were conducted as part of a national project named ‘KOPE’ (Korkeakoulupedagogiikkaa yhteistyössä, Co-operation in Higher Education), which aims to improve the quality of teaching and learning in Finnish higher education and to push HEIs to work more closely together (see Melin, 2015). The interview process was as following: KOPE project actors sent an email to the vice-rectors responsible for education in all Finnish universities and UASs in May 2017. The email included a short description of the project, its aims and the interview questions.

The group interviews were conducted in 39 HEIs (14 universities and 25 UASs). The vice-rectors were requested to gather a group of actors who had a high degree of knowledge and/or experience in the pedagogy of the institute. A total of 154 participants (43 from Universities and 111 from UASs) took part in the interviews, Table 2. They represented teachers, students, vice rectors with responsibility for teaching affairs, and other staff in leading positions. The size of each group was from one to twelve persons, the average group size being four participants. The length of the interviews, which where carried out either face-to-face or remotely, varied between 1.5 to 2.5 hours depending on the structure of the group. The interviewers were experienced and the responses were written in detail in a shared digital matrix. During the period of carrying out the interviews, the interviewers discussed about the fulfilment of the matrix to achieve the similar method. The project manager analysed the data applying the principles of content analyses.

Table 2. Numbers of interviews and interviewees.

	Numbers of interviewed HEIs	Numbers of interviewed
UASs	24	111
Universities	15	43
Total	39	154

The interview was conducted using six questions. In this article we focus on analysing data from responses to the following two interview questions:

What are the educational strengths in the HEIs?
What are the development areas of education in the HEIs?

The aim was to identify which aspects the Finnish HEIs regard as their strengths and thus already strongly developed and which issues still require development. The orientation of the interviews was practical, and the interview questions arose from the needs and duties of KOPE project. This second study was designed to answer research questions two, three, and four.

According to the principles of content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Bauer, 2007; Yan, 2015), both the strengths and the development areas were categorised. In the first phase, all descriptions related to strengths were gathered together, and the similar procedure was carried out for the development areas. In the second phase, conceptually similar strengths and were grouped together, and the same was done for the development areas, and these groups were labelled. For the educational strengths, eight categories were identified (see Figure 1), and for the development areas 10 categories emerged (see Figure 2). In the third phase, the number of mentions was counted in each category, separately for universities and universities of applied sciences and percent values were calculated. Quantification of the data allows comparison between universities and universities of applied sciences.

Results

Educational strengths and development areas in Finnish HEIs (RQ2) and the differences between universities and universities of applied sciences (RQ3)

The educational strengths were categorised into eight categories: 1) Work-based pedagogy (developing and maintaining co-operation and activities between companies and HEIs, business specialist experts participating the learning process, and models where students act as business associates), 2) Use of digital pedagogy (including online pedagogy, online teaching, teaching using technology and activities involving digitalisation), 3) Use of simulation pedagogy, 4) Curriculum development, 5) Teaching development, 6) Team teaching, 7) Guidance (e.g. study counselling and guidance concerning the transition to the world of work) and 8) Problem-based learning. Figure 1 shows that work-based pedagogy and use of digital pedagogy were the largest categories.

The development areas were grouped into 10 categories: 1) Use of digital pedagogy, 2) Pedagogical models (e.g. flipped learning, blended learning and innovation pedagogy), 3) Work-based pedagogy, 4) Competence-based approach, 5) Team teaching, 6) Guidance, 7) Co-operation (between universities, and between universities and the world of work), 8) Assessment of student learning, 9) Identification of prior knowledge and 10) Use of learning analytics. Figure 2 shows that the most often mentioned development areas were use of digital pedagogy and the development of pedagogical models. It can be noticed that the same topic can be seen as a strength and also still be a development topic (e.g. digital pedagogy, working life orientation, guidance).

The universities and UASs emphasised similar strengths, although there were some differences in which strengths they emphasised. The two main strengths of both sectors were their working life orientation, although this was more emphasised in UAS (71%) than universities (33%), and the use of digital pedagogy (university 40%, UAS 50%). There were more differences concerning the development targets. The use of digital pedagogy was the largest area for UASs (83%) and the second largest (27%) for the universities. The second and third largest targets for development for the UASs were the development of pedagogical models (46%) and their working life orientation (38%). Second in universities were the use of digital pedagogy (27%) and competence-based approaches (27%). Overall, the main difference between the institutions was that the UASs highlighted one clear strength (71% working life orientation) and a target for development (the use of digital pedagogy 83%). The universities, on the other hand, did not have the same clear strengths (use of digital pedagogy 40%, working life orientation 33%, teaching development 33%) or development targets (pedagogical models 33%, use of digital pedagogy 27%, competence-based teaching approaches 27%), but they were evenly distributed.

Correspondence between the key aspects of policy guidelines and recommendations versus pedagogical strengths in Finnish HEIs (RQ4)

The categories found in the document analysis and the categories identified through the analyses of the interviews concerning educational practices were compared to understand the correspondence between documentary guidelines and actual pedagogical practices at the HEIs.

The results show that many of the guidelines and recommendations coming from the EU, the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and FINEEC can be found at the institutional level, and thus we conclude that they quite strongly guide the educational practices and development of Finnish higher education. However, some were much more represented than the others.

Firstly, we analysed how the general guidelines for HEIs identified through the document analysis are visible in the educational practices, as identified through the interviews. The table below (Table 3) is extracted from Table 1 presented earlier in the article, and in the following, we describe how these aspects are manifested in the educational practices (see Figure 1).

Table 3. Key aspects concerning the general guidelines for HEIs, identified through the document analysis (extracted from Table 1).

Aspects concerning the general guidelines for HEIs:
Working life orientation	New forms of co-operation between HEIs’, working life and companies are encouraged. The aim is to develop projects based on working life and support teachers in working with this new approach.
Student-centred approach	The HEIs should encourage and motivate the use of a student-centred approach to stimulate student’s self-reflection, engage them in the learning process and develop various competences. Students are encouraged to be active in the learning process and the teacher’s role is to be a facilitator. This is considered an important approach to promoting lifelong learning.

Working-life orientation clearly emerged in the educational practices, since the work-based pedagogy was the most often-mentioned category in UAS and the second-often mentioned category in universities. Also, the use of simulation pedagogy can be considered to reflect the working-life orientation, because simulation pedagogy has a clear aim towards improving concrete working-life skills. Student-centred approach emerged often in educational practices of the HEIs, for example through the descriptions related to problem-based learning, simulation pedagogy and work-based pedagogy. These types of activities and approaches are used to engage them in the learning process and foster students’ deep understanding, and thus can be considered as student-centred dimensions. To conclude, these two dimensions clearly emerged in the educational practices of both universities and UAS.

Secondly, the analyses focused on how the aspects concerning the development of education and learning environments, as identified through the document analysis, emerged in the educational practices of the HEIs (see Figure 1). An extraction from Table 1 shows which aspects were included in this category, see Table 4.

Table 4. Aspects concerning the development of education and learning environments, identified through the document analysis (extracted from Table 1).

Aspects concerning the development of education and learning environments:
Competence-based curriculum	According to the Bologna Process, The European Higher Education Area has decided to change curricula towards competence-based learning. The change emphasises a shift from individual subjects to a competence-based core curriculum module that provides holistic development and supports professional growth.
The quality of learning environments	The HEIs should develop the quality of learning environments to enhance possibilities of learning in different ways and enlarge the learning environments from traditional classroom setting to outside of university (e.g., in companies).
Student counselling and guidance	HEIs should offer guidance and counselling to support students on their academic paths and help them in their transition to working life. Teachers and other staff should be involved in this process.
Teachers’ pedagogical competences	HEIs’ should support teachers in developing their pedagogical competence and digital skills through providing them with pedagogical training.

Competence-based curriculum emerged in the education practices through the descriptions related to work-based pedagogy and curriculum development. In these educational practices, the close connection to the world of work and the enhancement of working-life competencies was emphasised. Furthermore, problem-based learning aims to foster the development of various competences, and thus can be considered to reflect this aspect. The quality of learning environments became visible through practices related to team teaching and through teaching approaches which enlarge the traditional classroom settings, i.e. use of simulation pedagogy and problem-based learning. Also, the use of digital pedagogy can be considered to reflect this aspect, since it also enables learning in new types of environments. Student counselling and guidance was described also as an educational practice, but to a lesser extent. Teachers’ pedagogical competences was clearly manifested in the educational practices through descriptions related to teaching development. This was emphasised specifically in universities. Moreover, universities of applied sciences described the adoption of team teaching, which was not mentioned at all in universities.

Thirdly, aspects concerning the recent trends of higher education were compared to the educational practices which emerged from the interviews (see Figure 1). An extraction from Table 1 illustrates the aspects identified through the document analysis, presenting in table 5.

Table 5. Aspects concerning the recent trends of higher education, identified through the document analysis (extracted from Table 1).

Aspects concerning the recent trends of higher education:
Digitalisation	The HEIs should encourage teachers and students to enhance digitalisation in higher education. Digitalisation is seen as a way to make study paths more flexible and provides opportunities for students to develop their digital competences. The use of electronic devices in teaching and learning is encouraged.
Internationalisation	HEIs should encourage students to develop their abilities and willingness to be involved in international, multicultural settings and understand diversity, global challenges and the principles of a sustainable society. Mobility and international perspectives should be incorporated as elements of students’ studies.
Entrepreneurship	Changes in the job market emphasise the need to develop entrepreneurial skills. Promoting environments and situations in which students can develop creativity, be innovative, take risks, make plans, set goals and manage activities is an important requirement for the future of HEIs.
Sustainable development	Developing curricula and encouraging teachers to provide activities that allow students to develop competences and solve problems related to sustainable development, involving ecological, economic, and social-cultural issues is encouraged.

Digitalisation was clearly rooted in the educational practices of the HEIs, since the use of digital pedagogies was the secondly most often mentioned educational practice. However, the other aspects identified from the documents, did not clearly emerge as educational practices. Internationalisation and sustainable development were not described at all, and they were neither mentioned as development areas. Skills related to entrepreneurship are reflected through work-based pedagogy, but the interviewees did not use the concept of entrepreneurship. Thus, the results show, that the recent trends are not yet rooted in the educational practices of the HEIs to the same extent as the other aspects which were identified through the document analysis.

Discussion

Study 1 provided a view on which guidelines concerning educational practices of HEI’s are emphasised in European and national-level policy documents, while Study 2 analysed which educational practices the HEIs themselves currently emphasise, and how the policy recommendations are reflected in the educational practices.

The results showed that the educational practices and development areas which were emphasised in universities and UASs were rather similar. This is surprising considering the different roles and tasks of the universities. As previous studies highlight, the institutional norms and values that are embedded in the practices of HEIs have an impact on which changes are rooted in their practices (see, e.g. Chan, 2005; Melin et al., 2015). An interesting direction for future research could thus be institution-specific investigation of the relationship between the institutional norms and values and educational practices.

On the general level, the results showed that the HEIs have adopted and implemented most of the development aspects which are addressed in the policy-level steering. This result is positive in the light of previous notions concerning the inefficacy of policy reforms (see, e.g. Olsen & Maassen, 2007; Välimaa, 2004). The steering system, which is based on the agreements between the MoEC and HEIs as well the regular FINEEC auditing cycles seem to keep the HEIs aware of the expectations of the MoEC. However, some of the aspects were implemented more strongly than others, and furthermore, there are differences between universities and UASs. It should, however, be noted that the present study does not provide strong evidence on the mechanisms and relationships between policy-level steering and the actions, since the adoption or implementation of the policy-level steering was not addressed in the interviews. However, the interviews interestingly show which educational practices were highlighted, and comparing these with the policy-level recommendations indicate how policy level and education practices correspond with each other. Most of the interviewees themselves took part in the educational development work and were strongly involved in it, which could explain the strong alignment between the policy level recommendations and educational practices identified in this study.

According to the results, the first priority for HEIs seems to be work-based pedagogy including connections between HEIs and the world of work. This is evident for both university types although according to legislation, it is especially a priority for UASs. The orientation towards and from the world of work is much stronger in UASs than in other universities, the latter being more oriented towards basic research. However, according to the present study, in their pedagogical development both stress the orientation to the world of work. It is mentioned both as a strength and a development target for the future. This is understandable due to the fact that the world of work is in continuous change and cooperation between universities and the world of work must be dynamic by nature. Also the competence-based paradigm in Finnish HEIs might explain the strong focus on work-based pedagogy, since the competence-based approach strengthens the connectivity between learning in formal education and learning in the workplace (see Wesselink, Jong & Biemans, 2010). According to the recent evaluation of four educational sectors in higher education (Karvi, 2020), the co-operation with the world of work seemed to be advanced and is even a strength of many educational sectors.

The second most often-mentioned educational strength, digitalisation, was also mentioned as a target to be further developed. The results show that a lot of development has already been done in this area, but also that the digitalisation of education is still too scattered in HEIs and needs to be developed further.

The interviewees of the present study did not emphasise internationalisation. This is in line with the FINEEC (2020) evaluation, which showed that internationalisation was a weak point in many educational sectors because, for the most part, it only meant degree programmes in English. These programmes have grown in number recently, but the deeper multiculturality of universities requires further development. Moreover, sustainable development was not mentioned in the interviews, not even as a development area. We wonder whether our results concerning internationalisation and sustainable development are due to the fact that, in most HEIs, both are the responsibility of separate functions from the educational development and responsibility of people who were not interviewed in our study. Internationalisation and sustainable development can also be seen as cross-cutting themes in pedagogy, which might also explain why they were not emphasised in the interviews. This leads us to wonder whether the pedagogical leadership of HEIs is able to integrate all the possible targets and actors of pedagogical development in a holistic way.

Future research could focus on exploring more specifically the teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the educational practices and strengths of the HEIs. This would provide a view on how well the policy guidelines are rooted in the very practical level. The developers of pedagogy and management must have a high-level, quality dialogue, also with the teachers, when implementing new practices and ideas in organisations. The results of the present study leave it open as to whether this dialogue has been successful enough in HEIs.

Authors

Carvalho Carolina, Federal University of ABC – UFABC, Center for Engineering, Modeling and Applied Social Sciences, Brazil. carolina.carvalho@ufabc.edu.br (Corresponding author)

Friman Mervi, Häme University of Applied Sciences, HAMK Edu Research Unit, Finland.

Postareff Liisa, Häme University of Applied Sciences, HAMK Edu Research Unit, Finland.

Mahlamäki-Kultanen Seija, Häme University of Applied Sciences. School of professional teacher education, Finland.

Alaniska Hanna, Oulun ammattikorkeakoulu, Finland.

References

Aarrevaara, T. (2007). Enhancing universities in Finland. The Journal of Finance and Management in Colleges and Universities, 4, 261-292.
Ahola, S. & Hoffman, D. M. (2012). Higher education research in Finland: Emerging structures and contemporary issues. Institute for Educational Research.
Ansala, L. & Pääkkönen. J. (2013) Tuloksellisuusrahoitus lukiokoulutuksessa: teoriasta käytäntöön. In. Mahlamäki-Kultanen, S., Hämäläinen, T., Pohjonen, P. & Nyyssölä. K. (eds.)
Bauer, M. W. (2007). Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology–By Klaus Krippendorff From Words to Numbers. Narrative, Data and Social Science–By Roberto Franzosi. The British Journal of Sociology, 58(2), 329-331.
Bologna 1999. The Bologna Declaration. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Bologna, 19.6.1999
Chan, A. S. (2005). Policy discourses and changing practice: Diversity and the university-college. Higher Education, 50 (1), 129-157.
Clark, B. (2004). Sustaining change in universities. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Euro Union (2018). EU activities in the field of higher education. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education_en.
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG).
European Commission (2017) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. On a renewed EU agenda for higher education. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0247&from=DA
European Commission Report to the European Commission (October 2014). New modes of learning and teaching in higher education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2014 – 68 pp. doi:10.2766/81897
European Commission Supporting growth and jobs (2011) An agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union — 32 pp. doi: 10.2766/17689
European Union (2006). Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Retrieved from https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10917-2006-INIT/en/pdf
Finnish Education Evaluation Center – FINEEC (2018). Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/en/.
Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (2017). Audit manual for higher education institutions 2018–2024. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2017/02/FINEEC_Audit_manual_for_higher_education_institutions_2018-2024_FINAL.pdf.
Finnish National Agency for Education (2018). Higher Education in Finland 2015–2016. http://www.cimo.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/cimo/embeds/cimowwcimowwwstr/56956_Higher_Education_in_Finland_2015-2016.pdf.
Finnish National Agency for Education (2020). Korkeatasoisella osaamisella työelämään. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2020/01/KARVI_T0120.pdf.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Kope. (2018). Korkeakoulupedagogiikkaa yhteistyössä [Higher Education Pedagogy]. Retrieved from http://www.oamk.fi/fi/tutkimus-ja-kehitys/hankkeet/kope/ajankohtaista/?kieli=&ak_osio=uutisjuttu&kid=61&id=57107.
Lozano, J. F., Boni, A., Peris, J., Hueso, A. (2012). Competencies in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis from the Capabilities Approach. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 46(1), 132–147. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00839.x.
Maassen, P. (2008). The modernisation of European higher education. In From governance to identity (pp. 95-112). Springer, Dordrecht.
Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2011). The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications. Higher Education, 61(6), 757-769.
Mäkinen, M. & Annala, J. (2010). Osaamisperustaisen opetussuunnitelman monet merkitykset korkeakoulutuksessa. Kasvatus & Aika 4 (4), 41-61. http://www.kasvatus-ja-aika.fi/dokumentit/artikkeli_makinen_&_annala_0712100353.pdf
Melin, G., Zuijdam, F., Good, B., Angelis, J., Enberg, J., Fikkers,D. J., Puukka, J., Swenning, AK., Kosk, K., Lastunen, J. & Zegel, S. (2015). Towards a future proof system for higher education and research in Finland. Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2015:11.
Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) (2019). Retrieved from https://minedu.fi/kestava-kehitys.
Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC). Retrieved from http://minedu.fi/en/frontpage.
Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) (2021). Higher Education Development projects 2018-2020. Retrieved from https://okm.fi/documents/1410845/8943366/Higher+education+development+projects+2018-2020.pdf/d73ba6bf-c4ea-4adc-bc97-7c765b50414f/Higher+education+development+projects+2018-2020.pdf?version=1.1&t=1530280868000.
OECD (2019), Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/be5514d7-en.
Olsen, J. P., & Maassen, P. (2007). European debates on the knowledge institution: The modernisation of the university at the European level. In University dynamics and European integration (pp. 3-22). Springer, Dordrecht.
Rinne, R. (2016). Yliopiston luhistuneet unelmat ja kadotettu autonomia. Tiedepolitiikka 41(4), 23-32.
Stensaker B (2007) The Relationship Between Branding and Organisational Change. Journal of Higher Education and Policy Management 19: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v19-art1-en.
UNECE (2019). Retrieved from http://www.unece.org/unece-and-the-sdgs/unece-and-the-sdgs.html
Universities Act 558/2009; 315/2011; 932/2014.retrived from https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2009/en20090558_20160644.pdf
Universities of Applied Sciences Act 351/2005; 932/2014. Retrieved from https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2014/en20140932_20160563.pdf
Välimaa, J. (2004). Nationalisation, localisation and globalisation in Finnish higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 27–54.
Wesselink, R., De Jong, C., & Biemans, H. J. (2010). Aspects of competence-based education as footholds to improve the connectivity between learning in school and in the workplace. Vocations and Learning, 3(1), 19-38.
Yan, L. C. (2015). A Comparative Study on Campus sustainability in higher education sector in Hong Kong and Finland (Master Thesis). University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/46362/URN%3aNBN%3afi%3ajyu-201506182372.pdf?sequence=1.
Ylijoki, O-H., Lyytinen A. & Marttila, L. (2011). Different research markets: a disciplinary perspective. Higher Education 62 (6), 721-740.

URN: http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:jamk-issn-2489-2386-24