Educational Interaction While Working With Youth At Risk In The Context of Productive Learning

Author(s):

Aukse Petruskeviciute(presenting / submitting)Irena Zaleskiene(presenting)Loreta Zadeikaite

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

05. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

05 SES 06, Paper Session

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

15:30-17:00

Room:

OB-E0.01

Chair:

Benjamin Denecheau

Contribution

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.

Method

Methodology. Pursuant to the research object and the uniqueness of a new phenomenon in education, i.e. building-up of educational interaction in the context of productive learning, has been chosen the methodology of Grounded Theory (GT) (Glaser, Strauss, 2012), version developed by A. Strauss and J. Corbin (1990). GT was chosen as best fitting for investigating little or not at all explored social phenomena existing in real life, processes in certain specific social, psychological or educational environments and looking into particular experiences (Charmaz, 2006; Aliabat, 2011, Amsteus, 2014, etc). Based on authentic experience gained by research participants and making use of instruments of high-level conceptualization, interpretation of the phenomenon subject to investigation is carried out, and new hypotheses are discovered and generated, and substantive theory is developed, which can be transferred to other environments of social reality (Rupšienė, Pranckūnienė, 2010; Jones, Alony, 2011). The GT was being developed in the process of reflection about experiences gained by educators. Six productive learning teachers, the only ones in Lithuania who were engaged for two years (2012–2014) in introducing productive learning in three Lithuanian schools, were selected as the research participants. Experiences of the research participants were analysed in the context of other research participants: productive learning students, mentors in practice placements, school heads, etc. Such possibilities for selecting research participants are availed by the GT methodology in order to achieve theoretical saturation (Corbin, Strauss, 2008). Based on the position of the GT methodology that “all is data” (Glaser, 2001), a wide range of data collection techniques was used: semi-structured individual and group interviewing, informal conversations, analysis of motivation and study letters, observation, and analysis of diverse non-structured materials. The research was commenced in April 2012 and completed in June 2015. Following the rules of the GT methodology, the research was conducted in cycles: data were collected and analysed with simultaneous moving back and forth on the research field and performing data analysis in three stages, i.e. open, axial and selective coding.

Expected Outcomes

The developed substantive theory of Redistribution of Power while drawing on the GT methodology was instrumental in revealing the following fundamental phenomena of building-up of educational interaction in the context of Productive learning: Pedagogical self-expression, The turning-point in professional identity, Developing of the student to become the learner, “Earthing” of pedagogical expectations, and Confrontation with reality in education. The developed theory shows up the fundamental factors of building-up of educational interaction in the context of Productive learning: 1) causal conditions for educators’ individual and professional changes: socially sensitive professional philosophy, internal disposition of educators for change and institutional response; 2) contextual factors: professional experience change, educational attendance, the student’s becoming the learner; 3) intervening conditions: emotional confusion of educators, traditional educational inheritance, legal restrictions; 4) actions and strategies of educators: self-directed learning by educators, “different” education, change in education reality and management of educational expectations. The theory of Redistribution of Power has spotlighted the effects of altered educational interaction that are significant for improvement of educational practice. The developed theory Redistribution of Power enriches the realm of educational sciences and may be applied in developing strategies aimed at (self-)education of students failing at school.

References

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.

Author Information

Aukse Petruskeviciute (presenting / submitting)

Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences

Vilnius

Irena Zaleskiene (presenting)

Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences

Vilnius

Loreta Zadeikaite

Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences

Social Education

Vilnius

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for