Generic skills (also referred to as generic attributes, generic capabilities, key skills, or soft skills), such as critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, social skills, and skills concerning creativity, are greatly needed and sought after in today’s world of work and education (Kember, 2009; Lavi et al., 2021; Virtanen and Tynjälä, 2022). Kember (2009, p. 52), one of the most influential researchers of generic skills, has stated aptly that “few, if any, would disagree with the need for graduates to possess a range of generic capabilities to equip them for lifelong learning in today’s knowledge-based society.” In the world of work, the need for generic skills is seen, for example, in competency mappings about the current occupational requirements (e.g., Rekola et al., 2018; Sudirman et al., 2020), in studies on requirements of graduates (Kalfa and Taksa, 2015; Clarke, 2018; Cotronei-Baird, 2020), and in lists and models that describe the needs and demands of future work life (e.g., Fadel et al., 2015; Forbes, 2020). In education, generic skills are integrated into different national and international frameworks (e.g., Gordon et al., 2009; EQF, 2018; P21, 2020; ATC21S, 2022). These frameworks have been formulated for the evaluation, comparability, and development of education programs. Based on these frameworks, generic skills, or twenty-first century skills (Tight, 2021), are incorporated into many countries’ curricula (e.g., Ahonen and Kinnunen, 2015).

Although the need for generic skills is recognized in both working life and education, little is known about how these skills are learned and how they should best be taught. Specific generic skills, such as presentation skills and scientific writing, can be prepared as separate courses. In recent years, however, it has been demonstrated that learning generic skills has an interrelationship with the pedagogy used (Kember, 2009; Anthony and Garner, 2016; Virtanen and Tynjälä, 2019, 2022). In other words, generic skills can be learned as a part of regular teaching, but certain forms of teaching and learning are needed. For example, according to Kember (2009), students’ intellectual capabilities develop well when teaching activities demand critical thinking, self-managed learning, and problem-solving. Similarly, Virtanen and Tynjälä (2019) found that the pedagogical practices in which students assess knowledge critically support the development of students’ critical thinking skills.

Group work and other methods that demand working together foster students’ collaborative skills (Kember, 2009; Kostiainen et al., 2018; Mäkinen et al., 2022; Virtanen and Tynjälä, 2022). This is a logical and self-evident finding, but it is worth stressing for developing teaching and pedagogical practices in different educational institutes. Tuononen et al. (2019) found that the graduates most often mentioned challenges related to their social and presentation skills which they felt were not taught well enough in their institutions. Research has shown that pedagogy that utilizes interactive and collaborative work fosters not only the learning of social skills but also other generic skills. For example, Virtanen and Tynjälä (2019) found that teaching that requires working together develops students’ decision-making and problem-solving skills. In their study, acting at the interface between theory and practice also played an important role in explaining students’ learning of generic skills. Anthony and Garner (2016) found similar results. They noticed that assignments involving real-world applications and examples, and projects that engaged students or had practical applications, were the most helpful activities for business students to learn generic skills.

The studies presented above are in line with Kember’s statement: “It might be noted that a very common model of university teaching—a professor lecturing to students who sit listening—does not provide practice in the generic capabilities” (2009, p. 53). In contrast, the practices that seem to support and foster the learning of generic skills demand students to participate rather than just sit and listen. Many studies also suggest that, in interactive and collaborative learning and teaching, teachers must put effort into constructing a positive and safe learning atmosphere (Vila et al., 2012; Kiuru et al., 2015; Mäkinen et al., 2022). Next, we will review research on the topic.

Feeling safe is a prerequisite for all learning. Recent findings support the view that the quality of the learning atmosphere has an even greater impact on learning than the ability of the learner (Pakarinen et al., 2014; Ratmawaty, 2018; Calavia et al., 2021; Visiers-Jiménez et al., 2021). For example, a study carried out in six countries reported that the quality of the supervisory relationship and pedagogical atmosphere in which learning took place were closely linked to the students’ learning success and their satisfaction with their education (Visiers-Jiménez et al., 2021). A positive and safe atmosphere can affect a student’s attitude toward learning, which is considered the most important factor for improving their achievement and confidence (Ratmawaty, 2018; Suyatno et al., 2019). Therefore, increased attention is being paid to the atmosphere in which learning will take place.

In many studies on the learning atmosphere, particular attention is paid to the teacher-student relationship (e.g., Pianta et al., 2008; Kember, 2009; Kiuru et al., 2015; Kostiainen et al., 2018; Pöysä et al., 2019). For example, Ratmawaty (2018) states that a good classroom atmosphere is characterized by a pleasant interaction between the teacher and student during the learning process. In studies of work-related learning, it has been shown that it is the job supervisor rather than the teacher who has the role of the important person (e.g., Visiers-Jiménez et al., 2021). In other words, the construction of a learning atmosphere seems to emanate from the adult that guides the student’s learning; for example, from a teacher or job supervisor.

Positive and safe atmosphere offers the basis for productive collaboration (e.g., Alles et al., 2019), and as we concluded above, the learning of generic skills seems to require interactive and collaborative pedagogy. However, we found only a limited number of studies on the relationship between learning atmosphere and the learning of generic skills. For example, Zeng (2021) found that there is a positive association between the two; this association, however, was not very strong. Calavia et al. (2021) perceived that a positive learning atmosphere fosters students’ creativity, which Virtanen and Tynjälä (2019) also confirmed.

The aim of this study is to examine more closely the relationship between a positive learning atmosphere and learning generic skills. The study should be, then, carried out in such an environment where the learning atmosphere is known to be good. Therefore, this study was conducted in a context where extensive development has resulted in a learning atmosphere where students would feel safe, trust each other and have the courage to take part in class by engaging in discussion with the teacher and other students. This kind of developmental work is in line with current studies on a positive learning atmosphere, which emphasizes trust, general appreciation (i.e., talking to each other politely, listening to each other, and letting each other finish speaking) and pleasant teacher-student and student-student interactions during the learning process (Kiuru et al., 2012; Ratmawaty, 2018; Alles et al., 2019; Suyatno et al., 2019). The above-mentioned characterization also describes how a positive learning atmosphere is understood in this study. Next, the context of this study and the developmental work concerning the learning atmosphere will be described in depth.

The research context was the final year of Finnish physical education (PE) teacher education, when most PE students carry out the major part of their pedagogical studies. In Finland, PE teacher education is a master’s degree program (300 ECTS credits), which is highly valued; only 5–6 percent of applicants are accepted annually. PE students carry out one-third of their pedagogical studies in their own faculty where they are integrated as a part of their own major subject, sport pedagogy. Two-thirds of the pedagogical studies are taken in the Faculty of Education, in the Department of Teacher Education. This study focuses particularly on the separate pedagogical study module that PE students carry out at the Department of Teacher Education in their final academic year. It is a large study module (28 ECTS credits) and lasts one academic year. There are 45–60 students in these modules annually, taught by two professors (later in this text called teachers).

The final-year study module consists of three theoretical courses and three practical training periods, taken simultaneously. The final module has been developed over several years (Klemola et al., 2013; Tynjälä et al., 2016; Lauritsalo et al., 2019). As this final-year study module is a key component in the professional development of teachers, all courses and training periods have been developed in a way that best supports the developing teacher.

The pedagogical practices of the final year study module are based on self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000) and Gordon’s (2003) interaction model (Lauritsalo et al., 2019). Feeling safe and belonging to the community are core feelings that teachers hope students experience during the pedagogical practices of the final year. Therefore, they consciously constructed the final year study module to incorporate practices that support and foster a sense of community and solidarity. For example, at the beginning of the year, the teachers assigned different duties and responsibilities to their students. While one PE student group was responsible for the wellbeing of peer students, another was in charge of guiding students’ learning tasks and a third organized the party at the end of the year. In addition, one female student was elected and named “mama” and one male student “papa” for the year. The mama and the papa of the final year acted as messengers between the students and the teachers. The aim of these above-mentioned examples of the responsibilities was to support and maintain a sense of community throughout the year.

Teachers stressed that student commitment to the pedagogical practices in the final year was important because there were only two teachers for every 45–60 students annually, and their teaching in the final year occurred primarily through discussion and collaboration. As such, students were required to trust and work with each other throughout the year. The teachers considered the first week of the final year critical. During that time, they implemented plenty of instruction and face-to-face teaching and included several practices to help the students trust and get to know each other better. The teachers conveyed that the work and actions in this first week were crucial to the success of the entire study module. After the first week, nurturing the learning atmosphere is a goal in every teaching situation throughout the year. Students were asked to take care of their peers and organize different activities supporting the learning atmosphere also in their spare time.

At the beginning of the final year, teachers also introduced students to the Three K model, which is a pedagogical practice based on three different values. Values are respect (kunnioitus), encountering (kohtaaminen), and presence (kiireettömyys) (the letter “K” refers to the first letter of each word in Finnish). The model’s values were carried out in all formal and informal situations and meetings throughout the year. Respect referred to every person’s importance and value: “I’m important, you’re important, and we’re important;” encountering the described thought, “With an open mind and interest, I watch other people and new things. I ask for help, and I give help;” and presence denoted the presence of all students and teachers in all formal and informal situations: “I’m present right now.” Teachers returned to this model several times throughout the year to remind the class of its existence.

Teachers of this final-year study module have done a lot of work to develop the learning atmosphere, making this a suitable context for this study which aim is to examine the relationship between the learning atmosphere and learning generic skills. Before examining this relationship, the experiences of PE students with the learning atmosphere and the learning of generic skills during this final year study module are investigated. More specifically, we addressed the following research questions: (1) How do the students perceive and experience the constructed learning atmosphere? (2) What generic skills do PE students report to learn during the final year study module? (3) What kind of relationship exists between the perceived learning atmosphere and learning generic skills?

As shown in Table 1, all mean values of the statements concerning learning atmosphere were rather high (4.48–4.81, max. 5). Thus, the students perceived the final year’s learning atmosphere as positive. For example, PE students felt that the communication with the teacher (4.81) and with other PE students (4.74) were natural and smooth.

The findings from the student interviews are in line with the quantitative analysis regarding the learning atmosphere of the final year assessed by PE students above: the students experienced that the teachers succeeded in their goal of constructing a positive atmosphere for learning and professional development. The students reported that the learning atmosphere was warm, dialogic, and interactive. For example, one participant described the learning atmosphere of the final year: “I had such a warm and safe feeling here.”

According to the students, the teachers not only put effort into the learning atmosphere at the beginning of the final year but maintained it in various ways throughout the whole year. For example, one student said that, at the start of almost all lessons, the teachers asked the students for news or carried out certain exercises that required them to take part in action or in discussion. After this kind of active beginning, the students found it easier to take part in the interactive and collaborative work required for their lessons.

While the students initially felt that the responsibilities they received were slightly separate from their other studies and the work required of them for their final year, they found that they became naturally connected to the pedagogical practices and actions of their studies. One student said, “Responsibilities were one part of the sense of community during our final year. We were all responsible for how things happened during the year.” Moreover, students said that teachers gave them responsibility over their own learning, helping them feel that the teachers completely trusted them.

According to the students, the Three K model was highly visible and present during the final year. The students felt that the teachers themselves manifested the model they developed. An excerpt from an interview with one student illustrates this perspective:

As noted in the excerpt above, the students recognized that the teachers themselves acted in line with their own demands. The students also claimed that they would like to emulate their teachers in the future.

As shown in Table 3, among the 20 highest scores for skills were eight generic skills from the category “other generic skills,” as well as six generic skills from the “basic academic skills” and “social skills” categories. These categories are represented by the following abbreviations: BAS, basic academic skills; SS, social skills; and OS, other skills, and are included with each generic skill provided in Table 3.

According to the PE students’ assessments, the highest scores were given to various social skills: interaction skills (mean value was 4.48, max. 5), ability to listen to others (4.36), seeing things from the perspectives of others (4.31), and collaboration skills (4.18). From the BAS category, students particularly reported learning holistic thinking (4.39) and developing an overall picture of one’s field (4.18). From the OS category, students assessed that they learned increased awareness of one’s know-how (4.26) and taking responsibility for one’s work (4.24). Thus, the pedagogical practices of the final year study module seem to offer opportunities to develop versatile social skills and increase students’ awareness of themselves as professional agents (increased awareness of one’s know-how) and their profession in the wider context (developing an overall picture of one’s field, holistic thinking).

As shown in Table 2, it was established that a positive learning atmosphere was associated with the learning of resourcefulness, innovativeness, creativity; ability to plan a career; basic field-specific occupational skills; continuing professional development, and few generic academic skills (i.e., written and oral communication skills, project-work skills). These associations, however, were not strong (p < 0.01).

Due to moderate associations between the generic skills and the positive learning atmosphere, the coefficients of determination were also minor. The highest coefficient of determination was for “resourcefulness, innovativeness or creativity” (R = 0.404, R² = 0.163, F = 15.768, p < 0.001)—that is, the positive learning atmosphere explained 16 percent of the learning of resourcefulness, innovativeness or creativity.