International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Finnish teachers and librarians in curriculum reform

T
Siinamari Tikkinena,*,1, Riitta-Liisa Korkeamäkia, Mariam Jean Dreherb
a
Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
b
Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, USA

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: The Finnish national core curriculum offers a framework for designing local curricula. This case
Core curriculum study examined how teacher-public librarian partnerships cooperated to plan and implement
Local curriculum their local curricula. Their major goal was to plan and implement cooperative activities that
Teacher-librarian cooperation would promote students’ motivation to read. Teachers and librarians representing seven part-
Public libraries and schools
nerships were interviewed and their curricula analyzed. All library-school partnerships except
Finland
one included a plan in their local curricula to demonstrate the school-library cooperation through
concrete activities to support students’ motivation to read. These activities were implemented in
practice, but teachers participated little in the planning or implementation of them. More co-
operation and involvement from teachers would be needed to meet the core curriculum’s de-
mands for fostering motivation to read.

1. Introduction

As an international benchmarking study, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) has an impact on the gov-
ernance of the national education systems in many countries (Breakspear, 2012). In Finland, for example, reading performance has
been at or near the top of the comparisons since the first PISA (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
2001, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2010, Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), 2015). But despite their excellent performance, Finnish students demonstrated exceptionally low reading
motivation on the PISA 2010 (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2010). Concerned about students’
low reading motivation, the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture funded a three-year literacy program Joy of Reading (JofR) in
2012–2015 aimed at finding ways to increase 6 to 16-year-old students’ reading motivation by forging connections between schools
and libraries. During the implementation of the JofR program, the National Core Curriculum (NCC, 2004) was revised (National core
curriculum for basic education, 2014). According to the new NCC, school-public library pairs are expected to incorporate principles
from the 2014 NCC into the literacy activities of their local curricula. The principles of the new NCC include an emphasis on
collaboration. Thus, when the new NCC became effective during the ongoing JofR program, the schools and libraries which were part
of the program had already experimented with collaborative activities that could have been beneficial as they worked to apply the
NCC in their local curricula.
The purpose of the JofR program was to design inspiring literacy activities that would become daily practices in school. A Faculty
of Education and a Department of Information Science in a Finnish University implemented the program. They selected 30 school-
public library pairs from 100 public library-school applicants to implement literacy activities that were designed together by

⁎
Corresponding author at: Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 2000, 90014, Finland.
E-mail address: [email protected].fi (S. Tikkinen).
1
https://fi.linkedin.com/in/siinamari-tikkinen-79645a105.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101615
Received 4 June 2019; Received in revised form 19 May 2020; Accepted 22 May 2020
0883-0355/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

students, teachers, librarians, and parents. The 30 pairs were selected based on their existing cooperation and/or their initial ideas for
literacy activities to be implemented during the program. The program was based on bottom-up planning in which school-public
library pairs selected, developed, and tested several participatory activities. The University facilitators organized seminars for school-
public library pairs to enhance their understanding of literacy motivation and to familiarize them with the new literacy concept –
multiliteracy2 . Multiliteracy was introduced in the NCC (2014) that teachers were to begin implementing by 2016 in all schools
throughout the country. During the seminars, the school-public library pairs also presented literacy activities they had planned and
implemented in their settings to give other pairs ideas for practices and to get feedback for further development. After the JofR
program, the ideas were expected to be applied in local curricula and implemented in all schools in the country.
It is important to note that in Finland, school libraries are much less common than in many other countries, and thus schools
usually work with public libraries (Kurttila-Matero, 2011). Public libraries are rarely located in the same building with schools, which
may hinder their joint work. Nevertheless, Finland’s public library system is excellent, with well trained staff, vast collections of
resources, and free services even in remote areas (Kietäväinen, 2016). However, scholars in Finland, as well as internationally, have
concluded that the working relationships between teachers and both school and public librarians have not been strong enough that
they truly worked together in instruction (Latham et al., 2016; Lindberg, 2014; Lo et al., 2014; Mokhtar & Majid, 2006; Smith &
Hepworth, 2007; Williams & Wavell, 2006). Yet cooperation between teachers and librarians could promote student learning ac-
cording to international studies (Chu et al., 2011; Gildersleeves, 2012; Kuhlthau et al., 2007; Lance et al., 2002). Therefore, another
goal of the JofR program was to promote schools and public libraries working together to develop literacy activities.
The NCC (2014) and the JofR program have many similar principles. For instance, both promote active engagement in reading
and a focus on multiliteracy (for multiliteracy see The New London Group, 1996). Moreover, the NCC advocates cooperation between
schools and public libraries, as does the Finnish Public Library Law 2017 (Ministry of Education and Culture [MEC], 2016). The NCC
specifies the role of the public library in instruction as a provider of material and an extended learning environment for independent
studying. Since the NCC is a curriculum framework to be applied in local curricula, the expectation is that the basic principles will be
elaborated into contents and principles that take into account the specific learning environment at the local level. The purpose of this
study was to explore how the JofR partners described their cooperation in their local curricula, and how they implemented the
cooperative activities.

1.1. Theoretical framework

The Finnish curriculum approach is unique in that it offers teachers professional autonomy in designing local curricula, orga-
nizing instruction, and choosing partners for cooperation. This section focuses on defining the core curriculum and its central
concepts (sub-section 2.1). The curriculum implementation was explored through teachers’ and librarians’ cooperation. A review of
research on their cooperation is presented at the end of this section (sub-section 2.2).

1.2. Moving from the core curriculum into the local curricula

In many countries there is a tendency to base educational policies on “what knowledge is of most worth” as evidenced in
assessments such as the PISA (Autio, 2017, p. 48). Educational officials then establish a curriculum to evaluate and control appro-
priate learning. In turn, the quality of teaching and the learning results are measured with tests (Krokfros, 2017) The situation in
Finland is different, because the Finnish context emphasizes teachers’ status and professional autonomy, based on the high standard
of teacher education3 . The system is the same throughout the nine-year basic education for 7–16-year-old children. Less than two per
cent of students choose to go to a private or state school (Ministry of Education and Culture [MEC], 2019)
Finnish teachers’ professional autonomy has been influenced by the German Didaktik/Lehrplan tradition, which highlights the
contents of the subjects. In addition, the Finnish curriculum has been influenced by the Anglo-American Curriculum tradition and its
value and ideology base (Autio, 2017; Erss, 2017). However, the Finnish interpretation of the concepts of learning and the core values
of education differ from the Curriculum tradition’s emphasis on the efficiency of the instruction (Krokfors, 2017). Instead of effi-
ciency, the foundation in Finnish education lies in transformation and teachers’ reflection on the curriculum. Moreover, the Finnish
approach resists the institutional aspects of transmission and delivering curriculum content with tests in sight (Autio, 2013; Erss,
2017). Studies in multiple countries show that professional commitment affects the success of educational reforms. Furthermore,
teachers’ professional autonomy has produced high quality educational results internationally (Goodson, 2014).
The NCC has a dual role in Finland. On the one hand, it is an administrative and normative steering document, and on the other
hand, it is a pedagogical tool for guiding teachers’ instruction. Indeed, the NCC offers a framework for practitioners to build and
implement context driven local (municipal) or school-based curricula. This approach contrasts with standardized teaching aimed at

2
The term multiliteracy is represented primarily as the skills for mastering (i.e., understanding, producing, and evaluating) different types of texts.
Already from the 1st grade, students are expected to practice various multiliteracy skills, such as visual literacy, information management, and
critical thinking (NCC, 2014.).
3
To be a qualified teacher in grades 1–6 in Finland requires a master’s degree with a thesis involving pedagogical research. Their education
includes extensive practicums, mainly in university training schools and supervised by university faculty members, in which theory and practice are
integrated. Secondary school teachers major in their intended subject and study subject-oriented didactics in their education minor (Autio, Hakala,
& Kujala, 2017).

2
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

Fig. 1. The Process of Curriculum Making in Finland.

performance on official tests (Krokfors 2017). The development of the locally-adjusted curricula is an ongoing process in which
schools can continuously make changes. Mølstad (2015) shows that curriculum making in Finland is truly a developmental process
compared, for instance, with the Norwegian process, which is characterized by application and delivery of the curriculum instead of
developing the contents. Fig. 1 illustrates the process in Finland and the participants in the curriculum making in each step of the
process4 . The process of implementing curriculum is of equal value to the NCC document that frames the basis for the im-
plementation (Korkeamäki & Dreher, 2011). This arrangement recognizes that there are many ways of creating a good learning
environment. Thus, Finnish teachers are afforded opportunities for professional reflection and choice in instructional partners.
Curriculum making in Finland offers professional autonomy for teachers, and leads to personal and professional commitment in
the reform process. This approach differs from the United Kingdom, for instance, where teachers have minimal influence on curri-
culum reform (Macdonald, 2003). The Finnish NCC is both a challenge and an opportunity for teachers and local actors because it has
been described as one of the least prescriptive curricula (McKinsey & Company, 2007). Finnish teachers are trusted to interpret the
curriculum by developing the instruction from general descriptions of the learning concepts and learning environment. However, this
leaves room for unsatisfactory interpretations (Kansanen, 2004). In line with Kansanen’s point, Korkeamäki and Dreher (2011) found
that the language and literacy instruction did not correspond fully with the requirements of the 2004 NCC. In Finland, young
teachers, in particular, have felt that they would need guidance and cooperation with other teachers to support their independence in
curriculum implementation (Erss et al., 2016).
Curriculum reforms have been regarded as complex and often confusing phenomena (Adams, 2000; Fullan, 1999) which do not
necessarily lead straight to educational change in practice (Cuban, 1992). According to Cuban, the so-called taught curriculum, what a
teacher teaches in practice, can differ from the intended curriculum, which is the official or recommended content. In 1993, Cuban
replaced the term intended curriculum by the term official curriculum. The meaning of the term remained the same describing what
“state and district officials set forth in curricular frameworks and courses of study” (Cuban, 1993, p. 183). The taught curriculum is an
implementation process performed by the teachers resulting from their experiences, attitudes, competence, and interpretation of the
intended or official curriculum. Cuban’s (1992) forms of curriculum also include the so-called learned curriculum which means stu-
dents’ experiences and learning outcomes. This study, however, explores the intended/official and the taught curriculum because of
its focus on teachers and librarians.

1.3. Teachers’ and librarians’ cooperation

Teachers’ ability to reflect (Shulman & Shulman, 2004) and their beliefs about aims and contents (Cotton, 2006) have a central
role in curricular implementation. Another key factor in curriculum reform is a sense of community (Heinonen, 2005). The idea of
community is well represented in the Finnish context of local curriculum work: When designing their local curricula, Finnish teachers
can choose their partners. For instance, the well-structured Finnish public library would seem a suitable companion, especially in
supporting students’ literacy motivation. Librarians often work together with teachers in implementing instruction, but do not ne-
cessarily participate in curriculum making, and do not possess experience in the curriculum process. Library and information science
education in Finland does not aim to produce teacher-librarians who support student learning in school libraries in the way many
other countries do (Kurttila-Matero, 2011). Therefore, very few librarians have pedagogical studies. Consequently, they are not
familiar with curriculum issues or with working with the teachers formulate local curricula.
According to international studies, teachers’ and librarians’ interaction does not function without problems. It is challenging to
find ways for two different professional groups such as teachers and librarians to communicate (Montiel-Overall & Grimes, 2013).
Indeed, studies in multiple countries show that educators do not recognize librarians as equal partners in instruction and conse-
quently, there is often low engagement in the joint implementation of instruction by teachers and librarians (Latham et al., 2016; Lo
et al., 2014; Mokhtar & Majid, 2006; Smith & Hepworth, 2007; Williams & Wavell, 2006). Teachers’ and librarians’ interest in
cooperation has, however, increased in recent years (Montiel-Overall & Grimes, 2013); as noted, several international studies indicate
that cooperation between teachers and librarians promotes student learning (Chu et al., 2011; Gildersleeves, 2012; Kuhlthau et al.,
2007; Lance et al., 2002).
Based on the aim of bettering students’ motivation in literacy in the JofR program, the participating schools and libraries were
expected to plan together and document their cooperative activities in their local or school curricula. This study involved examining

4
The Board of Education invites participants to discuss and negotiate the principles of the National Curriculum. The selected participants also
comment on the drafts. On the local level, the municipal school authorities invite a group of experts to write a local curriculum based on the NCC.
The method is the same at the school level.

3
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

Table 1
Amount of data from the curriculum documents and the interviews.
Local curriculum School-based curriculum Interviews with librarians and duration of the Interviews with teachers and duration of the
interviews interviews

S-L 2 S-L 1 one librarian; 1:03 two teachers; 1:30

S-L 3 S-L 5 two librarians; 1:25 three teachers; 0:49
S-L 4 S-L 6 one librarian; 0:51 one teacher; 1:21
S-L 7 one librarian; 1:05 one teacher; 1:04
PL 8 one librarian; 0:58 two teachers; 1:19
one librarian; 0:45 one teacher; 0:56
two teachers; 1:03

Note: S-L refers to the participant school-public library pairs. PL8 refers to the participant city library.

these documents and interviewing the teachers and librarians, asking the following research questions: (1) How did the JofR teachers
and librarians document their cooperation aimed at increasing students’ motivation to read in their intended/official local curricula?
(2) How did they report implementing the cooperation in practice in the taught curriculum?

2. Research methods

This paper presents a qualitative case study of cooperation between teachers and librarians in the reform of local curricula
according to the 2014 NCC. The case study approach was chosen because it can generate in-depth examination about interaction
between individuals (Yin, 2009). The aim was to do an in-depth analysis of cooperation in a school-library context.
The participants were teachers and librarians in seven school-public library pairs and one city library in the JofR program. They
were selected for this study was based on the final reports of the JofR program. Both highly active and low-engaged school-public
library pairs in the program were included. Cities and small municipalities from several regions were also represented. Four pairs
came from northern, two from middle, one from southern, and one from south-eastern Finland. The city library was included because
it had developed a cooperative relationship among all the schools and branch libraries in one region. The other libraries that paired
up with schools were branch libraries. This study is part of research aimed at understanding what has been happening between the
schools and the public libraries after the JofR program officially ended.
The data consisted of (a) local and school-based curricula, and (b) teachers’ and librarians’ interviews (see Table 1). The data were
analyzed first by using qualitative content analysis to examine participants’ local and school-based curricula. This analysis guided the
interview questions conducted by the first author in 13 semi-structured groups (2–3 participants) or individually. There were 19
interviewees in all: 12 teachers and seven librarians. Five participants (2 librarians, 9 teachers) were interviewed in groups, and eight
(5 librarians, 3 teachers) individually. The teachers and librarians were interviewed in separate groups.
The participants applied the principles of the 2014 NCC into the local curricula in 2016 and the interviews took place after that
application in January-February 2017. The interviews were conducted with the focus on teachers and librarians working together
after the end of the JofR program as they designed and implemented their local curricula based on the 2014 NCC. A semi-structured
interview method with open-ended questions was chosen to encourage discussion of experiences from various points (Moustakas,
1994). Appendix A presents the interview themes which concentrated on describing the cooperation between schools and libraries, its
enablers and challenges, and the roles in planning and implementing activities and in the curriculum process. These 45−90-minute
interviews were audio-recorded. In total, the transcripts came to 140 pages of text.

2.1. Data analysis

The data consisted of curriculum documents and interviews which required different types of analysis. The curricula were
analyzed by content analysis and the interviews were analyzed using an inductive approach.

2.1.1. Content analysis of the local and the school-based curricula

The analysis of the participants’ local and school-based curricula followed Schreier (2012) description of content analysis. The
curricula were searched for meaning units on cooperation between schools and public libraries. For instance, meaning units included
descriptions of the library as a learning environment or as a provider of books. The identified units were condensed into three
categories: materials, services, and models for cooperation.
The analysis continued in a deductive manner and focused on the category models for cooperation which included specific activities
for cooperation. The identified models for cooperation were grouped into two subcategories: (1) activities regardless of grade and (2)
activities for students in different grades. The subcategory activities regardless of the grade included activities and services from the
library, such as reading diplomas (certificates for having read or listened to books). The subcategory activities for student in different
grades contained activities which were designed for specific grades. For example, the first- and the second-graders’ library in-
troduction was a playful adventure that concentrated on non-fiction books. Activities for the upper grades tended to involve solving
exercises individually or in groups without the librarian being in charge the whole time.

4
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

2.1.2. Analysis of the interviews

The transcribed interviews were analyzed via an inductive approach as suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998), employing the
software application QSR NVivo 10 for Macintosh to investigate how teachers and librarians interpreted the curriculum contents as
joint work. The participants were labeled using L–S for school-public library pairs, PL for a public library, L for librarians, and T for
teachers. The data-driven analysis started with discovering expressions of implementing cooperation and specific models related to it.
The original expressions were then reduced into specific themes (e.g., scheduling, joint planning, and library activities connection to
schoolwork). Next the themes were organized by comparing similarities and differences (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). For instance,
descriptions of formal planning times and sharing knowledge about students or the subject indicated joint planning which differed
from descriptions of planning activities separately and dividing responsibilities.
Organizing the themes revealed several subcategories. For example, issues concerning time, money, staff, and long distance were
subcategories under the theme of challenges of cooperation. Axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was used to relate codes and
organize the subcategories under high-level categories, such as teachers’ roles, librarians’ roles, activities organized by librarians, and
jointly organized activities. All these categories were linked to the specific models of cooperation; these models were then used as the
basis for reporting of the findings. The main categories in the models for cooperation were: (1) joint activities implemented in
practice, (2) teachers’ and librarians’ roles, (3) the connection of the joint activities into the schoolwork, and (4) enablers and
challenges of the cooperation.
Appendix B illustrates category formation with an example from the main category of teachers’ and librarians’ roles. The original
statements were reduced into themes such as scheduling and arrangements. These themes formed four subcategories, (a) coordinator,
(b) instructor, (c) initiator, and (d) receiver. The subcategory “coordinator” was constituted from descriptions reduced from data of
teachers arranging practical issues, scheduling, and taking the responsibility of implementing activities involving the library, such as
the reading diplomas. The subcategory “instructor” refers to roles such as an assistant teacher, disciplinarian, and caretaker of
students in the library context. The subcategory "initiator" includes teachers’ invitations for and wishes from the librarians, and
teachers motivating students in library-related activities related. The subcategory “receiver” refers to the acceptance of library
services and activities. The subcategories form a high-level category, teachers’ roles, which belongs to the main category of the
teachers’ and librarians’ roles.

3. Findings

Six of the seven school-public library pairs included a cooperative plan between schools and libraries to increase students’
motivation to read in their local or school-based curricula. In addition, the participant city library’s partner schools’ included plans
for cooperation in their local or school-based curricula. One school-public library pair named their cooperation, the intended/official
curriculum, the Library Route. The term Library Route (LR) was adopted in this paper to refer to this cooperation because all the
plans for cooperation involved a continuum or path for schools and libraries to jointly implement activities.
The results are reported by (a) describing the contents of the Library Routes as intended/official in curriculum (research question
1) and (b) using the interview data to the describe how the contents of the Library Routes were interpreted and implemented in
practice as the taught curriculum (research question 2). The cooperation of the one school-public library pair without a Library Route
is also described. The contents of the Library Routes varied regionally to some extent, because the schools and the teachers had the
freedom to design and implement the intended/official local curricula in a way they judged to be the most suitable for their students
and the situation. Thus, the activities varied in different circumstances, sometimes slightly even within a school-public library pair. In
the interviews, the participants of the study described their experiences in the implementation of the curriculum including the
problems they faced in their implementation.

3.1. The Library Route – the intended/official local curriculum

The analysis of the local and school-based curricula showed that seven of the eight participants had included cooperative plans,
the LRs, in their intended/official local curricula. An example of the LR of school-public library pair 3 is presented in Fig. 2. The
content of every LR was to indicate the library activities for each grade. Although they had a special focus for each grade, they also
included activities regardless of the grade.

3.1.1. Activities for all grades

Some LR activities and services in the intended curriculum were to be offered to students at any age. For example, all libraries
planned to offer book deliveries on teachers’ request. Another activity for all grades in every LR was to offer a reading diploma and its
variations. A reading diploma is achieved by reading or listening to a certain number of books. Most often the diplomas listed fiction
and non-fiction books to be read, but one LR introduced a portfolio-type multiliteracy diploma including students’ work related to
literacies.
Three LR curricula also included plans for activities beyond book deliveries and reading diplomas. Visits by authors and book
clubs were planned activities which varied every school year depending on the resources available. But because organizing reading
weeks did not require extra resources, this idea could be carried out every year at the same time of year. The reading weeks were
planned to last for one week at a time and included plenty of free time to read books, which could be either delivered to the school by
the library or borrowed from the library. Because it was likely that there was not enough time to read during daily lessons, one of the
participants and all of the schools in their municipality had planned to have some recesses for reading at the library or the mobile

5
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

Fig. 2. Example of a Library Route from school-public library pair 3.

library if the school did not have a permanent library in the building. Recesses for reading were included only in the model of the
school-public library pair 3 presented in Fig. 2.
The importance of reading was emphasized beyond school instruction time (e.g., when librarians attended the parental evenings).
The participants were innovative in finding ways to make the library a familiar place for the families. One innovation was a plan to
arrange art exhibitions to display students’ artwork. This way, the whole family was likely to visit the library.

3.1.2. Activities for students in different grades

The LR curricula for each grade in almost every school-public library pair began with plans for library introductions for first and
second graders. Two libraries planned introductions once for each of these grades. One library was an exception, only planning
introductions beginning in the third grade. (Instead, this library arranged book talks for the first and second grades.) The aim of these
introductions was to get to know the library, its staff, and the classification of materials. For upper grades (7th and 8th grade), the
planned introductions deviated from the lower grades by also including a more complete discussion of library categorization in the
introduction of the library system and an opportunity to practice digital information-seeking from library collections.
Information-seeking was the only dimension of information literacy skills in which the library planned to cooperate with the
school. An interesting finding was that information-seeking instruction plans started as early as second grade in only one LR, whereas
it started at the fifth grade in the rest of the LRs. It is worth noting that all LRs described the activities as information-seeking
instruction with the aim of students using library services including seeking information from different sources, such as library
collections and on the Internet. Therefore, information-seeking activities were closely linked to library introductions.
Connecting the information-seeking instruction to projects in the instruction at a school was rare. In fact, only two curricula
emphasized that the information-seeking could be linked to school subjects or projects. For example, the LR in the Fig. 2 included an
information-seeking lesson for the fifth graders attached to a school project. This activity had been recently developed and written
down. Thus, the participants had no experiences in implementing it.
The grades to receive book talks by librarians varied considerably in the LRs. Book talks were planned to be arranged mostly for
the third and seventh grades, and sometimes for the fourth grade, depending on the resources. One LR was unique in including book
talks only once in the third grade.
The LRs remained mostly the same after the JofR program ended. However, despite relatively little change, some of the school-
public library pairs had specifically developed their information-seeking instruction in their new curricula. Two libraries were still in
the process of refining their LRs while the old plans were actively running.

3.2. Implementation of the Library Route – the taught curriculum

The implementation of the LRs followed the written plan in the local or school-based curricula quite loyally. Some of the teachers
or even whole schools were eager to receive activities from their partner library more than stated in the plan. However, there were
some signs of the development tapering off as when one librarian noted that fewer activities, such as book talks had been requested
from the library recently. Further, even more alarmingly, a teacher had observed that many literacy activities at her school (e.g.,
reading weeks) had been reduced even though they still existed in that school’s curriculum. The taught curriculum and the intended/
official curriculum, in this respect, were in dissonance at that school.

6
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

3.2.1. Teachers’ and librarians’ roles in the Library Route

The activities in the LRs were often ready-made packages designed by the librarians. One of the reasons for librarians’ individual
planning work was that they did not have much designated time to discuss plans with the teachers. Formal planning times for
teachers and librarians were usually arranged, at least in the beginning of a school year. During these times, teachers and librarians
concentrated on evaluation of the past activities and discussing the coming ones. But teachers did not participate in the planning of
the concrete activities very much despite the librarians’ wishes according to a librarian: “There is not much cooperation [with the
teachers]. When teachers book a visit, we ask what kind of students they have, girls, boys, someone with challenges in reading. We
find out the background. Hopefully, we get a theme from the teacher. But the [joint] planning usually ends there.” However, other
librarians stated that teachers seldom gave information on students, their needs and competence. For instance, book talks were
typically arranged so that the librarians chose books based on their estimation of the students’ reading skills and not based on
information from the teachers. The themes of the book talks were, however, discussed beforehand and often requested by the
teachers. One of the teachers stated that it is nice to participate in activities prepared by someone else and then continue working
around that theme in the classroom afterwards.
The librarians usually both planned the LR documents and implemented their activities, whereas the teachers’ role was to
maintain order among students and occasionally work as an assistant teacher. Also, the librarians took on the active part in informing
and calling schools to offer services. Most of the librarians highlighted the fact that they have to inform and market services for
schools; as a librarian put it: “The schools don't necessarily know what libraries could offer, what professional skills librarians have or
what can be asked from us. We must bring forward what we can offer so that everyone is aware of it.” However, the basic activities,
such as book talks and reading diplomas were reported to be implemented actively. Teachers encouraged students to work on the
diplomas, and the number of students who achieved the diploma was high in the participant schools. The librarians’ role was typically
advising on suitable books and sometimes assigning exercises for the books.
One librarian stated that it cannot be taken for granted that teachers see the library as a partner because there are new teachers
coming into the business all the time and they are not necessarily active users of the library themselves and thus do not know the local
library. The Library Route included innovative activities, such as parental evenings, to add the awareness of the library and its
importance on motivating students to read. Teachers could request librarians to introduce the library, talk about reading, and
sometimes give book talk for adults at the parental evenings. This way, both teachers and parents could become familiar with the
library. Another way to get families to visit the library, was arranging students’ art exhibitions there. The school and the library
decided a common theme for the exhibition, the students created the artwork, and the librarians put the artwork as well as books on
the same theme on display.

3.2.2. Connecting information-seeking activities to schoolwork

The joint activities, especially related to information-seeking instruction, were increased in some LRs in the local curricula in
accordance with the new core curriculum. Because of the demands of the new core curriculum (NCC, 2014), information-seeking
needs to be broadened beyond schoolbooks. The library would be a suitable partner to help with information-seeking from various
sources. For instance, one librarian had been involved in the planning and implementation phases of a multidisciplinary project
concerning prominent figures of Finland for seventh graders, traditional food in Finland for eighth graders, and Finnish history for
ninth graders. The librarian arranged information-seeking guidance and helped the students around their specific themes during the
project. Another librarian described a successful project named “a day at the library,” in which teachers and the librarian planned the
activities together and implemented them by sharing responsibilities for each adult. For instance, the librarian took care of the
information-seeking instruction in small groups.
The tendency in the interviews was to link the information-seeking activities more to schoolwork than in the past. In the earlier
curriculum of 2004, librarians planned and implemented lessons with information-seeking assignments for students without con-
nection to schoolwork. Despite the fact that the librarians participated more in school projects, the librarians stated they were
uncertain how they could be involved in fostering multiliteracy skills. Interestingly, they did not recognize that information-seeking
from different sources, which they included in their LRs, is a dimension of multiliteracy skills. Because the librarians could not
recognize that information-seeking from multimodal sources enhances multiliteracy, the concept of multiliteracy may have been
unclear to them. After all, the concept was not documented in their LRs.
All the participants agreed that activities with the library connected to the schoolwork would be most useful for the students. A
librarian pointed out that teachers do not necessarily recognize that the library activities could be linked to teaching. She also stated
that libraries have to develop their information-seeking instruction and, in particular, broaden it from library databases towards
online information-seeking in order to support the information-seeking attached to school projects.
According to some teachers, the library’s role in supporting information-seeking was diminished because of the increase of
technological devices and their usage for information-seeking at school. However, the most common request for future cooperation
was information-seeking instruction within school projects involving the librarians; unfortunately, the low number of library per-
sonnel challenged or even prevented this. A teacher stated that joint projects would be an ideal way to work together, but it would be
impossible because of the low resources in library personnel. Some of the librarians felt uncertain about whether they would have
enough resources for the increasing need for information-seeking instruction related to school projects. One library had continued to
offer only prepared instructional packages for information-seeking as specified in its LR.

3.2.3. Enablers and challenges of the cooperation

The LRs were seen as a means for establishing cooperation regardless of individual interests or changes in the staff. However, even

7
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

though working together with the library was emphasized in the local curricula, many participants stated that teachers’ interest and
activity in particular were key factors for cooperation. For example, some libraries arranged book talks for grades 1–9 on teachers’
requests. Indeed, teachers tended to request book talks more often than indicated on the LRs and extra book talks were given
depending on the available resources. The librarians emphasized the importance of the presence of the library in the curricula more
often than the teachers did. This difference could be due to the fact that the librarians were more familiar with the contents con-
cerning them than rest of the curriculum, whereas the teachers needed to grasp the whole curriculum.
One school-public library pair lacked a LR and, therefore, their local curriculum included very little on cooperation between
schools and libraries. Consequently, the joint work between that school and the library was quite occasional and mostly based on
teachers’ requests. There were no formal, arranged planning times for teachers and librarians. However, introductions to the library,
reading diplomas, book deliveries, and free use of the public library outside the opening hours were regular activities. The reading
diplomas represented an exceptional occurrence because they were designed together by teachers and librarians. In addition, an
introduction to the library as a playful orienteering activity with tablet computers was planned jointly by teachers and librarians.
Usually, the library introductions were planned by the librarians. They were often designed to be functional, playful, and ad-
venturous, sometimes with a story, such as The Little Red Riding Hood, for the lower grades. The introductions were flexible and
could include borrowing books or book talk. It was also typical for the introductions that young children applied for library cards
with the consent of the guardian.
The LRs involved significant elements to regularize literacy activities and cooperation between schools and libraries but there
were challenges to the available resources. The participants viewed working together positively. But there were challenges on the
level of joint planning which led to the activities of the LRs usually not being linked to the school subjects or projects.

4. Discussion

This study investigated how seven branch library and school pairs and one city library elaborated the NCC 2014 in their local
curricula after being involved in the JofR program for increasing students’ motivation to read. In addition, this study examined how
the teachers and librarians implemented this cooperation in practice. The results revealed that the participants had operationalized
cooperation between schools and libraries as specified in the NCC 2014. It is worth noting that the school-public library pairs had
cooperated before the JofR program. In fact, they were selected for the program based on their earlier cooperation. Thus, these plans
for cooperation were already under way before they joined the JofR, but these plans were finalized and documented in the local
curricula by the time of data collection for this study. This part of the local curricula was termed the Library Route (LR), adopting the
designation used in one curriculum. The LRs, the intended/official curriculum (concept named by Cuban, 1993), described the
schools and public libraries’ plans for cooperation through concrete activities for specific grades as well as services across grades. The
interpretation and the implementation of the LRs, the so-called taught curriculum, corresponded to the curriculum plans fairly
accurately. These curricula included mostly activities planned and implemented by the librarians. The librarians typically organized
introductions to library use, book talks, reading diplomas, and materials for school use, as well as information-seeking instruction.
One school-public library pair, which did not have a specified LR, arranged library introduction, reading diplomas, book deliveries,
and independent library visits. Their cooperation was, however, more occasional than those pairs with specified LRs.
Most of the activities both in the intended/official and the taught LRs were packages which were planned and implemented by the
librarians, almost independently from teachers. This is not what the Finnish core curriculum recommends that teachers do. Teachers
are highly educated professionals who are expected to take responsibility in planning and implementing their students’ instruction
(Autio, 2017). However, in doing so, they are expected to cooperate with other professionals such as librarians. As noted, librarians
do not receive the pedagogical education which teachers have. Therefore, teachers should have been involved in planning the LRs.
Furthermore, the librarians usually lacked information on students, such as their needs and competence when they planned the
activities.
The lack of joint planning caused the activities in schools and those arranged by the librarians to be often unconnected to each
other. The librarians’ role as providers of the activities could be affected by the lack of time that challenged the participants,
especially the librarians. The challenges of lack of joint planning and time have also been noticed in previous studies of teachers and
librarians working together in the JofR program (Pietikäinen et al., 2017; Suorsa, 2017). In this study, the lack of connection of the
activities to the topics students handled at school was most visible in information-seeking instruction: the instruction prepared by the
librarians included mostly individual exercises out of context rather than guidance related to school subjects. Thus, the content of
teaching in the information-seeking exercises was not meaningful for students. Although the need for connection between context
and the content in learning seems obvious, evidence indicates that librarians are rarely involved in developing media- and in-
formation-literacy skills in conjunction with school subjects internationally (Lo et al., 2014; McGuinness, 2006; Mokhtar & Majid,
2006).
In addition to not connecting information-seeking activities to school projects, the information-seeking support of the LRs was
mostly started no earlier than the fifth grade. In contrast, the NCC (2014) recommends the fostering of students’ multiliteracy skills in
a multidisciplinary approach to learning from the first grade. This kind of learning requires finding, handling, and evaluating in-
formation from different sources. This situation mirrors what Kansanen (2004) has termed an unsatisfactory interpretation, because
the local curriculum does not correspond to the NCC. The librarians in the study expressed uncertainty about their role in fostering
multiliteracy. They did not see that the information-seeking instruction in their LRs was connected to supporting multiliteracy skills
even though they had carried out such projects with the teachers in the JofR program. Furthermore, the support and joint in-service
training in the JofR aimed particularly at improving schools’ and libraries’ mutual efforts in fostering students’ multiliteracy.

8
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

During the JofR program, many school-public library pairs had succeeded in jointly planning and implementing activities; these
activities reflected the themes in the local/school-based curricula. For instance, information-seeking instruction was advanced by
involving libraries in school projects, such as in writing historical or scientific non-fiction books, and creating an online magazine
concerning the history of one school. Because the school-public library pairs had created excellent ideas for cooperation in the JofR
program, the expectation was that the local and school-based curricula of the participants would realize that their earlier cooperation
matched the guiding principles of the NCC 2014. Most of the participants, including most of the librarians, were also involved in the
local or school-based curriculum-making process. Consequently, the process fostered a sense of community, highlighted as a central
element in local curriculum making by Heinonen (2005).
The JofR program ended just as the school-public library pairs were writing their local or school-based curricula to take into
account the NCC 2014. Despite their requests for assistance from the JofR program facilitators, the school-public library pairs did not
get enough support in incorporating the JofR activities into their curricula because that program had ended. Therefore, the LRs,
which were mostly created before the JofR program, remained almost the same and the enhanced cooperation reported during the
JofR program was typically not included in the LRs. It may well be that the participants were unable to make the local curricula
reflect what they had learned and experienced during the JofR program. It could have been challenging to describe the detailed
activities at a general level. It has been well documented that planning and making a curriculum is demanding (Huizinga et al., 2014;
Krokfors, 2017). Such work needs a lot of guidance and support; such support was no longer available during their writing of new
curricula based on the NCC 2014.
Curricular frameworks could be beneficial for curriculum makers for guiding the curriculum design process, as Huizinga and his
colleagues (2014) have argued. The LRs were a good start for a framework describing cooperation between schools and libraries.
Research indicates that formal agreements can promote cooperation (Mattessich & Monsey, 1992; Winer & Ray, 1994). Indeed, the
joint work between the school-public library pair that had no formal agreement was more occasional than for those pairs who
followed a LR. The 2014 NCC provides only general recommendations on working together with the librarians and gives teachers
freedom to make their own judgements. This situation can, however, lead to loose interpretations (Kansanen, 2004). If the Finnish
PISA results in the future continue to show low student motivation to read, the approach to curriculum might be reconsidered. As
Värri (2018) noted, international tests such as PISA direct educational decisions.
There are some limitations to the study presented here. The data were gathered from a single program and from a relatively small
sample of respondents. The data were gathered soon after the launch of the new NCC and it is possible that cooperation between the
participants would have developed further with more time. Interviewing teachers and librarians separately gave rich information of
their role in the curriculum reform which is likely to increase the validity of the study.
Despite these limitations, our findings on the degree of the cooperation are quite similar to the evidence reviewed earlier across
diverse countries, such as the research by Lo and his colleagues (2014) in Asia. Teachers and librarians do not work together
intensively in Finland nor internationally. The Library Routes are a good starting point to increase cooperation between teachers and
librarians. However, both parties should be actively involved throughout the processes of planning the intended/official curriculum
and implementing the taught curriculum. This way, the cooperation could affect positively to students’ motivation to read, as sug-
gested in studies in multiple countries such as Gildersleeves’ (2012) work in the United Kingdom.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study underline that the curriculum making process is challenging and that the teachers and librarians need
more knowledge and skills to succeed both in the curriculum making and the implementation phase. Our findings coincide with
international studies on curriculum reforms (e.g., Huizinga et al., 2014). Although the libraries and schools in the JofR program
worked well together and presented interesting activities rooted in their cooperative efforts in the interviews, they were not able to
document their efforts in their local or school-based curricula. Although the participants of this study received ideas on how to
promote students’ literacy motivation during the JofR program, they were not given instruction how to include cooperation between
schools and libraries in their local or school-based curricula. This aspect was missing from the JofR program but would have been
helpful in the light of the results of our study. Despite the Finnish teachers’ MA-level education and their professionalism, the
curriculum process is highly demanding because it involves moving from general recommendations at the national level to detailed
plans and implementation at the local level.
Programs like the JofR should be extended to promote deeper understanding of the nature of the curriculum process. In the case of
the JofR program, cooperation in teaching literacies would have needed more time to concentrate on curriculum issues especially
with the librarians but also with the teachers. Indeed, librarians’ and teachers’ common efforts are needed in promoting literacies
because the Finnish students’ motivation in reading is so low (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
2010, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2015). Despite the shortcomings in the JofR program with
respect to curriculum making, it might be beneficial to investigate how these school-public library pairs have continued their co-
operation and how other libraries and schools not involved in the JofR cooperate.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation and the Faculty of Education of the University of Oulu, in Finland.

9
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

Appendix A

Questions used to guide the semi-structured interviews.

1. What has the cooperation in your school/library partnership meant to you?
2. What would cooperation between schools/libraries be at its best?
3. If you think about the ideas you just mentioned, in which of them does cooperation with schools/libraries not meet the ideal
situation?
4. How do you work together in terms of material, space, planning, teaching, and evaluation?
5. How would you describe the roles of librarians and teachers in terms of material, space, planning, teaching, and evaluation?
6. What are the enablers of working together?
7. What are the challenges of working together?
8. What was your role in the development process of the local curriculum?
9. How did the library participate in the process?
10. How would you describe your strategy plan including cooperation between the school and the library? Please give concrete
examples, if available.
11. How content is the staff with the curriculum?

Appendix B

An example of the data categorization

Example original expression Reduction from Sub-category High-level Main

data category category

“I take care of how [activities] are scheduled into the timetable.” (T7) Scheduling Coordinator Teachers’ Teachers’ and li-
“At the latest at [library introduction] students get library cards for which the teacher has Arrangements roles brarians’ roles
asked permission from the parents in advance.” (L6)
“I marketed [the reading diploma] at school and prepared students for it.” (T5) Activities
“I present the subject matter and the teachers maintains order. If the students are uneasy or Discipline Instructor
have bad behavior, the teacher keeps an eye on them and says they should please listen
to the presentation.” (L4)
“If a student had an accident or an attack of illness, we don’t have information. The teacher Responsibility for
has the responsibility.” (L6) the students
“The teacher has circled around to help students with [information seeking].” (L4) Assistant teacher
“I try to market books for classes and ask whether they have visited to library to borrow Motivating stu- Initiator
books. …I motivate that as many as possible would achieve [a reading diploma].” (T7) dents
“One teacher contacted us and wanted to start to work with [the library].” (L1) Invitations
“When we have gone [to the library], they have arranged a brief introduction, a story time or Wishes
a book talk, if we have asked in advance.” (T13)
“The schools can reserve certain services the library offers.” (T4) Receiving Receiver

Note: Examples of the original expressions have been translated from Finnish by the first author.

References

Adams, J. E., Jr (2000). Taking charge of curriculum: Teacher networks and curriculum implementation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Autio, T. (2013). The internationalization of curriculum research. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.). International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 17–31). (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Autio, T. (2017). Johdanto: Kansainvälistyvä opetussuunnitelmatutkimus kansallisen koulutuspolitiikan ja opetussuunnitelmareformien älyllisenä ja poliittisena
resurssina [Introduction: The globalized curriculum research as an intellectual and political resource for national educational politics and curriculum reforms]. In
T. Autio, L. Hakala, & T. Kujala (Eds.). Opetussuunnitelmatutkimus: Keskustelunavauksia suomalaiseen kouluun ja opettajankoulutukseen [Curriculumcurriculum re-
search: Discussion about Finnish school and teacher education] (pp. 17–60). Tampere: Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy.
Breakspear, S. (2012). The Policy impact of PISA: An exploration of the normative effects of international benchmarking in school system performance. OECD education working
papers, No. 71. OECD Publishing Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en.
Chu, S. K. W., Tse, S. K., & Chow, K. (2011). Using collaborative teaching and inquiry project-based learning to help primary school students develop information
literacy and information skills. Library & Information Science Research, 33(2), 132–143.
Cotton, D. R. E. (2006). Implementing curriculum guidance on environmental education: The importance of teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1),
67–83.
Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.). Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American educational research association
(pp. 216–247). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Cuban, L. (1993). The lure of curricular reform and its pitiful history. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 182–185.
Erss, M. (2017). Curriculum as a political and cultural framework defining teachers’ roles and autonomy. In T. Autio, L. Hakala, & T. Kujala (Eds.).
Opetussuunnitelmatutkimus: Keskustelunavauksia suomalaiseen kouluun ja opettajankoulutukseen [Curriculum research: Discussion about Finnish school and teacher
education] (pp. 193–222). Tampere: Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy.
Erss, M., Kalmus, V., & Autio, T. (2016). ‘Walking a fine line’: Teachers’ perception of curricular autonomy in Estonia, Finland and Germany. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 48(5), 589–609.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London, UK: Falmer.

10
S. Tikkinen, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101615

Gildersleeves, L. (2012). Do school libraries make a difference?: Some considerations on investigating school library impact in the United Kingdom. Library
Management, 33(6/7), 403–413.
Glaser, B. S., & Strauss, A. A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goodson, I. (2014). Curriculum, personal narrative and the social future. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heinonen, J.-P. (2005). Opetussuunnitelmat vai oppimateriaalit. Peruskoulun opettajien käsityksiä opetussuunnitelmien ja oppimateriaalien merkityksestä opetuksessa
[Curricula or educational materials. Comprehensive school teachers’ conceptions on the meaning of curricula and teaching materials in instruction] (Dissertation). Helsingin
yliopisto. Soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos. Tutkimuksia 257. Retrieved fromhttp://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kay/sovel/vk/heinonen/opetussu.pdf.
Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. M. (2014). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 33–57.
Kansanen, P. (2004). Opetuksen käsitemaailma [The conceptual world of instruction]. Juva: PS-kustannus.
Kietäväinen, T. (2016). Kirjastojen rooli elinvoimaisessa kunnassa [The role of the libraries in a vital municipality]. In N. Sandelius (Ed.). Hyötyä, tietoa, elämyksiä –
kirjastojen vaikuttavuuden ulottuvuuksia [Benefits, information and experiences – Dimensions of the libraries’ effect] (pp. 7–9). Helsinki: The Association of Finnish Local
and Regional Authorities.
Korkeamäki, R.-L., & Dreher, M. J. (2011). early literacy practices and the Finnish national core curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 109–137.
Krokfors, L. (2017). Opetussuunnitelman pedagogiset mahdollisuudet – opettajat uuden edessä [The pedagogical possibilities of The curriculum – teachers facing
reforms]. In T. Autio, L. Hakala, & T. Kujala (Eds.). Opetussuunnitelmatutkimus: Keskustelunavauksia suomalaiseen kouluun ja opettajankoulutukseen [Curriculum
research: Discussion about Finnish school and teacher education] (pp. 247–266). Tampere: Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy.
Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L., & Caspari, A. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Kurttila-Matero, E. (2011). School library: A tool for developing the school’s operating culture (Dissertation). Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B Humaniora 103. Oulu: University of
Oulu. Retrieved fromhttp://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9789514297366/isbn9789514297366.pdf.
Lance, K. C., Rodney, M., & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2002). How school librarians help kids achieve standards: The second Colorado study. San Jose, CA: HI Willow Research
and Publishing.
Latham, D., Julien, H., Gross, M., & Witte, S. (2016). The role of inter-professional collaboration to support science learning: An exploratory study of the perceptions
and experiences of science teachers, public librarians, and school librarians. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3), 193–201.
Lindberg, P. (2014). Kumppanuus Suomen yleisissä kirjastoissa [Partnership in Finnish public libraries] (Licentiate thesis). University of Oulu.
Lo, P., Chao-chen Chen, J., Dukic, Z., Youn, Y., Hirakue, Y., Nakahima, M., & Yang, G. (2014). The roles of the school librarians as information literacy specialists. A
comparative study between Hong Kong, Shanghai, South Korea, Taipei and Japan. New Library World, 115(7/8), 314–339.
Macdonald, D. (2003). Curriculum change and the post-modern world: Is the school curriculum reform movement an anachronism? Journal of Curriculum Studies,
35(2), 139–149.
Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Foundation.
McGuinness, C. (2006). What faculty think–exploring the barriers to information literacy development in undergraduate education. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 32(6), 573–582.
McKinsey and Company (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/
our_practices/Education/Knowledge_Highlights/Best_performing_school.aspx.
Ministry of Education and Culture [MEC] (2016). Public libraries act. Publications of the Ministry of Education. 2492/2016. Retrieved fromhttps://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/
kaannokset/2016/en20161492.pdf.
Ministry of Education and Culture [MEC] (2019). Finnish education system. Retrieved fromhttps://minedu.fi/en/education-system.
Mølstad, C. E. (2015). State-based curriculum-making: Approaches to local curriculum work in Norway and Finland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 441–461.
Mokhtar, I. A., & Majid, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the collaborative relationship between teachers and librarians in Singapore primary and secondary schools.
Library & Information Science Research, 28, 265–280.
Montiel-Overall, P., & Grimes, K. (2013). Teachers and librarians collaborating on inquiry-based science instruction: A longitudinal study. Library & Information Science
Research, 35, 41–53.
Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
National core curriculum for basic education (2014). NCC]. (2014). Retrieved fromhttp://www.oph.fi/download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_
perusteet_2014.pdf.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do – Student performance in reading,
mathematics and science (Volume I). Paris: OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2015). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
Pietikäinen, V., Kortelainen, T., & Hyvönen, P. (2017). The public librarian as partner in a problem-based learning process in secondary school. Information Research,
22(2), 1–19.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.). The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.
Smith, M., & Hepworth, M. (2007). An investigation of factors that may demotivate secondary school students undertaking project work: Implications for learning
information literacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(1), 3–15.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.
Suorsa, A. (2017). Knowledge creation and play – A phenomenological study within a multi-professional and multi-organizational community. Journal of
Documentation, 73(6), 1167–1191.
The New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), Retrieved from http://wwwstatic.kern.org/
filer/blogWrite44ManilaWebsite/paul/articles/A_Pedagogy_of_Multiliteracies_Designing_Social_Futures.htm#11.
Värri, V. M. (2018). Kasvatus ekokriisin aikakaudella [Education in the ecocrisis era]. Tampere: Vastapaino, 1(1).
Williams, D., & Wavell, C. (2006). Information literacy in the classroom: Secondary school teachers’ conceptions (Report No. 15)Retrieved from. Robert Gordon University,
Aberdeen Business School, Department of Information Managementhttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1575851.pdf.
Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining and enjoying the journey. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

Siinamari Tikkinen is a PhD student in educational sciences at Finland’s University of Oulu. She received her master’s degree in education from the University of Oulu.
She has worked as a primary-school and language teacher and as a planning officer in the Joy of Reading Literacy Program, funded by the Finnish Ministry of
Education and Culture. Her areas of interest include the joint work between schools and public libraries and the teaching of literacies.

Riitta-Liisa Korkeamäki, PhD, is Professor (Emerita) with the Faculty of Education of the University of Oulu. Her research interest lies in teaching and learning in early
childhood education, especially literacy education. She has recently been conducting research in the area of new literacies, including exploring the effect of the
multidisciplinary Joy of Reading Program funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. She and her doctoral students participate in the Research
Community of Institutions and Practices of New Literacies (INSPIRES). In addition, Korkeamäki is interested in professional development and teacher education. She
has many years of experience in university administration – for example, as dean of the Faculty of Education. Also, she has been part of numerous international
developmental projects.

Mariam Jean Dreher is Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, USA. Her interests center
on elementary reading instruction and include the effects of integrating informational texts into literacy instruction on students’ comprehension, vocabulary, and
motivation. She is co-author of Teaching Informational Text in K-3 Classrooms: Best Practices to Help Children Read, Write, and Learn from Nonfiction (Guilford, 2015) and
co-editor of Developing Conceptual Knowledge through Oral and Written Language (Guilford, forthcoming).

11