Education of socially sensitive youth is one of the focal talking-points for discussion in the political, scientific and practical discourse on socio-economic and socio-cultural welfare of an individual, the entire society and future generations, since it is associated with the phenomenon of early school leaving.

 This situation is designated by UNESCO as lost opportunities  and lower quality of life. It is analyzed in annual Education for All Global Monitoring Reports,  in strategic EU documents (Europe 2020; ET2020, etc). According to Eurostat data, in 2014, there were about 4.4 million (11.1 percent)  young persons attributed to the group of early school leavers in Europe.

International groups of education policymakers, researchers and practicians are looking  for effective solutions of the problem relating to early school leaving at global and European level (Developing a Code of Behaviour: Guidlines for Schools, 2008; Developing Early school leaving. Lessons from research for policy makers, 2010; Tackling Early Leaving from Education and Training in Europe, 2015; Downes 2006, 2011; Brunello, Paola, 2013, 2014; Burrus, Roberts, 2012). Researchers (Downes, 2011, 2013; Kazmierczak-Murray, Downes, 2015; Cefai, Downes, 2015) have proved that persons failing at school for years are challenged by all kinds of psychological, social and educational problems.

With increasing variety of education strategies (Fullan, 2010; Drucker, 2015) every individual country chooses directions in education in line with its own development priorities as well as particular pedagogic systems or models.

One of them is the model of Productive learning (PL),  which is being implemented as long as for over 40 years in the United States of America (City-As-School),  is legalized and recognized in Germany, Finland (Flexible Basic Education), Netherlands, Lithuania as an effective education system that improves access to education and strengthens motivation to learn (IPLE, 2009, 2011; Žadeikaite, Petruškevičiūtė, 2013). The European Commission has recommended PL  learning as a verified effective instrument reducing early school leaving (Reducing early school leaving: Key messages and policy support, 2013; Early School Leaving and Lifelong Guidance, 2014).

Theoretical and methodological construct of Productive learning is oriented towards the change in pedagogical interaction (Hamre, Pianta, 2013; Wegerif, 2013), since it expands the space of pedagogical interaction, includes learning in different environments indoor and outdoor school, i.e. practice placements, changes the structure of the interaction through involving new participants of educational interaction, i.e. mentors in practical placements, and creates preconditions for successful learning by student through inclusion of his/ her individual experience and needs (Bliss, 2008; IPLE, 2009, 2011).

All these alter the process of (self-) development and educational interaction in principle, since the change takes place in the educational factors: the aim, curriculum and methods (Pinar, 2012, Schleichter, 2015). These changes lead to a positive impact on all actors of educational interaction, which is evidenced by research studies conducted in countries that introduce productive learning (Bliss, Borkenhagen 2008; Sarja, Janhonen at al, 2013;  Hacker, Langner, 2014; Bliss, Borkenhagen et al., 2014).

However, the process of building-up of educational interaction in a new education context has not been yet analysed.  Therefore, the research problem is defined as follows: how educational interaction is building-up while working with students at risk in the context of Productive learning?

The research problem is explored by posing the following questions:

• Why do teachers choose new conditions for educational interaction?

• What factors cause building-up of educational interaction?

• What strategies of actions taken by educators and interactions are showing up?

• What are effects of altered educational interaction on improvement of educational practice?

The object of the research is educational interaction in the context of productive learning.

The aim of the research is to develop the grounded theory on building-up of educational interaction in the context of Productive learning.

Amsteus M. N. (2014). The Validity of Divergent Grounded Theory Method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol. 13, 2014. Bliss F. (2008). Über das traditionelle Schulsetting hinaus – Lernen im Kontext Produktiven Lernens. Rihm Th. Teilhaben an Schule. Zu den Chancen wirksamer Einflussnahme auf Schulentwicklung“, VS Verlag. S. 93-106. Cefai, C., Downes, P. & Cavioni, V. (2015). Breaking the Cycle: A phenomenological approach to broadening access to post-secondary and tertiary education. European Journal of Psychology of Education. City-As-School 2010–2011. Where in the city is your classroom (2010). New York: City as school. Corbin J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Downes, P. (2013), Developing a Framework and Agenda for Students' Voices in the School System across Europe: from diametric to concentric relational spaces for early school leaving prevention. European Journal of Education, 48: 346–362. Drucker P. F. (2015). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. NYC: Routledge. Early School Leaving and Lifelong Guidance. ELGPN Concept Note No. 6, 2014, p. 25. Education for All Global Monitoring Report (2015). UNESCO. Fullan M. (2010). All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform. USA. Glaser B. G. Strauss A.L. (2012). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. USA, UK: Aldine Transaction. Pariser E. (2011). Do Relationships with Helpful and Not-Helpful Teachers Make a Difference? Perspectives from Nine At-Risk Adolescents Electronic Theses and Dissertations. IPLE (2009). Productive Learning – from Activity to Education. A Contribution to School Reform in Secondary Education. (2009). Berlin: IPLE. IPLE (2011).Productive Learning and International School Development. Berlin: IPLE. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory?. New York, London: Routledge. Reducing early school leaving: Key messages and policy support. Final Report of the Thematic Working Group on Early School Leaving November 2013. Schleichter A. (2015). Schools for 21st-Century Learners: Strong Leaders, Confident Teachers, Innovative Approaches, International Summit on the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing. OECD Publishing. Sarja, A., Janhonen, S., Puurunen-Moilanen, S. 2013. Työparityöskentely oppilaan tukimenetelmänä joustavassa perusopetuksessa. Kasvatus 44 (2), 177-183. Wegerif R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the Internet Age. London and New York: Routledge. Žadeikaite L., Petruškevičiūtė A. Asmenybės auginimas projektuojant ugdymą ateičiai//Pedagogika, 2013.T.112.p. 51-57.ISSN-1392-0340.