Ecologies of Practice



Through current research evidence, anecdotal experiences portrayed in the research to praxis sections and country-specific images of practice, we hope the chapters of this book have highlighted the tremendous potential and power of the adolescent developmental period. Education systems, schools and teachers all play important roles in how the schooling experience of adolescents unfolds. Since such a significant portion of their sense of self develops through their interactions and explorations with people and ideas at school, we can no longer leave to chance what happens during the middle years of learning. Bringing the science and research of adolescence and adolescent schooling to life through the lens of story was the best way we believed we could help our readers see just what is possible when we deliberately create a learning environment suited to the unique developmental needs of these learners. The images of practice brought to life in the pages of this book cross cultural and linguistic borders of countries, whose education systems reflect policies and practices deeply rooted in long-held beliefs about what it means to be an educated citizen of the country. Common to the images of practice from all three countries, however, is the constant search for how to ameliorate the schooling experience for adolescent learners by challenging the existing discourse on what is believed to be possible during the middle years of learning.


  1. Alberta Education. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Retrieved from
  2. Alberta Education. (2013). Ministerial Order (#001/2013) goals and standards applicable to the provision of education. Retrieved from
  3. Altrichter, H., et al. (2017). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht: Unterrichtsentwicklung und Unterrichtsevaluation durch Aktionsforschung. Stuttgart: UTB.Google Scholar
  4. Buchhaas-Birkholz, D. (2009). Die “empirische Wende” in der Bildungspolitik und in der Bildungsforschung. Zum Paradigmenwechsel des BMBF im Bereich der Forschungsfonsforsc. Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(39), 27–33.Google Scholar
  5. City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.Google Scholar
  6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunleavy, J., Milton, P., & Willms, J. D. (2012). Trends in intellectual engagement. What did you do in School Today? Research Series Report Number Three. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.Google Scholar
  8. Felten, M. (2016). Nur Lernbegleiter? Unsinn, Lehrer!: Lob der Unterrichtslenkung. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
  9. Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching effectiveness: A framework and rubric. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.Google Scholar
  10. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Aho, J., & Korhonen, H. (2015). Ope ei saa oppia: opettajankoulutuksen jatkumon kehittäminen. Jyväskylä: University of JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  11. Helmke, A., & Schrader, F.-W. (2014). Angebots-Nutzungs-Modell. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch -Nutzungs-Modelljankoulu (pp. 149–150). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  12. Hunziker, D. (2017). Hokuspokus Kompetenz? Kompetenzorientiertes Lehren und Lernen ist keine Zauberei. Bern: Hep.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, D., & Temperley, J. (2007). From professional learning community to networked learning community. In Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jardine, D., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2008). 21st Century learning and learners. Western and Northern Canadian Curriculum Protocol.Google Scholar
  15. Kahl, R., & Fratton, P. (2014). Lass mir die Welt, verschule sie nicht!: Warum Leben und Lernen unzertrennlich sind. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  16. Kunter, M., & Trautwein, U. (2013). Psychologie des Unterrichts. Paderborn: Scherborn.Google Scholar
  17. Leithwood, K. (2006). Transformational school leadership in a transactional world. In The Jossey-bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 183–196). San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Liessmann, K. P. (2014). Geisterstunde: Die Praxis der Unbildung. Eine Streitschrift. Vienna: Paul Zsolnay Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Lipowsky, F. (2016). Unterricht entwickeln und Lehrpersonen professionalisieren. Ans unzertrennlich sindF im Bereich der Forschung. P terrich, 66(7–8), 76–79.Google Scholar
  20. McKinsey & Company. (2009). Shaping the future: How good educations systems can become great in the decade ahead. Report on the international education roundtable, Singapore.Google Scholar
  21. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. (2014). Helsinki: National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. (2016). Opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisohjelma. Helsinki: Lönnberg Print & Promo.Google Scholar
  23. Park, A. (2014). An introduction to discipline-based inquiry learning. [Video]. Retrieved from
  24. Rasfeld, M., & Spiegel, P. (2012). EduAction – Wir machen Schule. Hamburg: Murmann Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Rautiainen, M., & Kostiainen, E. (2015). Finland: Policy and vision. In T. Corner (Ed.), Education in the European Union (pp. 91–108). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Riegel, E. (2005). Schule kann gelingen. Wie unsere Kinder wirklich fmproved-schoolen. Frankfurt: Fischer.Google Scholar
  27. Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Rumble, P., & Aspland, T. (2009). In search of the middle school teacher: What differentiates the middle school teacher from other teachers. Conference presentation, October 3, 2009. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Google Scholar
  29. School Health Promotion Study 2015. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare.
  30. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., et al. (2006). Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change., 7(4), 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suoranta, J. (2003). Kasvatus mediakulttuurissa. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
  32. Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development, The educational practices series – 18. J. Brophy (Ed.). Brussels: International Academy of Education & International Bureau of Education.Google Scholar
  33. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration Wellington. New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Scholar
  34. Trautmann, M., & Wischer, B. (2011). Heterogenitdiakulttuurissa. Mitja-asiantuntijatyo/vaes. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  36. Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement (First National Report). Toronto: Canadian Education Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Calgary Board of Education, University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Universität HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations