Quality Education

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Theory-Practice Integration and Sustainability

  • Petra SchneiderEmail author
  • Frido Reinstorf
  • Raúl F. Vázquez Z
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69902-8_10-1

Synonyms

Definition

According to Collin and Tynjälä (2003), the integration of theory and practice has been recognized as one of the key questions in the development of professional expertise and vocational competence. The integration of theory and practice supports a holistic view on economic, social, and environmental issues and highlights systemic thinking as well as theory-practice integration (TPI) in the educational context. A comprehensive approach to reach this scope is the Teaching-Research-Practice Nexus as framework for bridging potential gaps in education, that is, research and practice and teaching and practice, but also their interrelation with policy. TPI addresses sustainability in its whole dimension and is, as such, relevant for all SDGs. The global aim is anchoring sustainability in all dimensions of daily life as well as on all educational levels. SDG 4 is about quality education for all, and TPI is a powerful instrument on all...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The current manuscript was prepared in the context of the development of the project “Water Management and Climate Change in the Focus of International Master Programs (WATERMAS),” funded by the Erasmus+ Program of the European Union. In this regard, this manuscript reflects only the views of the authors; as such, the European Union cannot be held responsible for these views or any future use of them.

References

  1. Aditomo A, Goodyear P, Bliuc A-M, Ellis RC (2013) Inquiry-based learning in higher education: principal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations. Stud High Educ 38(9):1239–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amadio M (2013) A rapid assessment of curricula for general education focusing on cross-curricular themes and generic competences or skills, background paper prepared for the UNESCO education for all global monitoring report 2013/4 teaching and learning: achieving quality for allGoogle Scholar
  3. Armijo C, Puma A, Ojeda S (2011) A set of indicators for waste management programs. 2nd international conference on environmental engineering and applications, IPCBEE, vol 17. IACSIT Press, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  4. Barth M, Rieckmann M (2012) Academic staff development as a catalyst for curriculum change towards education for sustainable development: an output perspective. J Clean Prod 26:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartz-Beielstein T (2006) Forschendes Lernen – vom Bachelor zur Promotion in den Ingenieurwissenschaften. In: Berendt B et al (Hrsg) Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre 3 75 16 04. Griffmarke C 2.36.Google Scholar
  6. Bell T, Urhahne D, Schanze S, Ploetzner R (2010) Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. Int J Sci Educ 3(1):349–377.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802582241. Bibcode:2010IJSEd..32..349BCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beecher M, Sweeny SM (2008) Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. J Advan Acad 19:502–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brew A, Jewell E (2012) Enhancing quality learning through experiences of research-based learning: implications for academic development. Int J Acad Dev 17(1):47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cambers G, Chapman G, Diamond P, Down L, Griffith AD, Wiltshire W (2008) Teachers’ guide for education for sustainable development in the Caribbean Published by the UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean OREALC/UNESCO Santiago. ISBN: 978–956-8302-91-7. Available online: www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001617/161761e.pdf
  10. Carlucci D, Marr B, Schiuma G (2004) The knowledge value chain: how intellectual capital impacts on business performance. Int J Technol Manage 27(6/7):575–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen HS (2011) Political participation beyond the vote: how the institutional context shapes patterns of political participation in 18 western European democracies, Åbo Akad. FörlGoogle Scholar
  12. Collin K, Tynjälä P (2003) Integrating theory and practice? Employees’ and students’ experiences of learning at work. J Work Learn 15(7/8):338–344.  https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620310504828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deming WE (1982) Out of the crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, p 88. ISBN 0-911379-01-0Google Scholar
  14. Dostál J (2015) Inquiry-based instruction: concept, essence, importance and contribution. Palacký University, Olomouc.  https://doi.org/10.5507/pdf.15.24445076. ISBN 978-80-244-4507-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ecarius J, Miethe I (2011) Methodentriangulation in der qualitativen Bildungsforschung. Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen. ISBN: 978-3-86649-333-9Google Scholar
  16. Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks – triple bottom line of 21st century business. New Society Publishers, Stoney CreekGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellis RA, Ginns P, Piggott L (2009) E-learning in higher education: some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. High Educ Res Dev 28(3):303–318.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360902839909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evrarda D, Laforesta V, Villota J, Gaucherb R (2016) Best available technique assessment methods: a literature review from sector to installation level. J Clean Prod 121(10):72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerholz K-H, Liszt V, Klingsieck KB (2015) Didaktische Gestaltung von Service Learning – Ergebnisse einer Mixed Methods-Studie aus der Domäne der Wirtschaftswissenschaften. bwp@Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik – online, Ausgabe 28, 1–23Google Scholar
  20. Geschwind L, Broström A (2015) Managing the teaching–research nexus: ideals and practice in research-oriented universities. High Educ Res Dev 34(1):60–73.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham-Matheson L (2010) Research informed teaching. In: Graham-Matheson L (ed) Research informed teaching: exploring the concept. Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury. ISBN 9781899253753, Read more at http://create.canterbury.ac.uk/view/creators/Graham-Matheson=3AL=2E=3A=3A.html#EjsL376hGixB6jyB.99Google Scholar
  22. Gresty KA, Pan W, Heffernan T, Edwards-Jones A (2013) Research-informed teaching from a risk perspective. Teach High Educ 18(5):570–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grosu C, Almășan AC, Circa C (2015) Difficulties in the accounting research–practice–teaching relationship: evidence from Romania. Account Manage Inf Syst 14(2):275–302Google Scholar
  24. Ishikawa K (1968) Guide to quality control. JUSE, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  25. Ishikawa K (1990) Introduction to quality control. 448 p. ISBN 4-906224-61-X OCLC 61341428Google Scholar
  26. Kinney WR Jr (1989) The relation of accounting research to teaching and practice: a “positive” view. Account Horiz 3:119–124Google Scholar
  27. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development, vol 1. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. Lang DJ, Scholz RW, Binder C, Wiek A, Stäubli B (2007) Sustainability Potential Analysis (SPA) of landfills e a systemic approach: theoretical considerations. J Clean Prod 15(2007):1628e1638Google Scholar
  29. Laws D, Scholz RW, Shiroyama H, Susskind L, Suzuki T, Weber O (2004) Expert views on sustainability and technology implementation. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 11:247e61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leal Filho W, Salomone M (2006) Innovative approaches to education for sustainable development. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  31. Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  32. Linser S (2002) Critical analysis of the basics for the assessment of sustainable development by indicators. Schriftenreihe Freiburger Forstliche Forschung, vol 17. Forstwirtschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Freiburg und Forstliche Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt Baden-Württemberg, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  33. McElroy M (2003) The new knowledge management: complexity, learning and sustainable innovation. Butterworth-Heinemann, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Meier A (2006) Theorienutzungskompetenz als Schlüsselqualifikation von Lehrkräften. Überlegungen zu einem Grundauftrag von Pädagogischen Hochschulen. In: Nakamura Y et al (eds) Theorie versus Praxis? Pestalozzianum, Zürich, pp 89–106Google Scholar
  35. Mohamedunni Alias Musthafa MN, Sajila KM (2014) Reconsidering the teaching–research nexus in higher education. High Educ Future 1(2):123–138.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631114539871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moschner B, Anschütz A (2010) Kombination und Integration von qualitativen und quantitativen Forschungsmethoden in einem interdisziplinären Forschungsprojekt. In: Diethelm I, Dörge C, Hildebrandt C, Schulte C (eds) Didaktik der Informatik - Möglichkeiten empirischer Forschungsmethoden und Perspektiven der Fachdidaktiken. 6. Workshop der GI-Fachgruppe DDI in Oldenburg. Köllen Verlag, Bonn, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  37. Norris P (2008) Driving democracy: do power-sharing institutions work? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. OECD (1993) OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews e a synthesis report by the group on state of the environment. Environmental monographs, vol 83. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), ParisGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD (2008) Curriculum framework for teaching on sustainable development. www.oecd.org/greengrowth/41372200.pdf
  40. Reinstorf F, Schneider P, Rodriguez Tejeda R, Santos Roque L, Vazquez RF (2019) Water management and climate change in the focus of international master programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. In: Leal Filho W., Barbir J., Preziosi R. (eds) Handbook of Climate Change and Biodiversity. Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham, pp. 1–23. ISBN: 978-3-319-98680-7,  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98681-4_1Google Scholar
  41. Roetman PEJ, Daniels CB (2011) Creating sustainable communities in a changing world. Adelaide: Crawford House Publishing, p. 262Google Scholar
  42. Schneider P, Lüderitz V (2018) Integration of Ecosystem Services as Part of the Nexus Approach into the Applied Teaching of Ecological Engineering. In: Leal, W. (eds) Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. World Sustainability Series, pp 369–387.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_22. ISBN: 978-3-319-63006-9 (online first 2017)Google Scholar
  43. Schneider P, Folkens L, Busch M (2018) The Teaching-Research-Practice Nexus as Framework for the Implementation of Sustainability in Curricula in Higher Education. In: Leal Filho W. (eds) Implementing Sustainability in the Curriculum of Universities. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham, pp. 113–136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70281-0_8. ISBN: 978-3-319-70280-3 (online first 2017)Google Scholar
  44. Seifert A, Zentner S (2010) Service-learning – Lernen durch Engagement: Methode, Qualität, Beispiele und ausgewählte Schwerpunkte, Eine Publikation des Netzwerks Lernen durch Engagement. Freudenberg Stiftung, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  45. Stappenbelt B (2013) The effectiveness of the teaching–research nexus in facilitating student learning. Eng Educ 8(1):111–121.  https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2013.00002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tremp P, Futter K (2012) Forschungsorientierung in der Lehre: Curriculare Leitlinie und studentische Wahrnehmungen. In: T. Brinker & P. Tremp. (Hrsg.). Einführung in die Studiengangentwicklung (S. 69–80). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann VerlagGoogle Scholar
  47. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations – Sustainable Development knowledge platform. 25 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  48. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2014) Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/fieldoffice/beirut/ESD. Accessed 10 Oct 2019
  49. van den Broek G (2012) Innovative research-based approaches to learning and teaching. OECD education working papers, no. 79. OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/5k97f6x1kn0w-en
  50. Weggeman MCDP (1996) Knowledge management: the modus operandi for a learning organization on increasing the yield of the knowledge production factor. In: Schreinemakers JF (ed) Knowledge management – organizational competence and methodology. Würzburg, Ergon-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  51. Weggeman MCDP (2000) Kennismanagement: de praktijk. Scriptum, SchiedamGoogle Scholar
  52. Zeichner KM (1983) Alternative paradigms of teacher education. J Teach Educ 34(3):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petra Schneider
    • 1
    Email author
  • Frido Reinstorf
    • 1
  • Raúl F. Vázquez Z
    • 2
  1. 1.Department Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and SafetyUniversity of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-StendalMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Dirección de Investigación (DIUC)University of CuencaCuencaEcuador

Section editors and affiliations

  • Rudi Pretorius
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa