Interprofessional Collaboration in Supporting Transition to School

  • Anneli Sarja
  • Pirjo-Liisa Poikonen
  • Monica Nilsson


This chapter presents a cyclic model of interprofessional collaboration to support children in their transition from preschool to school. The conceptual model is based on activity theory and the concepts of expansive learning and boundary crossing. The expansive cycles of interprofessional teamwork are described as the connections between the team versus the collective and also as internalization versus externalization levels of activities. The process involves the following four expansive phases:
  1. 1.

    Selecting a problem of boundary work (the team, internalization)

  2. 2.

    The analysis of systemic level contradictions (the collective, internalization)

  3. 3.

    The development of new boundary-crossing forms of joint activities (the collective, externalization)

  4. 4.

    Adapting these new actions to practice (the team, externalization)


In this chapter, these phases of boundary work are outlined in a review of theory, earlier research findings and empirical data. Developmental intervention is the method through which expansive learning cycles are facilitated.


Activity Theory School Readiness Primary School Teacher Shared Object Transformative Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ahtola, A., Silinskas, G., Poikonen, P., Kontoniemi, M., Niemi, P., & Nurmi, J. -E. (2011). Transition to formal schooling: Do transition practices matter for academic achievement? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3), 295–302.Google Scholar
  2. Anning, A., Cottrell, D., Frost, N., Green, J., & Robinson, M. (2008). Developing multiprofessional teamwork for integrated children’s services: Research, policy and practice. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blackler, F., & McDonald, S. (2000). Power, mastery and organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 833–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bokeno, M. R., & Gantt, V. W. (2000). Dialogic mentoring. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(2), 237–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brooker, L. (2002). Starting school: Young children learning cultures. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burbules, N. C. (2006). Rethinking dialogue in networked spaces. Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, 6(1), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunliffe, A. L. (2002). Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning. Management Learning, 33(1), 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulieu, M.-D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(Suppl. 1), 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organizations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2004). Starting school: Perspectives of Australian children, parents and education. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2), 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunlop, A.-W. (2007). Bridging research, policy and practice. In A.-W. Dunlop & H. Fabian (Eds.), Informing transitions in the early years (pp. 151–168). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, A. (2010). Inter-professional work and expertise: New roles at the boundaries of schools. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P. (2009). Improving inter-professional collaborations. Multi-agency working for children’s wellbeing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Einarsdottir, J. (2006). From pre-school to primary school: When different contexts meet. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engeström, Y. (1990). When is a tool? Multiple meanings of artifacts in human activity. In Y. Engeström (Ed.), Learning, working and imagining. Twelve studies in activity theory (pp. 171–195). Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.Google Scholar
  21. Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1), 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fabian, H., & Dunlop, A.-W. (2002). Introduction. In H. Fabian & A.-W. Dunlop (Eds.), Transitions in the early years: Debating continuity and progression for young children in early education (pp. 1–7). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  24. Fredriksson, G. (1993). Integration förskola, skola, fritidshem – utopi och verglighet [The integration of preschool, school, afternoon care of school aged children – utopia or reality; in Swedish]. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.Google Scholar
  25. Griebel, W., & Niesel, R. (2002). Co-constructing transition into kindergarten and school by children, parents and teachers. In H. Fabian & A.-W. Dunlop (Eds.), Transitions in the early years: Debating continuity and progression for young children in early education (pp. 64–75). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  26. Housley, W. (2003). Interaction in multidisciplinary teams. Chippenham, Wiltshire: Ashgate. Cardiff Papers in Qualitative Research.Google Scholar
  27. Huotari, R. (2008). Development of collaboration in multiproblem cases: Some possibilities and challenges. Journal of Social Work, 8(1), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huzzard, T., Ahlberg, B. M., & Ekman, M. (2010). Constructing interorganizational collaboration: The action researcher as boundary subject. Action Research, 8(3), 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerosuo, H. (2003). Boundaries in health care discussions: An activity theoretical approach to the analysis of boundaries. In N. Paulsen & T. Hermes (Eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives (pp. 169–187). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Konkola, R., Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leathard, A. (2003). Introduction. In A. Leathard (Ed.), Interprofessional collaboration: From policy to practice in health and social care (pp. 3–11). Hove, UK: Brunner-Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leontjev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. LoCasale-Crouch, J., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Pre-kindergarten teachers’ use of transition practices and children’s adjustment to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Margetts, K. (2002). Planning transition programmes. In H. Fabian & A.-W. Dunlop (Eds.), Transitions in the early years: Debating continuity and progression for young children in early education (pp. 111–122). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  35. Niesel, R., & Griebel, W. (2007). Enhancing the competence of transition systems through co-construction. In A.-W. Dunlop & H. Fabian (Eds.), Informing transitions in the early years (pp. 21–32). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Nilsson, M. (2003). Transformation through integration. An activity theoretical analysis of school development as integration of child care institutions and the elementary school (Dissertation Series No. 2). Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  37. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pianta, R. C., & Walsh, D. J. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing, sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Poikonen, P. -L. (2003). “Opetussuunnitelma on sitä elämää”. Päiväkoti – kouluyhteisö opetus-suunnitelman kehittäjänä [“The curriculum is part of our life” The day-care – cum – primary school community as a curriculum developer; in Finnish] (Psychology and Social Research No. 230). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Jyväskylä Studies in Education [English abstract and summary].Google Scholar
  40. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarja, A., & Janhonen, S. (2009). Methodological reflections: Supervisory discourses and practice-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(6), 621–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schulting, A. B., Malone, P. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 860–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Engeström, Y., & Young, M. (2003). From transfer to boundary crossing between school and work as a tool for developing vocational education: An introduction. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (Advances in learning and instruction series, pp. 1–15). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Perception, representation, and the forms of action: Towards a historical epistemology. In M. W. Wartofsky (Ed.), Models: Representation and the scientific understanding (pp. 188–210). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anneli Sarja
    • 1
  • Pirjo-Liisa Poikonen
    • 2
  • Monica Nilsson
    • 3
  1. 1.Finnish Institute for Educational ResearchUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Department of Didactic Science and Early Childhood EducationStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations