CONCLUDING WORDS

As a teacher in blended learning spaces the knowledge’ of the purpose of digital learn-ing and technology is assumed to play an essential role. This aspect influences, among other things, what the teacher highlights as important and, in turn, what pupils are be-ing taught. There is widespread belief that digital and ICT learning can and will em-power teachers and learners, transforming teaching and learning processes from being highly teacher-dominated to student-cen-tred, and that this transformation will result in increased learning gains. 

One of the enduring difficulties of tech-nology use in arts education is that educa-tional planners and technology advocates think of the technology first and then inves-Awareness of multimodal

learning 

Verbalising the process of learning

Capacity  to convert through process

“felt it in the body”

“a whole body experience”

“tried to to understand”

“I would do it better if I was relaxed”

“I learnt from the group”

“The book inspired me to create”

“I was forced to think”

“practise sketching”

“harder to create”

“I learnt to draw” 

“it was educational”

“perform better next time”

“something happens during the act” 

“I would do it better next time”

“I’m glad I did it even if it seemed strange in the beginning”

“i want to do it again”

Table 2. Interpretation (categories) of Multimodal Group Conversation. 

tigate the educational applications of this technology only later. Therefore we want to point out that a qualified and involved teacher is the key to meaningful digital learning in arts education. It is also crucial, and self evident in education structures, that the teachers are the professionals of the area and that the structures that advocates arts, digital learning and blended learning serve school and teachers as resources, not only as new ways of learning. This because teachers all the time work with to find not only new but great and wise ways of learning. The idea is that the teachers support students to generate skills for learning but also en-gage pupils to understand best methods for achieving solid as well as open goals.

The bricolage analysis of materials (data) of the project implicates that the pupils ex-perience and communicate learning process as rhizomes (elaborative chains). They are motivated by learning situations where they perceive learning as several forms, blended forms of expression and which they expe-rience meaningful. Pupils’ descriptions can be interpreted as telling about associative, combining, comparative and distinctive knowledge; Knowledge that can be recog-nized as tacit knowledge communicated. 

One central aspect that became articulat-ed in the project was the teacher role. The teacher rethinks the teacher role after reflec-tion on the documented process. The teach-er articulates that teachteach-er position pteach-erform a form of agency, a meaningful and safe learning platform. This generates for the teacher an alternative didactic space where blended learning spaces also perform as a resource for developing teaching practice in arts education. 

The teacher explains that the design of participatory action research,(PAR) where the researcher collaborates as a partner and participatory agent for practice, cre-ates time and space also for the teacher to articulate teacher’s tacit knowledge.

The teacher reflects upon that the current Finnish National Core Curriculum (2014)

challenge the teacher to work with what the teacher defines as POP-UP teaching. The teacher articulates that everyday work is to work beyond expected, when it comes to pupils learning, the methods, the tools, current issues in society and news locally and globally. All this in relation to the given education goals. At the same time school has to serve as a safe place for children de-velopment, the place where daily routines are trained as well as social and emotional competence. Pop-Up teaching is according to the teacher based on education tradition and teaching experience, but it is a kind of professional pedagogic turn where the teacher must rely on a carpe diem mode.

For doing so, the teacher has to use pro-fessional competence, as a form of defa-miliarization, where things that are or has become familiar or taken for granted in the teaching practice hence automatically per-ceived must be rethought. Pop-Up teaching generates challenges and crucial choices for the teachers. Pop-Up teachers are not only good teachers. They are teachers with good subject knowledge and own competencies to make lessons for pupils more interesting and motivating. They enchant and get the pupils hooked by relating to everyday ex-periences beyond expected. They put into teaching interest areas and trends in an adult way that empowers pupils to be aware of various perspectives. Pop-Up teaching is about catching the moment and trends without stretching the edges of curriculum too much. It is about sticking to the core, the instructive and the aims. Pop-up teaching is not about making the classroom into a circus. Pop-Up teaching is to be professional and aware of beyond expected outcomes. 

According to this study, arts-led blend-ed learning spaces design offers pupils and teachers possibilities to anchor and devel-op school and education in a direction that respect what contemporary school is and what it can be in future. 

tacit knowLedge in bLended Learning spaces 103 APPENDIX

The pupils involved in the teaching method development practice participated volun-tarily. They study is accomplished in Vasa övningsskola which is a teacher students practice school included in the Teacher Ed-ucation Programme at Åbo Akademi Uni-versity. Vasa övningsskola and the Teacher Education Program at the Faculty of Edu-cation and Welfare Studies at Åbo Akademi University have an agreement that research in school practice is allowed when

follow-ing the ethics of the Helsinki Declaration 2013. The authors of this article have con-sidered the possible benefits and risks for the participants in the inquiry and made sure that the participants have understood the information about the task given. The pupils involved are represented in text and visual documentation in a manner which takes into consideration research and edu-cation ethics.

REFERENCES

Brindley, R. (2009). Demystifying Action Research: A Practical Explanation for Teacher Researchers. In:

Brindley, R. & Crocco, C. (Eds.). Empowering the Voice of the Teacher Researcher: Achieving Success through a Culture of Inquiry. pp 18-34. US: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Chaugh, R. (2015). Do Australian Universities Encourage Tacit Knowledge Transfer? Melbourne: School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University. 

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (2017) (5th edition). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research.

Dewey, J. (2005/1934). Art as Experience. US: Perigee Books.

Dewey, J. (2013/1934)). Taide kokemuksena. Helsinki: Niin & Näin.

Ekström, A. (2008). Ospecifikt beröm och inlindad kritik: Bedömning och återkoppling på lärarutbildnin-gens slöjdkurser. I Borg, K. & Lindberg, V. (red.) Kunskapande, kommunikation och bedömning i gestaltande utbildning (s. 149–160) Stockholm: HLS publications.

Finnish National Agency for Education. National Core Curriculum 2014. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Accessed September 2017. 

http://www.oph.fi/english/curricula_and_qualifications/basic_education/curricula_2014

Grensjö, B. (2003). Tysta, tystnande och tystade kunskaper. Pedagogik i arbetslivet; nr 71. Umeå: Pedagogis-ka institutionen, Umeå universitet.

Grönlund, Å.  (2015) , Gärna en dator, men först en bra lärare. Pedagogiska magasinet. Lärarförbundets tidskrift för utbildning, forskning och debatt. http://pedagogiskamagasinet.se/garna-en-dator-men-forst-en-bra-larare/

Herrgård, T. (2005) Hur höra tyst kunskap?; utveckling av en metod för studier. Helsingfors: Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan, nr 144. (Diss.)

James, E., Bucknam,  A., Milenkiewicz, M. (2008). Participatory Action Research for Educational Lead-ership. Using data-driven decisions making to improve schools. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: SAGE publications.

Kaihovirta, H. & Rimpilä, M. (2016). One to one computing (1:1) and art based multiliteracy learning in school. Portugal: IMAG. INSEA Vol. 3 publication.

Kaihovirta-Rosvik, H. (2009). Images of imagination: An Aesthetic Approach to Education. Vasa: Åbo Akademi University. (Diss.)

Kingston, J. (2012). Tacit knowledge: Capture, sharing, And Unwritten Assumptions; Journal of Knowledge

Management Practice, Vol. 13. No. 3. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.  

Polanyi, M. ( 1966/2009). The Tacit Dimension. London, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

Reason, P & Bradbury, H. (Eds.)(2008) (2^nd Edition). Handbook of Action Research. Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage Publications.

Räsänen, M. (2015). Visuaalisen kulttuurin monilukukirja. Helsinki. Aalto Arts Books.

Sava, I. (2007). Katsomme-Näemmekö? Luovuudesta, taiteesta ja visuaalisesta kulttuurista. Jyväskylä: PS kustannus.

Scheffer, T. Hum Stud (2007) 30: 167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9055-8

Silby, A. and Watts, M. (2015), Making the tacit explicit: children’s strategies for classroom writing. Br Educ Res J, 41: 801–819. doi:10.1002/berj.3176

Stein, J. (1996). Lärande inom och mellan organisationer. Lund, Studentlitteratur. 

Sternberg, R. & Horvath, J. (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice, Researcher and practitioner perspectives. New York, London: Routledge.

Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning; How to integrate online & traditional learning. London: Kogan Page Limited.