Society is becoming increasingly heterogeneous – a development fueled by the European spirit of mobility as well as global migration – increasing the challenge to ensure equal educational opportunities for all. This is the case not only for the Swiss context, but for many European and other countries as well. Education outside the school is playing an increasingly important role in this context. Although education often takes place within formal settings and learning environments, it also occurs either deliberately or informally in everyday life (Werquin, 2010). A multi-year initiative called the Educational Landscapes Switzerland program supported by the Jacobs Foundation, aims to encourage the cooperation of formal and non-formal players in innovative and systematic ways to ensure that all children and adolescents have access to high-quality education that goes beyond the school setting. Since the pilot phase (2012–2016), the cantons of Basel-Stadt, Fribourg and Zurich have been participating in the program with three projects each. The nine projects each followed a grassroots approach to become education networks. They bear similarities to extended professional learning communities (cf. Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007, p. 5) as the people involved are engaged (among other things) in promoting professional learning, are engaged in a collaborative, growth-promoting learner-oriented practice and work together in a collective that extend beyond schools, connecting with the community and other services.

The findings presented in this proposal are derived from a five-year study (2013-2018) designed to ascertain how these projects function and evolve as well as to assess their possible impact on the educational contexts they are located in. The theoretical framework is based on Helmut Fend’s and Andreas Helmke's opportunity-use model which characterizes aspects between teaching and learning in a classroom (for a presentation of the model in English, see Zierer & Seel, 2012, S. 16f). This model was expanded to account for learning and teaching beyond the classroom and to allow for a more detailed analysis of the context of formal and non-formal educational settings. The opportunity-use model maps several of these factors such as teachers and instructors, learning potential of children and young adults, but also family- and culture-related context factors.

This contribution presents the findings from the first two years of research, focusing on aspects of process support for these projects, viewed as networked systems. Leading questions were:

1. What role does the facilitator play in the establishment of education networks?
2. How is this role conceptualized by agents from the network and by the coaches who act as facilitators?

In this study, facilitation was viewed as a type of coaching with a context and process oriented focus (cf. Celoria & Hemphill, 2014). The underlying view of the coach as a facilitator, not as a consultant imparting expert knowledge (for example on what goals to set for education networks), was derived from Lippmann (2013).

Each education network was obligated to have a facilitator, but was free to choose the person as long as she/he met certain professional standards. The facilitators were given a mandate to facilitate communicative and productive settings, to offer help and guidance to make meetings efficient and to act as moderators. The facilitators were paid for by the foundation, but did not report to it to ensure their impartiality. For the same reason they were not allowed to participate in the education networks in any capacity other than as facilitators (for example as project leaders).

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. doi:10.3316/QRJ0902027 Celoria, D., & Hemphill, D. (2014). Coaching from the coaches’ perspective: a process-oriented focus. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 3(1), 72–85. doi:10.1108/IJMCE-12-2012-0079 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Chase, S. E. (2011). Narrative Inquiry: Still a Field in the Making. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 421–434). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 181–195). New York: Open University Press. Hipp, K. K., Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A. M., & Olivier, D. F. (2008). Sustaining professional learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 173–195. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. Lippmann, E. (Ed.). (2013). Coaching. Berlin: Springer. Stoll, L., & Seashore Louis, K. (2007). Professional learning communities: elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 1–14). New York: Open University Press. Werquin, P. (2010). Recognising Non-Formal and Informal Learning. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Ed.). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.