EAPRIL and UAS-journal
This special issue is initiated by EAPRIL (The European Association for Practitioner Research on Improving Learning). EAPRIL is a platform for practitioner and practice-based research. This year it will hold its 11th annual conference for practitioner research on improving learning in education and professional practice https://eaprilconference.org . EAPRIL was initiated 11 years ago by the well-known ‘European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction’ (EARLI). EARLI wanted to support practitioner research through establishing a platform where practitioners and researchers conducting practice-based research can meet and exchange research results in a highly interactive way. Nowadays, EAPRIL and EARLI collaborate as independent research associations.
EAPRIL research conference presentations are reflected in the articles in this special international issue of the UAS journal and address practice-based research as a form of inquiry that can be used and implemented to support life long workplace learning for a variety of professionals and occupations (EAPRIL conference proceedings, 2014, 2015 https://eaprilconference.org/proceedings/ ).
The broad interpretations of ‘practitioner research’, and practice-based research require a clear epistemological basis demonstrating the relationship between research and practice. According to Heikkinen, de Jong and Vanderlinde (2016) such clarification goes back to Aristotelian philosophy which explored the ways that knowledge is obtained, what purpose it serves, and how practitioner research differs from academic research. This yields theoretical knowledge as well as two kinds of practical knowledge. Although all three are relevant, the so called ‘practitioner knowledge’ (the phronesis and the techne), need more attention in judging the merit of practitioner research. Heikkinen, et al. (2016) stated that good practitioner research needs its own methodological principles. De Jong, Beus, Richardson and Ruijters (2013) emphasized that practitioner research is more than just the old way of doing research in its search for the truth. It also has to do with enhancing co-creation and wisdom of practitioners and their praxis. It might even have a total different epistemic underpinning.
After EAPRIL’s first special issue ‘Studies in Vocational and Professional Education’ (April 2016, Journal Vocations and Learning) EAPRIL and UAS journal were talking about a collaboration for the next special issue. This resulted in the current issue with eleven wonderful insights, from five different European countries.. Some contributions even cover many other European countries. You will find articles about activities in UAS by UAS teacher-researchers, inquiry-innovators writing about educational innovations which reflect their passion to improve the education offered in UAS; to support the development of their students; and to offer them learning experiences in enhancing the collaboration and interaction between education and practice. The focus is on improving the activity system of practice, as well as students’ development and research by trying to make UAS education more responsive to students, responsive to practice and responsive to society.
From the Finnish viewpoint this UAS Journal (est. 2011) special issue in collaboration with EAPRIL organization is important in many ways. Firstly, it includes interesting articles and shows that the problems and challenges in European higher education are rather similar. This issue, as itself, is bridging researchers and practitioners from different European countries.
Secondly, this issue is a reflection on the history of the UAS Journal. The roots of UAS eJournal are in KeVer network (2000-2009) and KeVer eJournal which was published as one part of networking activities. The purpose of Kever was to develop and strengthen pedagogical, methodological and RDI actions in UAS education, which began in Finland in 1991. The method of working in KeVer was to combine research and practice, researchers and practitioners. The backgrounds of the network members were researchers working in the universities and research institutions and teachers, as well as researchers and developers working in universities of applied sciences. When KeVer network activities finished, the ejournal transformed from a research-based journal to a magazine format. So,this special issue after some years, makes visible the research linked to UASs.
Finally, this issue is hopefully a beginning for a fruitful collaboration among Europeans who share an interest in combining research and practice as a method of developing teaching and learning. Complexity and uncertainty in the world demands strong networks and communities, feelings of shared interests and goals. EAPRIL and UAS-journal wants to support such networks as being places to exchange and build insights together in the development of praxis.
Reading the articles in this issue, you will notice that the responsivity to students and practice is seen as a crucial element of the UAS education as a means for students’ development into competent professionals for their future working life and contribution to society. In some more conceptual oriented articles, for instance, from Meijer and Kuijpers (in this issue) this education-practice relationship is seen as a gap that has to be bridged. According to others like Van den Berg (in this issue) it is more a matter of crossing borders, which requires certain abilities. Kukokonen (in this issue) integrates this dilemma in five key elements of good student experiences, such as authenticity and collaboration.
The articles show that in general the core issue in being responsive to students’ learning on the one hand and professional practice on the other hand, seems to enhance interaction, collaborative learning, co-creation of knowledge in the efforts to support and improve the relationship between research, education and working life (practice) as a responsive educational activity system. An activity system in which students develop abilities, skills and knowledge that anticipate the (future) needs of working practice, society and personal life. Such activity systems and the diverse educational examples illustrated in this issue, should be considered regarding the different perspectives and emphasis of the learning processes described: for example cooperative, collaborative and knowledge creation and derivative pedogagical methods. This means that emphasis on transfer of knowledge is based on a totally different epistemic basis from the co-creation of knowledge. In addition, cooperation does not always mean that students are engaged in a mutual learning process, or that collaborative learning might be a collective group learning but that it differs from collective knowledge creation in order to contribute to the idea development of the community.
Moreover, it is sometimes important to reflect on generally accepted theories of learning from a different perspective. For example De Jong (2015) approaches learning not as matter of knowledge transfer or acquisition, but as a semiotic, meaning-constructing process to combine incoming information with already held personal and community cognitive concepts and ideas. Even the stimulus-response learning is a process of giving meaning to a stimulus in relation to an action.
Table 1: Different manifestations of learning as a semiotic, meaning building process and the impact on change, the thinking that is learned and relatedness to practice (world 1), school knowledge (world 2) and knowledge creating Popper’s world 3.
A process in which ‘the other’ might be at a very distant or might be very close to the interaction of the process of meaning construction. This semiotic process manifests itself in learning in three ways:
- Zero learning and Learning 1) e.g. natural biological learning in daily practice;
You can think of habituation, sentization, stimulus-response learning
- Learning 2) cognitive learning in schools, courses, trainings; and
You can think of Piagetian cognitive constructivism; accumulative and accommodative learning.
- Learning 3) social interactive learning in groups, teams, communities.
You can think of cooperative, collaborative learning and knowledge building/creation.
These levels differ in what leads to change; what kind of thinking is learned and if the impact goes beyond current practice and habits, current knowledge and thinking or becoming familiar with and enculturate in the world of building knowledge and understanding (see table 1). In relation to the articles in this issue the level of social interactive learning is seems to be very relevant because it is mentioned almost in all of them. To provide you as reader a lens to reflect on the articles in this special issue we will elaborate more in depth about this level and its consequences in the next paragraphs.
Social interaction and Cooperative learning
Let’s take a look at cooperative learning settings such as: Learning Together & Alone; Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT); Group Investigation; Constructive Controversy; Jigsaw Procedure; Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD); Complex Instruction; Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI); Cooperative Learning Structures; Cooperative Integrated Reading & Composition (CIRC) (Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000; Loeser, 2008).
Cooperative learning involves students working together to accomplish shared learning goals. (Johnson et al., 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Each student can achieve his or her learning goal if – and only if – the other group members achieve theirs (Deutsch 1962, as cited in Johnson et. al., 2000). Review studies show, that cooperative learning significantly increases students’ achievement in comparison with competitive, individual learning situations. It does not mean that all operationalizations are effective in the same way (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Slavin, 1980). From the above mentioned studies ‘Learning together’ seems to be the most effective (David W Johnson et al., 2000). The five most basic pillars of cooperative learning are: individual accountability, positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, group processing, and interpersonal and small group skills. Students feel that they cannot work without the participation of one or more group members. The central principle of cooperative learning is that students learn through interaction and dialogue with others, mostly in small groups, around a topic of study to achieve a common goal according to David Johnson and Robert Slavin .
‘Learning with others’ enables social interaction as a kind of ”cognitive apprenticeship to learn the school learning material and enhance the individual learning” (Hartmann, Angersbach, & Rummel, 2015). Social interdependence enables individual motivation and cognitive learning (Slavin, 1980, 1996). What we see is that information, complex codes, models and scientific theory are interpreted and reconstructed by labour division in a group (Dillenbourg, 1999). It is the cumulative collection of interpretations of a group, not yet the group cognition (Stahl, 2006) of collective knowing. Or as Hartmann et al., (2015) interprets this, as an endogenous form of constructivism: the source of knowledge construction is the individual processes. No new artefacts are created collectively. You can regard it as a kind of individual cognitive learning. Cognitive learning on a group level where the social interaction scaffolds the individual interpretation of information. So reading a book with others gives you access to interpretations of information by others that helps you to reconstruct the knowledge represented in school textbook. This is because you see things you did not notice or others together contribute more foreknowledge than your own. Communication then becomes learning. It focuses on what is known already and the subjective learning in the mind of (Popper’s world 2 (refered by Bereiter, 2002) school books and standard tests. It is effective in an improved study achievement (David W Johnson et al., 2000).
What epistemologically develops is an awareness that people think differently and interpret differently and you can learn from each other. Social interactive process skills are learnt together with dialogue to understand content.
The difference between cooperative and collaborative learning is roughly described by Dillenbourg: “(…)in cooperation, partners split work, solve subtasks individually and then assemble the partial results in the final output. In collaboration, partners do the work “together” (Dillenbourg, 1999, p. 8). This doing together is according to Dillenbourg a process by which individuals negotiate and share meanings. The difference lies in the fact that, in collaborative learning, the knowledge construction is not an assembly of individual understandings, such as in cooperative learning, but collaborative, group interactions such as negotiations and sharing of meanings (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006, 2014).
According to Beers, Boshuizen, Kirschner, & Gijselaers, (2005; 2008) collaborative learning can be characterized as social interaction focusing on the development of a common ground and shared knowledge. The two are formed through negotiation and knowledge exchange. This may be in a dialectic conversation of agreeing and disagreeing with messages, making your position known to group members, posting rejections to messages that are unintelligible or objectively incorrect in the eyes of someone else. A process from unshared knowledge externalisation to knowledge construction integration takes place (Beers et al., 2005, see fig. 1). Despite this formalism of the process, their studies show different effects concerning, for instance, reaching a common ground (Beers et al., 2005).
However, the main point is that groups are seen as a major source of knowledge construction with a social and interactive dimension (Miyake & Kirschner, 2014). This social dimension involves aspects such as interdependence, social and task cohesion, group potency and psychological safety. Often these social aspects are underestimated in (Computer Supported) Collaborative learning (CSCL) in contrast to co-construction and constructive conflict in the sharing and meaning making group process (Kreijns & Kirschner, 2003). In this social process learning ability in the sense of (co-)regulating content and community processes is vital for people to become used to share knowledge, deepening their own and common understanding and creating further insights (De Laat, De Jong, & Ter Huurne, 2000).
Stahl (2006, 2010) emphasises much more group cognition and collaborative knowledge building as the character of collaborative learning. One could call this kind of knowledge building ‘co-creation’ of knowledge. Stahl describes that this happens in an ecology where teachers act as facilitators and less as instructors or in the case of CS computer environment act to “supports the interactions among the students themselves” (Stahl, 2006, p. 3). According to Stahl, collaborative knowledge building is effective when the group is engaged in high level cognitions of “thinking together about a problem or task and produce knowledge artefacts like verbal problem clarification, a textual solution proposal, or a more developed theoretical inscription that integrates their different perspectives on the topic and represents a shared group result that they have negotiated” (Stahl, 2006, p 3).
The eco-semiotic process in collaborative learning can be seen as a dialectical negotiating in small groups (Hartmann et al., 2015) about the difference in signs, information, consisting of the different individual opinions, perspectives formed from individual eco-semiotic process based on their own experience (world 1) and information of schoolbooks (world 2), perhaps also scientific information (world 3) and the perspectives of others in the collaborative group. The sharing of the perspectives and the negotiation, debate, discussion is the process of finding common ground for the co-construction of a group knowledge perspective.
The interactions with others reveals the difference in individual perspectives, which form a source of knowledge. Hartmann et al., (2015) indicate this in the context of collaborative learning as a dialectical process. So a social interaction where the difference is synthesized in a process of thesis and anti-thesis becomes a group cognition. Others are important in (CS)CL in getting to know the difference between the various interpretations of individuals as a source to understand by negotiating them in group dialogue, debate, discussion and arriving at a consensus or perspectives of what a phenomenon, theory is about or what a creative solution is for a problem or question in the context of a learning or work task.
In the social interaction the personal practical experience (world 1) and the ideas of the personal subjective mind (world 2) become part of the collective conversation and knowledge construction process. This thinking the past may reveal different modes of thinking, old ways of looking at particular phenomena. In the first place this is in the ecology of ideas of the subjective mind (world 2). Students develop an epistemic awareness of the common ground and subjectivity, the man-made character of knowledge artefacts.
From a transition viewpoint, where multidisciplinary approaches are desirable, collaborative learning has, for example, high potential because of the negotiability of knowledge and the interdependent process of finding a common ground and cohesion in something such as group cognition (whatever this epistemological means). Learning becomes knowledge construction and is no longer a solitary individual process, but also a group process.
Knowledge building (Bereiter, 2002; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006a)(Bereiter, 2002; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006a) or knowledge creation (Nonaka, 2006; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003; Nonaka, 1994) concerns the same processes, although knowledge building is more education related and encompasses a greater range of concerns (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014). Both certainly consist of the social and group dynamic processes as is the case in collaborative learning. However, the latter does not always include the systematic, methodological, empathic and hermeneutic process of knowledge creation (see also Kukkonen this issue). In knowledge building the social interactions are also an enculturation in world 3 of scientific knowledge, the world of conceptual artefacts.
Despite the formulated collaborative learning formalizations such as scripts (Dillenbourg & Hong, 2008), roles (Strijbos, 2004) or orchestrating graphs and workflows (Dillenbourg, 2015), they don’t support such an enculturation, but they do support the group process in CL. Tools in knowledge building environments support the development of ideas, theories, conceptual thinking and artefacts and enculturation in World 3. It refers to a set of social practices that advance the state of knowledge within a community over time (Paavola et al. 2004). The knowledge building principles are guidelines for idea improvement; they are not scripts, not linear steps to follow. The knowledge building principles “serve multiple purposes like pedagogical guides, technology design specifications, and evaluating ’existing’ practices” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2010, p. 9).
An example of this collaborative learning and knowledge building is described by Willemse, Boei and Pillen (2016) reporting on communities in which secondary teacher educators with a variety of educational background (eg. History, fysics, geography) collaboratively conducted research into shared problems identified from practice, thus supporting the process of collaborative learning and improving practice. This process contributed to shared languages, knowledge creation and improved practices.
According to Van Aalst, (2009, p. 260) knowledge creation involves more than the creation of a new idea; it requires discourse (talk, writing, and other actions) to determine the limits of knowledge in the community, set goals, investigate problems, promote the impact of new ideas, and evaluate whether the state of knowledge in the community is advancing. Van Aalst distinguishes three modes of discourse—knowledge sharing, knowledge construction, and knowledge creation.
Knowledge sharing refers to the transmission of information between people. According to Van Aalst, knowledge construction refers to the processes by which students solve problems and construct understanding of concepts, phenomena, and situations by making ideas meaningful in relating to prior knowledge and the problem situation mediated by social interactions within a group and technologies. Knowledge construction, with its emphasis on building on students’ prior ideas, concepts and explanations, and their metacognition, produces deeper knowledge in complex domains than does knowledge sharing (Bransford et al. 1999; Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007). Van Aalst connects knowledge creation to expertise of the situations, and the requirement of environments (companies, organizations, academic disciplines) where ideas are needed to sustain innovation in order to survive as an organization, being an organic system in a big relational world.
The big difference with cooperative and collaborative learning is that knowledge building takes you directly into the process of knowledge creation as the basis of education. It is “acquiring competence in knowledge creation by actually doing it” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014, p. 399). It is enculturating students in their role as collaborative knowledge creators in the sense of improving ideas. Knowledge building is much more an idea improvement centred process by means of collaboration in advancement of a community.
According to Scardamlia and Bereiter (2014; Bereiter, 2002) knowledge building derives from a Popperian epistemology e.g. Popper’s ”three world” ontology. Here world 3 consists of an objective knowledge world created by the human mind. It is knowledge in the form of conceptual artefacts which can be acted on as an object. So you can work with knowledge because you can grasp it, build on it, modify it and develop it further. This is different from co-constructing knowledge as in Collaborative learning.
In relation to education, Scardamalia and Bereiter (2014) put forward 5 of the 12 principles as vital themes. 1) Community knowledge advancement. Knowledge is not a proposition of a person, but of a culture and community and it contributes to the wisdom of the community and its members. 2) Idea improvement. There is not such a thing as a final truth, perfect theory, technology or living together. It can always be improved. All ideas can be improved and in this sense all ideas are valuable. 3) knowledge building discourse as a creative role instead of a critical role and a collaborative process. 4) constructive use of authoritative information. This means all kinds of information, first-hand experience, secondary sources, etc, that has value in the knowledge building process in a constructive transliteracy practicing. 5) Understanding as collaborative explanation building: producing principled practical knowledge by connecting concrete experiences to more generalizable knowledge. Knowledge building is innovation, based on ‘principle practical knowledge’ and theoretical concepts in a coherent explanation for practical use (know-how combined with know-why).
The process of knowledge building and co-creating as responsive learning
The Popperian ontological world 3 underlies the semiotic process in knowledge building. This world makes understanding knowledge possible because we can grasp the knowledge in its form as a conceptual artefact. A concept that can be dealt with as an object, that you can work with, build on, modify and improve.
Indeed, the conceptual artefact as such form an independent entity, but not the codes, signs, language of the mind’s thinking embedded in it. That is why a student might not receive and understand the whole insight, understanding of Jeroen (Jheronimus)Bosch’s world, given by him to the community when looking at his painting Last Judgment triptych (fig. 2).
To arrive at a responsivity for the embedded codes, symbol, and signs, the artefact has to come into the mind again so that you can build on it. You have to stand in front of a Rothko painting, according to his instructions as closely as possible, to become immersed in the life, the thought, the understanding of his world embedded in the artefact to experience the change in time, space and experience resonations of a reality. In this way you can experience the redefinition of essence, and perception of scale and matter looking at Anish Kapoor creatures (fig. 3). Going into the artefact and the artefact getting into our minds is a process of transformation of our frame of reference. This process is a starting point for opening up our mind to perceive signs, codes and information as they manifest themselves in our problem, question, complexity. It is the process of noticing difference and potentials that we never perceived and understood before.
Looking at a theory is like looking at any other conceptual artefact. One has to become engaged and has to explore the thinking of theory. It is these kinds of knowledge building conversations with the others in the artefact, and with others about the artefact in which relations, e.g. differences come into language in the conversation. Not as an individual property of the interlocutors. ‘What is’, is ‘laid down in the middle’ as a ‘rising above’ in collective, in community, as a common language of collective understanding (a hermeneutic ‘collective Verstehen’). The process is a rising above by a grounded language of understanding in which the ‘old thinking’ is revealed in its inclusive principles. Higher problem formulations and new syntheses are build. Partners, knowledge builders, in the conversation, ”transcend trivialities, oversimplifications and move beyond current (best) practice” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2010, p. 10; Scardamalia, 2002, p. 79).
The principle is the ‘knowledge building conversation’ which distinguishes itself from interpersonal dialectical dialogue, debate and discussion. The knowledge building conversation is not an adjusting to each other as partners in the conversation. Partners become engaged in the artefact, coming to the truth of the matter or praxis, under the resonation of understanding reality: a resonance of organic connectedness and dependency of our being as part of others and nature. Resonations that partners in the knowledge building conversation combine in a new common ground. In the ‘knowledge-building-conversation’ it is not merely against each other and putting your own positions forward, but a transformation into the common, into the collective. A transformation in which one does not remain who one was. (Gadamer, 1975, p. 360).
The epistemic development being involved in such a process consists of the experience that language and knowledge building conversation are a medium for individuals to understand by collective understanding. It is the development of a language of understanding the difference that makes a difference for theorie and practice. To learn thinking in organic systemic connectedness in which ‘the’ difference is a source for the interdependency of what we are and what is. Understanding that nothing is an isolated, stand-alone object, a fact, a problem, a situation, a person as such, but all of this is what it is because of the organic ever changing connectedness. So not only the facts but the relationships are important to understand as well. A knowledge building conversation discourse is what Kegan indicates as an epistemic development in not only ‘what’ we know but also of ‘our way of knowing’ (Kegan, 2009). The restructuring of the frame of receiving an artefact of reality, making it possible to question facts, consider perspectives, biases and historical roots of thinking of who created the artefact. In the knowledge building conversation discourse you experience the cross boundary reconceptualization of object, motive and history of an activity of possible expansive transformations in an activity system by exploring the cognitive and emotional connectedness (Engeström, 2009; S. Paavola et al., 2004).
Conclusion and principles
The experience of a gap or boundaries like in many articles in this issue, is actually is the lack of responsive learning in education. Bringing together research (e.g. an inquiry attitude and ability) practice and schools should be much stronger learning activities in supporting lstudents’ development. It is therefore important in developing learning environments in order to bridge imaginary gaps of crossing imaginary boundaries to be fully aware of what kind of learning is supported, and question yourself if responsive learning has space and is adequately covered and supported. Four guidelines can be taking in consideration in designing for responsive learning:
- Agency: more control for students of their mental activity (Bruner, 1996; De Jong, 1992) and improving students’ own ideas (epistemic agency; (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006a; De Jong, 2006; Scardamlia & Bereiter, 2014):
Students have ownership of their learning and ideas
- Culture: ‘coming into language’ of how the way we live and think and construct thought are embedded in the knowledge we claim as ‘reality’ and how our mind set perceives and interprets signs in the ecology we are part of (Bateson, 1987; ’reflection; knowledge is justified belief’, Bruner, 1996; ’rethinking assumptions’, Sterling, 2009):
Students question presumptions and ’realities’ of what they learn.
- Learning together: creating meaningful connections between individual and society by ‘coming into presence’ into an intersubjective space (Stroobants, & Wildemeersch, 2001; Wildemeersch & Stroobants, 2009). The sharing and negotiation of meanings to construct shared conceptions (Charmaz, 2014; Dillenbourg, 1999; Stahl et al., 2014); explanatory coherent practical knowledge, combining ‘know-how and know-why’ aiming at solving problems, guiding practice. Understanding through collaborative explanation (Bereiter, 2014; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014).
Students build new meaning together for solutions.
- Knowledge building: not simple ‘learning in the raw” (Bruner, 1996), ‘rote learning’, reproducing or solving a well-known problem, but a semiotic process of entering into a collective understanding, grounded in the consequences of the system of relations that makes a difference for life. (’community knowledge advancement’; conceptual understanding, enculturation in the world of creating knowledge; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014; Bereiter, 2002; De Jong, 2006; cultural artfacts, Stahl, 2006).
Students learn together and go beyond what is known and done.
How do these crucial ideas enter language in teachers’ interests, their passion for teaching, their questions, their drive to improve their teaching and education? The research presented in this issue may give us some insight in the state of art and which steps are still needed.
The next three articles are more conceptually oriented studies based on practice based research. Meijer and Kuijpers approach the relationship of educational researchers and practitioners in mode 2 research as a gap to be bridged. They come up with design principles rooted in different learning and instructional paradigms. Van den Berg approached the collaboration between researchers and practitioners not as a gap to bridge but as a crossing boundaries activity that requires particular abilities from both professional sides to get into a mutual learning mode and developing a transdisciplinary ability as teacher-researcher, especially in in case the educational issue is of a complex and persisting nature. Kukkonen actually jumps into what kind of learning experience that could be especially from a perspective of students. He comes up with five specific elements of good student learning experience, which in our opinion are not limited to first year UAS students. These three articles are a good conceptual base to read and go into the other articles and make up your own ideas how UAS education and practice (and research) could become more of an effective activity system in which students develop their competence and abilities.
The next three articles actually concern practices in which gaps between education and practice within professional fields are experienced and activities are undertaken to cross the boundaries. Heldal developed a process steering instrument to enhance systematic communication between stakeholders and students’ industrial doctoral research projects. Boehm et al. is an example in which the boundaries crossed between the disciplines of arts and social care with multi professional teamwork as a bridge. In the study of Cors and Robin a science education laboratory is the support to let students cross the boundaries of science in order to develop their ideas of the world of science. Like the other articles, also this study is interesting to read from the perspective of the collaboration and boundary crossing of researchers and educational practitioners.
The last five articles concern even more innovative UAS educational practices aiming to bridge or to cross the boundaries with practice. Helminen takes a progressive position by stating models, the issue of mentoring and being credited for developing nursing competence by learning in and from daily (paid) work. Alvaikko brings students, teachers and institutional partners together in living lab in which real life problems, acting in a real ecosystem and active user-involvement contributes to the knowledge creation. An arena in which teachers mediate between wishes of partnering organizations and curriculum requirements. Karjalainen et al. also use the idea of LABs for bridging education and working life to develop students’ 21th century skills by providing students a learning experience of creating new solutions and innovations across disciplines for a more ecological and sustainable responsible economy. Laukkanen bridges the gap between education and practice by the approach of entrepreneurial coaching leading from ideas, intention to concrete business actions. Besides a good description of the educational model of entrepreneurial coaching the article also goes into the expectations and experiences of students. The last article from Koponen gives insight in the importance of good dialogical feedback, an educational instrument which is relevant for all educational settings.
This special issue by EAPRIL and UAS-journal gives voice toUAS-research practitioners who are engaged and passionate in their work to make UASs an even better learning environment for students and professionals than they are already for developing relevant knowledge, skills, competence for their future work activities, for their personal and societal lives. Our wish is that more international issues will follow to exchange and share the work that is done internationally and to enhance the responsivity of education to the developments and needs in working life and society.
We like to thank authors, reviewers, Editor-in-chief Ilkka Väänänen, and UAS Journal editorial staff.
 These paragraphs are based on De Jong 2015.
 “Die Verständigung über die Sache, die im Gespräch zustande kommen soll, bedeutet daher notwendigerweise, dab im Gespräch eine gemeinsame Sprache erst erarbeitet wird. Das ist nicht ein äuberer Vorgang der Adjustierung von Werkzeugen, ja es ist nicht einmal richtig zu sagen, Dab sich die Partner aneinander anpassen. Vielmehr geraten sie beide im gelingenden Gespräch unter die Wahrheit der Sache, die sich zu einer neuen Gemeinsamkeit verbindet. Verständigung im Gespräch ist nicht ein blobes Sich-ausspielen und Durchsetzen des eigenen Standpunktes, sondern eine Verwandlung ins Gemeinsame hin, in der man nicht bleibt, was man war. “
Photo (spiderweb): Minna Scheinin
Frank de Jong, Aeres UAS, Wageningen the Netherlands
Martijn Willemse, Windesheim UAS, Zwolle, the Netherlands
Mauri Kantola, Turku UAS, Finland
Mervi Friman, HÄME UAS, Finland
Margaux de Vos, EAPRIL, Leuven, Belgium
[vc_tta_accordion active_section=”0″ no_fill=”true” el_class=”lahteet”][vc_tta_section title=”Reference” tab_id=”1458134585005-b3f22396-5506″]
Bateson, G. (1987). Steps To an Ecology of Mind. Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Northvale, New Jersey London: Jason Aronson Inc. Retrieved from http://www.edtechpost.ca/readings/Gregory Bateson – Ecology of Mind.pdf
Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 623–643. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.036
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahaw, NJ & London: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled Practical Knowledge: Not a Bridge but a Ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(February 2015), 4–17. http://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.812533
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the Knowledge Age: Design-Centered Models of Teaching and Instruction. In Handbook of educational psychology. (pp. 695–713). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2006-07986-030&site=ehost-live
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674179536/citeulike-21
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. The Culture of Education. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674179536/citeulike-21
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd editio). Los Angelos, USA: Sage.
De Jong, F. (2015). Understanding the difference (het veschil doorgronden). Responsive education: A search for “a difference which makes a difference” for transition, learning and education. Wageningen: Stoas Wageningen|Vilentum University of Appleid Sciences and Teacher Education. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3470.0562 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283788931_Understanding_the_Difference_Responsive_education_A_search_for_%27difference_which_makes_the_difference%27_for_transition_learning_and_education
De Jong, F., De Beus, M., Richardson, R., & Ruijters, M. (2013). Ecologically and Transdisciplinarily Inspired Research: Starting Points for Practitioner Research and Sustainable Change. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 10(2), 163–177. http://doi.org/10.1179/1477963313Z.0000000008
De Jong, F. P. C. M. (1992). Zelfstandig leren: regulatie van het leerproces en leren reguleren: een procesbenadering. Tilburg/wageningen The Netherlands: De Jong Frank. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4242.7602
De Jong, F. P. C. M. (2006). Doen, leren en kenniscreatie: Verstand en competentie. Den Bosch/Wageningen: Stoas Hoogeschool. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2669.8961
De Laat, M., De Jong, F., & Ter Huurne, J. (2000). Supporting a community of practice: the role of workers as learners. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (Vol. 2000, pp. 1619–1622).
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ’ collaborative learning ’? Collaborative Learning Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1(6), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1.1.167.4896
Dillenbourg, P. (2015). Orchestrating graphs, modeling scalable education (first edit). Lausane, Switzerland: EPFL Press.
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1
Engeström, Y. (2009). Expansive learning. Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning. learning theorists…in htier own words. (pp. 53–73). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Wahrheit und Methode. Wahrheit und Methode (4th ed.). Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebck).
Hartmann, C., Angersbach, J. C., & Rummel, N. (2015). SocialInteraction, constructivism and their application within (CS)CL theories. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschmann, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), CSCL 2015 conference proceeding, Vol. 2; Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015 (p. 967). Gothenburg: International Society of the Learning Sciences; University of Gothenburg. http://doi.org/978-0-9903550-7-6
Heikkinen, H. L. T., de Jong, F. P. C. M., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). What is (good) practitioner research? Vocations and Learning, 9(1). http://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-016-9153-8
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 67–73. http://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. In Educational Researcher (Vol. 38, pp. 365–379). http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods : A Meta-Analysis. Methods, 1, 1–33. Retrieved from http://www.tablelearning.com/uploads/File/EXHIBIT-B.pdf
Kegan, R. (2009). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Cooremporary theories of learning. Learning theorists…in their own words (p. 235). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 403–420. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.028
Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563202000572
Loeser, J. W. (2008). Cooperative Learning. Cooperative Learning — Research Starters Education, (612), 1. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050002315
Magee, B. (1974). Popper. Antwerpen: Uitgeverij het Spectrum.
Miyake, N., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). The social and interactive dimension of collaborative learning. In R. k Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of The learning sciences (second edi, p. 776). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nonaka, I. (2006). Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory: Evolutionary Paths and Future Advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179–1208. http://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606066312
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 2–10. http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500001
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective Cognitive Responsibility for the Advancement of Knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal edcuation in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court. Retrieved from http://ikit.org/fulltext/inpressCollectiveCog.pdf
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010). A Brief History of Knowledge Building Une brève histoire de la coélaboration de connaissances. Society, 36(1), 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/574
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 397–417). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamlia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: theory, pedagogy, and technology. (R. K. Swayer, Ed.) (second edi). New York.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative Learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 315–342. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050002315
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement : What We Know , What We Need to Know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Analysis. http://doi.org/10.3115/1149293.1149376
Stahl, G. (2010). Group cognition as a foundation for the new science of learning. In New Science of Learning (pp. 23–44). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences. (pp. 409–425). Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2014). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 409–425). Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press.
Sterling, S. (2009). Sustainable Education: Re-Visioning Learning and Change. eric.ed.gov. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED464791\npapers://33432778-ef7b-4391-ae67-220f9c46620d/Paper/p2409\nhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Sustainable-Education-Revisioning-Schumacher-Briefings/dp/1870098994
Strijbos, J.-W. (2004). The effect of roles on computer-supported collaborative learning. Citeseer, doctoral, 244. Retrieved from http://www.ou.nl/documents/Promoties-en-oraties/Promoties/Promoties2004/Dissertation_Strijbos_Online_rev_041101.pdf
Stroobants, V., Jans, M., & Wildemeersch, D. (2001). Making sense of learning for work. Towards a framework of transitional learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education. http://doi.org/10.1080/02601370121184
van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5
Wildemeersch, D., & Stroobants, V. (2009). Transitional learning and reflexive facilitation : The case of learning for work. In K. Illeris (Ed.), (pp. 219–232). Cambridge,: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from http://philpapers.org/rec/WILTLA
Willemse, T.M., Boei, F., & Pillen, M. (2015) Fostering teacher educators’ professional development on practice-based research through communities of inquiry. Vocations and learning, 9(1), 85-110.