Learning from a generation of Finnish students

When asked to reflect on experiences in Finnish academic life, my mentors came to mind: students who cooperate to turn abstract pedagogical concepts into academic reality. I began my academic career in Finland in 1975 as a Fulbright professor of history who was asked to give lectures rather than create dis- cussion groups. Fortunately, students thought otherwise, and I was able to shift the focus to creating learning environments that foster discovery and interpretative competence when learning and communicating in a foreign language.

Hidden pitfalls in English and the need for reciprocal learning

During the past twenty-five years I have been privileged with multiple academic roles as a lecturer in English and a docent in the humanities, social sciences, and business. Each of these roles has provided opportunities to combine language and content learning and to turn students into learner-teachers who teach and learn from each other and also teach me in the process. The recent influx of exchange students has added an important dimension to reciprocal learning.

This approach to teacher-learner-teacher reciprocity began with the assumption that multidisciplinary and intercultural dimensions should be explicit in learning situations. It eventually became obvious, however, that communication and learning in a foreign language is full of hidden pitfalls: most Finnish users of English unconsciously speak and interpret speech as Finnish cultural beings, and the native speaker of English is often unaware of what is happening.

I began to deal with this perplexing challenge by asking students to explain in English and Finnish the assumptions behind what they were saying. After twenty-five years in Finnish universities, neither I nor students in my courses have discovered any abstract concept with identical Finnish and American meaning. There is overlap but the absence of overlap creates illusions of skating on thick ice.

When Finns and native speakers of English use words such as "shy", "honest", "liberal", "individualism", "liberty", "autonomy", etc. with reference to communication competence, personal character, personal identity, political ideology, responsibility within an organization, etc. they often send different messages without being aware of the degree of miscommunication.

Language is not just a tool. It always carries cultural meanings. The fact that many textbooks are written in English via the cultural prisms of other cultures presents yet another challenge for teachers and learners alike. Likewise, the absence of speech - silence - is embedded in cultural practices. The positive reasons why Finnish students do not talk for the sake of talking helped me understand the importance of providing contexts in which talk constituted value added input.

It is important to adapt to other ways of communication in intercultural encounters but I consider attempts to get Finns to debate or brainstorm according to Anglo-American models counterproductive. There is nothing wrong with listening and thinking before expressing a view in a learning situation. Attempts to get a Finn to think out loud are usually as successful as attempts to get an American to remain silent until s/he has thought the issue through.

Finns face the necessity of learning foreign languages in order to communicate with non-Finns. Consequently, they have to use languages that fail to capture the nuances in the meaning that they wish to communicate. Ironically, the native speaker of an international language such as English is often in a worse position. Ethnographic observation in Finland and at international conferences suggests that the better a non-native speaker's command of English, the more likely the native speaker is to unconsciously impose his/her own cultural meaning on what was said.

Many Finns (students, teachers and business people) who have a good command of English tell me that the native speakers of English have the advantage in intercultural encounters. My response is that awareness of cultural nuances in speech can often be more valuable than linguistic command of a language.

Everything is part of a larger whole

The convergence in language and subject learning has become so integrated in my app-roach to discovery and interpretation of cultural meaning that I can no longer detect where one begins and the other ends. I started my teaching and research as an historian and currently focus on multicultural interpretation of media and the relationship between professional and cultural frames of reference in intercultural encounters. Everything seems to remain part of an integrated whole. This approach finds support from students and the rhetoric of academic decision-makers. Hopefully the gap between rhetoric and practice will narrow in the future.

Students can liberate foreign teachers

Perhaps I could end with reference to cooperative teaching and research findings in Finland and Austria that suggest the existence of cultural circles of reinforcement irregardless of whether a person is a practitioner, teacher or student. Research on who should be involved in decision making has demonstrated that Finnish and Austrian business practitioners, teachers and students have more in common with each other than with the corresponding categories in the other culture. This finding raises an important question: who learns from whom and how can we introduce new fundamental questions within these circles of reinforcement? International exchanges are essential but only long-term personal and institu- tional interaction can produce meaningful results. I am lucky. I have had an opportunity to learn from a generation of Finnish students and half a decade of exchange students.

Michael Berry

Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Madison
Senior Lecturer in English, Turku School of
Economics and Business Administration
Docent in Political History, University of Turku
Docent in History, University of Tampere
Docent in Intercultural Relations, Turku School
of Economics and Business Administration