Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 349–356 | Cite as

University–school collaboration based on complementary needs

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper discusses school development as collaboration between local schools and universities based on complementary needs. I examine a 10 year case study of a long-term relationship between an elementary school and a university in a town in Sweden. The relationship is jointly constructed and mediated by local, national, and international projects. Such jointly constructed and shared projects represent innovations of both the school’s and the university’s pedagogical practices. The significant actors in the collaborative relationship have been teachers, undergraduate and graduate students, school pupils, and researchers. The collaboration, which still exists, started in 1996 and has experienced stages of varying intensity and scope conceived metaphorically as a thin string. Analysis of the case and collaborative process suggests an answer to the question: Why does this collaboration exist and what makes it sustainable? This case suggests that the collaborative projects provide solutions to problems intrinsic to the respective educational institutions.

Keywords

Activity theory Complementary needs School collaboration School development The Fifth Dimension 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barnett, R. (2005). Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, J. (1985). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing: Eighty-fourth year-book of national society for the study of education (pp. 97–115). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cole, M., & Distributed Literacy Consortium. (2006). The 5thD: An after-school program built on diversity. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Edwards, A. (2000). Looking at action research through the lenses of sociocultural psychology and activity theory. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 195–204. doi: 10.1080/09650790000200104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  6. Engeström, Y., Kerosuo, H., & Kajamaa, A. (2007). Beyond discontinuity: Expansive organizational learning remembered. Management Learning, 38(3), 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Jensen, T., Jensen, K., & Jack, M. (2005). Learning in virtual and physical communities. In M. Nilsson & H. Nocon (Eds.), Teaching and technology in local and global communities (pp. 87–130). Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. Kerosuo, H., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Boundary crossing and learning in creation of new work practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 345–351. doi: 10.1108/13665620310504837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Konkola, R., Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 3(20), 211–228. doi: 10.1080/13639080701464483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  12. Lambert, J. (2002). Digital storytelling. Berkeley: Digital Diner Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lemke, J. L. (2002). Becoming the village: Education across lives. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 34–45). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Nilsson, M. (2003). Transformation through integration: An activity theoretical analysis of school development as integration of childcare institutions and the compulsory school. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  18. Papert, S. (1994). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Sarason, S. (2002). Educational reform: A self-scrutinizing memoir. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: Century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Zeller, N. (1995). Narrative rationality in educational research. In H. Mc Ewan & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning, and research. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementBlekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden

Personalised recommendations