芬蘭於2016年實施新課綱後，赫爾辛基學校實施現象為本學習引起許多國家關注。現象為本學習以主題或議題為教與學核心，其蘊含跨領域教學特質，有助於發展學生21世紀所需能力。緣此，本研究探討芬蘭赫爾辛基實施現象為本學習的脈絡原因，並進入一間公立中小學進行田野研究，以深度理解政策與現場的實踐情形。
本研究採個案研究法，以赫爾辛基一間具十年國際文憑課程(IB課程)實施經驗的公立學校為研究場域。研究時程為一年，聚焦在七年級課室，透過觀察、訪談與文件分析等方法蒐集資料。本研究重要的研究發現如下：
一、「現象為本學習」作為後現代下未來課程的一大膽試煉，亦是一弱架構弱分類的創作。
二、個案學校兼納有國家課程綱要和IB系統，常態性地採取「探究為本學習」作為探索和平衡不同學科聯繫的方法。
三、個案學校以真實世界現象為意義之網交織以概念作為主題透鏡的「現象為本學習周」(Phenomenon-Based Learning Week)，促使學習者發揮「實驗性學習」(experimental learning)精神以整合真實知識、社會與經驗。
四、在續耕以「自我調節」(self-regulation)為目標的評估文化下，個案學校教師強調學生做為「生態系統」中心的觀點，鼓勵學生透過對話和互動的方法，促進對學科聯繫的理解和應用。
五、個案學校以「現象」或「概念」為主題的統整學習，讓學生挑戰以創意或創新的學習方式或模式而呈現出多樣學習表現，如從「使用哪些學科知識（多學科/科際整合）」、「如何將所學內容直接運用於生活中（科際整合/超學科）」至「直接採取行動（超學科/無學科）」。此朝向一種「立體學習」(pop-ups learning)經驗，正為跨領域教學取徑與整合內涵提供擴充空間。
本研究最後提出跨文化研究的反思，期能為我國的108課綱的課程改革與教學實踐帶來一些啟示。

The approach of phenomenon-based learning in Helsinki has drawn the international attention since Finland implemented new core curriculum guidelines in 2016. Phenomenon-based learning uses themes or issues as the core of teaching and learning and entails interdisciplinary characteristics that may help develop the competencies needed for the 21st century. This study explored the context of the implementation of phenomenon-based learning in Helsinki schools and conducted a field study in a public school to understand the teaching and learning practices in depth.
The case of this study was a public school in Helsinki with ten-year experiences of International Baccalaureate programs. The study applied observations, interviews, and document analysis in a seventh-grade classroom for one year.
Several key findings emerged from this study. First, the approach of phenomenon-based learning was not only an active practice on the post-modern curriculum but also a creation of a weak framing-and-classification. Second, the case school incorporated the national curriculum guideline and IB system that tended to take the "Inquiry-Based Learning" as a method to connect different subjects. Third, the theme of the Phenomenon-Based Learning Week was real-world phenomena and concepts which allowed students to integrate their knowledge and experience for experimental learning. Fourth, case school regarded students as the center of an ecosystem and encouraged them to make connections across subjects through dialogue and interaction. Finally, phenomenon-based learning challenged students to learn in creative ways from "what kinds of subject knowledge I want to integrate (multi-disciplinary/inter-disciplinary)," "how I apply what I have learned in issues (inter-disciplinary/trans-disciplinary)" to "taking direct action (trans-disciplinary/disciplinary-free)." This kind of "pop-ups learning" experience broadened the landscape of interdisciplinary teaching and learning.
The study also provides cross-cultural research reflections and several suggestions for the implementation of the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines in Taiwan.

參考文獻

中文部份
丁信中（2014）。芬蘭中學生PISA科學成就優異表現及其相關因素之探討。科學教育月刊，316，2-19。
方永泉（2000）。宗教與道德的關係─兼論多元社會中的宗教教育。教育資料集刊，25，99-125。
方德隆（2000）。九年一貫課程學習領域之統整。課程與教學，3（1），139-156。
王麗雲、徐銘璟（2015）。芬蘭師資培育制度特色及其對臺灣師資培育之啟示。教育實踐與研究，28（1），167-206。
王麗雲、潘慧玲（2000）。教師彰權益能概念與實施策略研究。教育研究集刊，44，173-198。
卯靜儒（2014）。評「把知識帶回來：從社會建構主義到社會實在主義的教育社會學」。當代教育研究季刊，22（1），211-221。
田耐青（1995）。建構論的教與學。教學科技與媒體，29，41-47。
白雲霞（2002）。主題統整方式與超學科示例。載於黃炳煌（主編），課程統整與教師專業發展（頁 43-74）。台北市：師大書苑。
朱則剛（1994）。建構主義知識論與情境認知對教育科技的意義。視聽教育，35，1-15。
吳怡瑄，葉玉珠（2003）。主題統整教學、年級、父母社經地位與國小學童科技創造力之關係。師大學報，48（2），239-260。
吳建華、謝發昱、黃俊峰、陳銘凱（2004）。個案研究。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育研究的取徑：概念與應用（頁199-236）。臺北市：高等教育文化事業有限公司。
吳璧純（2002）。從變異與選擇建構論的觀點看另類評量。載於詹志禹（主編），建構論：理論基礎與教育應用（頁190-207）。臺北縣：正中。
李奉儒（譯）（2001）。R. C. Bogdan & S. K. Biklen著。質性教育研究之基礎。載於黃光雄（主編），質性教育研究：理論與方法（頁6-68）。嘉義市：濤石文化。
李翠玲（2007）。個別化教育計畫理念與實施。台北市：心理。
沈翠蓮（2013）。芬蘭師資培育課程設計之探析。課程與教學，16（2），115-133。
周淑卿（主編）（2002）。課程統整模式原理與實作。嘉義市：濤石。
林人芳、吳啟綜（2014年9月24）。感到不受尊重，五成教師不快樂。取自http：//www.mdnkids.com.tw/news/?Serial_NO=90271
林文源（2014）。看不見的行動能力：從行動者網絡到位移理論。台北市：中央研究院社會學研究所。
林淑華、張芬芬（2015）。評析芬蘭教育制度的觀念取向：以共好取代競爭。臺灣教育評論月刊，4（3），112-131。
夏林清（2002）。尋找一個對話的位置：基進教育與社會學習歷程。應用心理研究,，16，119-156。
徐偉民、柯富渝（2014）。臺灣、芬蘭、新加坡國小數學教科書幾何教材之比較。教科書研究， 7（3），101-141。
徐偉民、董修齊（2012）。國小幾何教材內容之比較：以臺灣與芬蘭為例。當代教育研究，20（3），39-86。
張美玉（1995）。歷程檔案評量在建構教學之應用：一個科學的實徵研究。教學科技與媒體，27，31-46。
張家倩（2007a）。芬蘭中等教育現況探究。教育資料集刊，34，247-260。
張家倩（2007b）。芬蘭國民教育現況探析。教育資料集刊，33，239-256。
張奠宙（1997）。和楊振寧教授漫談：數學和物理的關係。數學傳播，21（2），17-21。
教育部（2000）。課程統整手冊－理論篇（1）。中華民國課程與教學學會主編。台北市：作者。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：作者。
教育部（2015）。「中等學校跨領域美感教育實驗課程開發計畫」 全國成果發表暨專題研討會。2017年7月16日，取自https：//www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&sms=169B8E91BB75571F&s=A04102FE06BBEB66
畢恆達（1996）。詮釋學與質性研究。載於胡幼慧（主編），質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例（頁27–44）。台北市：東大。
許仁豪（2017）。2016年芬蘭國家課程綱要政策形成之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學教育政策與行政所，台北市。
郭重吉、江武雄、王夕堯（2000，5月）。從理論到實務談建構主義。論文發表於台中縣成功國中舉行之「台中縣國中教師資建構主義合作學習研討會」，台中縣。
陳佩英、林子斌（主譯）（2016）。Reijo Miettinen著。創新、人才、民主：賦能福利國家的再轉向（Innovation, human capabilities, and democracy： Toward an enabling welfare state）。臺北市：高教。
陳玟樺（2017）。師生共構文化回應數學教學之個案研究。教育研究集刊，63（2），49-100。
陳玟樺、劉美慧（2018）。從聯合國《兒童權利公約》反思我國學生參與課綱審查之重要課題。當代教育研究季刊，26（4），1-45。。
陳淑琴（2007）。芬蘭學前教育初探。幼兒教育年刊，18，60-81。
陳瑞麟（2001）。社會建構中的「實在」。政治大學哲學學報，7，97-126。
傅麗玉、張志立（2008，12月）。誰的科學展覽：歷年台灣原住民中小學在全國科展之參與。論文發表於彰化縣國立彰化師範大學舉行之「第二十四屆科學教育」學術研討會，彰化縣。
單文經（2001）。解析Beane對課程統整理論與實際的主張。教育研究集刊，47，57-89。
曾志朗（1997）。資訊網路對教育現代化的影響。科學月刊，28（5），356-357。
曾志華（1997）。以建構論為基礎的科學教育。教育資料與研究，14，74-80。
游家政（2000）。學校課程的統整及其教學。課程與教學季刊，3（1），19-38。
游家政（2003）。統整主題單元的評鑑。課程與教學，6（3），21-41。
黃光雄（1998）。教育概論。台北市：師大書苑。
黃光雄、蔡清田（1999）。課程設計－理論與實際。台北市：五南。
黃志雄（2010）。淺談生態評量的理論與 應用。特教園丁，25（4），13-20。
黃政傑（1991）。課程設計。臺北市：東華。
黃炳煌 （1999）。談課程統整—以九年一貫社會科為例。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會 （編印），九年一貫課程研討會論文集 （下）：邁向課程新紀元（頁252-257）。臺北市：教研學會。
黃炳煌（1990）。教育理想與理念。臺北市：文景書局.
黃源河、符碧真（2010）。芬蘭師資培育：研究為基礎的派典與課程實踐。教育研究集刊，56（3），105-137。
黃鴻文（2011）。抗拒乎？拒絕乎？偏差乎？學生文化研究中抗拒概念之誤用與澄清。教育研究集刊，57（3），123-154。
楊德清、李茂能（2012）。臺灣、美國、芬蘭、新加坡與上海國小數學教科書之內容的比較研究（I）行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期中成果報告NSC100-2511-S-415-008-MY3。臺北市：科技部。
詹志禹（2002）。行萬里路≠讀萬卷書--談建構主義式的參觀。載於詹志禹（主編），建構論—理論基礎與教育應用（頁185-189）。台北市：正中書局。
甄曉蘭（2001）。從課程組織觀點檢討統整課程的設計與實施。課程與教學季刊，4（1），1-20。
劉美慧（2011）。多元文化教育研究的反思與前瞻。人文與社會科學簡訊，12（4），56-63。
劉博允（2009）。芬蘭高等教育品質保證制度的發展與實施現況。教育資料集刊，440，197-222。
潘慧玲（2004）。緒論：轉變中的教育研究觀點。載於潘慧玲（主編），教師研究的取徑—概念與應用（頁1–34）。台北市：高等教育文化。
潘慧玲、陳玟樺（2015）。教師開展學習共同體的反思性實踐。中等教育季刊，66（1），40-57。
蔡曉楓、甄曉蘭（2012）。不只教育平等，更要成功學習：以融合為本的芬蘭教育。教育研究月刊，221，118-132。
鍾靜、林鳴芳、白玉如（2014）。以不同觀點分析問題探討芬蘭國小數學教科書。教科書研究，7（1），31-79。
顏佩如、歐于菁、王蘊涵（2012）。芬蘭中小學師資培育碩士化制度與最新師資培育政策發展之研究。臺中教育大學學報：教育類，26（1），31-54。
龔心怡、林素卿（2008）。教師課程意識與教學實踐模式之建構—以英語科為例。課程與教學季刊，12（1），99-124。

西文部份
Aho, E., Pitkanen, K., & Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Akcan, S. (2011). Analysis of teacher candidates' learning experiences in an “english teaching methods” course. Education and Science, 36(162), 247-260.
Andreu-Andres, M. A., & Garcia-Casas, M. (2011). Perceptions of gaming as experiential learning by engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(4), 795-804.
Bean, J. (Ed.). (1995). Toward a coherent curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Beane, J. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Golumbus, OH: National Middle School Association. (Original work published 1990).
Beane, J. A. (1986). A human school in the middle. The Clearing House, 60(1), 14-17.
Beane, J. A. (1991). The middle school: natural home of integrated curriculum. Educational leadership, 49(2), 9-13.
Beane, J. A. (1992). Turning the floor over: Reflections on a middle school curriculum. Middle School Journal, 23(3), 34-40.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Berger, G. (1972). Opinions and facts. In Centre for Educational Research andInnovation, Interdisciplinarity (pp. 21-74). Nice, France: OECD.
Boix-Mansilla, V. (2010). Learning to synthesize: The development of interdisciplinary understanding. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (pp. 288-306). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Broudy, H.S., Smith, B.O., & Burnett, J. (1964). Democracy and Excellence in American Secondary Education. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Brown, L., Branston, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological-age-appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 81-90.
Burns, R. (1995). Dissolving the boundaries: Planning for curriculum integration in middle and secondary schools. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
Carr W. (1995). For education: Toward a critical inquiry. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Chen, W.-H. (2019). A Study on Teacher-Directed Instruction, Formative Assessment, and Teacher Support in Mathematics. Secondary Education, 70(2), 49-65。
City of Helsink (2015). Phenomenon-based learning tried out at Helsinki schools. Retrieved from https://www.hel.fi/uutiset/en/helsinki/phenomenon-based-learning-tried-out-at-helsinki-schools
City of Helsink (2016). What and how do schools teach? Retrieved from https://www.hel.fi/helsinki/en/day-care-education/comprehensive/what-how/
City of Helsinki (2014). Introducation to schools. Retrieved from https://www.hel.fi/static/liitteet/opev/mauna/introduction-to-schools.pdf
City of Helsinki (2017a). Helsinki Design Award granted to phenomenon-based learning – Helsinki as the model city. Retrieved from https://www.hel.fi/uutiset/en/kasvatuksen-ja-koulutuksen-toimiala/award-phenomenon-based-learning
City of Helsinki (2017b). Helsinki City Organization. Retrieved from https://www.hel.fi/helsinki/en/administration/administration/organization/
Clark, J. H., & Agne, R. M. (1997). Interdisciplinary high school teaching: Strategies for integrated learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Collier, S., & Nolan, K. (1996, November). Elementarys’ perceptions of integration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED405328).
Danielson, C. & Abrutyn, L. (1997). An introduction to using portfolios in the classroom. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
DeZure, Deborah. (1998-1999). Interdisciplinary teaching and learning. Teaching Excellence: Towards the Best in the Academy, 10(3). Stillwater. OK: Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
Drake, S. M (1993). Planning for integrated curriculum: The call to adventure. Alexandria,VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Drake, S. M. (1991). How our team dissolved the boundaries .Educational Leadership, 49(2), 20-23.
Drake, S. M. (1992). Developing an Integrated Curriculum Using the Story Model. Toronto, CA: OISE Press.
Drake, S. M. (1998). Creating integrated curriculum: Proven ways to increase student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Drake, S. M. (2000). Integrated curriculum. A chapter in the Curriculum Handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Drake, S. M. (2007). Creating standards-based integrated curriculum: Aligning content, standards, instructional strategies and assessment (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
EDUFI (2017). Organization Chart. Retrieved from http：//www.oph.fi/download/181391_organisation_chart.pdf
Elam, D. (1994). Feminism and deconstruction: Ms en Abyme. London, UK: Routledge.
Ellis, Arthur K., & Stuen, Carol J. (1998). The interdisciplinary curriculum. Raleigh, NC: Eye on Education.
Erickson, H. L. (1998). Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction: Teaching Beyond the Facts Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.
Erickson, H. L. (2007). Stirring the head, heart and soul: Redefining curriculum, instruction, and concept-based learning. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Esiner, E.W. (1979). The use of qualitative forms of evaluation for improving educational practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Studies, 1(6), 11-20.
Everett, M. (1992). Developmental interdisciplinary schools for the 21st century. Education Digest, 57(2), 57-60.
Farr, R. and Tone, B. (1994). Portfolio and Performance Assessment: Helping Students Evaluate Their Progress as Readers and Writers. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace and Company.
FNAE (2017). Finnish National Agency for Education begins its operations at the beginning of 2017. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/finnish_national_agency_for_education_begins_its_operations_at_the_beginning_of_2017
FNBE (2015). Education System. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/english/education_system
FNBE (2016). Basic education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/curricula_and_qualifications/basic_education
FNBE (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014.Helsinki city, Finland: Next Print Oy.
Fogarty, R. (1991). The mindful school: How to integrate the curricula. Palatine, IL Skylight Publishing.
Fogarty, R. J., & Stoehr, J. (2008). Integrating curricula with multiple intelligences: Teams, themes, and threads (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Pres
Fredericks, A., Meinbach, A. & Rothlein, L. (1993). Thematic units: An integrated approach to teaching science and social studies. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Freire, P. (1970/2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gergen, K. J. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 17-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Goodlad, J. I. (1979). The scope of curriculum field. In J. I. Goodlad and associates (Eds.), Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice (pp. 17–41). New York, NY: Mc Graw-Hill.
Gorski, P. C. (2009). Good intentions are not enough: A de-colonizing intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19(6), 515–526.
Grady, J. B. (1994). Interdisciplinary curriculum development. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED375903)
Hirst, P.H. & Peters R.S. (1970). The Logic of Education. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hirst, P.H. (1964). Knowledge and Curriculum. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
hook, bell (1998). Critical consciousness for political resistance. In the South End Press Collective (ed.). Talking About a Revolution (pp. 39-52). New York, NY: South End Press.
Hull, J. M. (1984). Studies in Religion & Education. London, UK: Falmer Press.
Irwin, J. W. (1996). Empowering ourselves and transforming schools: Educators making a difference. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press
Jacob, E. (1997). Context and cognition: Implications for educational innovators and anthropologists. Anthropology & education Quarterly, 28(1), 3-21.
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahnn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206.
Kirsti Lonka (2018): Phenomenal learning from Finland. Helsinki, Finland: Edita.
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Kockelmans, J. J. (1979). Why interdisciplinarity? In J. J. Kockelmans (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity and higher education (pp. 123-160). University Park, PA: PennsylvaniaState University.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kreisberg, S. (1992). Transforming power: Domination, empowerment, and education. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Siruared learning. Legitimate peripheral participarion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Universiry Press
Lawton, Denis (1975). Class, Culture and the Curriculum. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lawton, E. (1994). Integrating curriculum: A slow but positive process. Schools in the Middle 4(2), 27-30.
Lenoir, T. (1992). Practical reason and the construction of knowledge: The lifeworld of HaberBosch. In Ernan McMullin (ed.), The Social Dimensions of Science (pp.158-197). Notre Dame, IN: Univerdity of Notre Dame Press.
Lenoir, Y. & Hasni, A. (2016). Interdisciplinarity in primary and secondary school: Issues and perspectives. Creative Education, 7, 2433-2458.
Lenoir, Y., Larose, F., & Geoffroy, Y. (2000). Interdisciplinary practices in primary education in Quebec: Results from ten years of research. Issues in Integrative Studies, 18, 89-114.
Lipson, M. Y., Valencia, S. W., Wixson, K. K., & Peters, C. W. (1993). Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching and learning. Language Arts, 70(4), 252-263.
Lipson, M., Valencia, S., Wixson, K., & Peters, C. (1993). Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching and learning. Language Arts 70(4), 252-263.
Lonning, R. A., DeFranco, T. C. & Weinland, T. P. (1998). Development of theme-based, interdisciplinary, integrated curriculum: a theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 312-319.
Martin-Kniep G.O., and Feige, D. (1993) Curriculum Development and Integration:
Martin-Kniep, G. O., Muxworthy Feige, D., & Soodak, L. C. (1995). Curriculum integration: An expanded view of an abused idea. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10(3), 227-249.
Mayville W. (1978). Interdisciplinarity: The Mutuable paradigm. Wadhinton, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
McNeil, J. D. (1996). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Happer Collins College.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, L. (1989). The choice is ours: A play about the environment. ERIC Document Reproduction Services. [ED 315 282]
Miller, R. (1982). Varieties of interdisciplinary approaches in the social sciences. Issues in Integrative Studies, 1, 1-37.
Ministry of Education and Culture (2017). General education. Retrieved from http://minedu.fi/en/general-education
Moore, M. R. (1992). Talk show science. Science Scope, 15(5), 23-25. [EJ 469 622]
Newell, W. H. (1998). Interdisciplinary curriculum development. In W. H. Newell (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity. Essays from the Literature (pp. 51-65). New York, NY: The College Board.
Nissani, M. (1995). Fruits, salads and smoothies: A working definition of interdisciplinarity. Journal of Educational Thought, 29(2), 121-128.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Page, G.T. & Thomas, J. B. (1979). International Dictionary of Education. London, UK: Kogan Page.
Perkins, D. (1989). Selecting fertile themes for integrated learning. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 67-76). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Perkins-Gough, D. (2003). Creating a timely curriculum. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 12-17.
Pettus, A. M. (1994, October). Models for curriculum integration in high school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED389706)
Phenix, P. (1964). Realms of Meaning: A Philosophy of the Curriculum for General Education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Piaget, J. (1972). The Epistemology of Interdisciplinary Relationships. Paris, FR: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Program Participants. New York: The American Forum.
Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S. & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rinne, R., J. Kivirauma and H. Simola (2002). “Shoots of revisionist education policy or just slow readjustment? The Finnish case of educational reconstruction.” Journal of Education Policy 17(6), 643–658.
Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147-171.
Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finland’s school reforms won’t scrap subjects altogether. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/finlands-school-reforms-wont-scrap-subjects-altogether-39328
Sahlberg, P. (2016). Phenomenon based education in Finland. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/finlands-school-reforms-wont-scrap-subjects-altogether-39328
Silander, P. (2015a). Digital pedagogy. In P. Mattila, & P. Silander (Eds.), How to create the school of the future: Revolutionary thinking and de sign from Finland (pp. 9 -26). Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu, Center for Internet Excellence. Retrieved from http://nebula.wsimg.com/57b76261c21 9f5e7083e9978cd2cd66d?AccessKeyI d=3209BE92A5393B603C75
Silander, P. (2015b). Phenomenon based learning rubric. Retrieved from: http://www.phenomenaleducation.info/phenomenon-based-learning.html
Simola, H. (2015). The Finnish Education Mystery: Historical and sociological essays on schooling in Finland. London, England: Routledge.
Spivak, G.C. (1993). Outside in the teaching machine. London, UK: Routledge.
Stake. R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Status and Prospects. A Study of Curricula developed by New York and the World
Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. The Social Science Journal, 28, 1-14.
Stengers I. (1993). The Invention of Modern Science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Szostak, R. (2007). Modernism, postmodernism, and interdisciplinarity. Issues in Integrative Studies, 26 (1), 32–83.
Tchudi, S. (1991). Travels across the curriculum: Models for interdisciplinary learning. Richmond Hill, Ontario: Scholastic of Canada.
Tchudi, S., & Lafer, S. (1996). The interdisciplinary teacher’s handbook: Integrated teaching across the curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Thomas. S. (1995). The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Vars, G.F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 14-15.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology. New York, NY: Plenum
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole., V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weber, M. (1968). Basic sociological terms. Economy and Society. G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Weingart, P. and N. Stehr (2000). Practicing Interdisciplinarity. Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press.
Willis, Paul E. (1977). Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Work. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.