Teachers’ External Networking: Expanding Pedagogical Practices in Finland

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine Finnish teachers’ experiences of pedagogical activities carried out in collaboration with external stakeholders. For examining teachers’ cross-sectoral networking practices, we interviewed 63 teachers across six schools in Finland’s capital area, focusing on how external networks are utilized to enrich pedagogical practices. Content analysis was performed to examine who teachers collaborate with, how the partnerships are initiated and maintained, as well as what are the hindering factors limiting cross-sectoral collaborative activities. The analysis revealed external stakeholders at three network levels: 1) city, 2) school and 3) personal teacher level. Similarly, factors hindering cross-sectoral collaboration were related to 1) teacher’s personal 2) schools’ systemic and 3) institutional systemic factors. The results show that cross-sectoral activities are rarely collaborative in nature but appear instead as coordinated activities. Moreover, current organizational structures do not provide sufficient support to individual teachers to expand learning environments with external stakeholders.

Introduction

In today’s knowledge-driven societies, solving complex problems and creating innovation necessitates collaboration with diverse actors, integrating a variety of perspectives, expertise, and resources (Hakkarainen et al., 2017; Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017). The present educational system, in contrast, is still too isolated from the surrounding society, and prevailing pedagogical practices principally take place in classrooms (Hakkarainen et al., 2015; Rajala, 2019), although educational reform efforts are transforming teacher-led practices into more collaborative ones in Finland (e.g. Ahonen et al., 2023; Kokko et al., 2021). The purpose of this study is to examine Finnish teachers’ experiences of expanding the pedagogical contexts of school learning through pedagogical activities carried out in collaboration with external public and private stakeholders. Such pedagogical activities refer to teaching methods that are connected to students’ lives, communities and the outside world, entailing student’s social participation in various cultural settings and where real-life problems with different creative solutions are encountered. Crossing boundaries between schools and other cultural settings provides enriched learning opportunities, assists in connecting formal and informal learning (Ito et al., 2013), encourages the application and creative use of knowledge (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011), and fosters students’ overall learning and development.

Connecting learning across institutions and cultural settings

Crossing boundaries between sites, both within and across institutions and cultural settings, carry a high potential for learning: novel perspectives can be found, knowledge and understanding deepened, and novel epistemic practices learned (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). Furthermore, expanding the pedagogical activities beyond school premises and traditional educational practices, characterized by closed problems and the reproduction of pre-given knowledge, may assist in narrowing the gap between students’ formal learning in school settings and informal learning in authentic settings (Hakkarainen et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2013). Community partnerships provide additional resources for enriching and extending teaching and learning environments (Epstein, 2019; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012; Tiippana et al., 2024). For instance, in the contexts of science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics education (STEAM), such partnerships provide authentic contexts for solving complex real-world problems in collaboration with museums, science centers and other institutions (Bertrand & Namukasa, 2020; Kangas et al., 2013; Korhonen et al., 2014; Kukkonen, 2020). Therefore, embracing this learning potential by actively utilizing the opportunities for school, home, and community partnerships, as well as expanding the formal educational setting, better equips students to survive and thrive in innovation-driven knowledge societies (Epstein, 2019; Ito et al., 2013).

Previous research has argued that cross-sectoral collaboration between educators and external stakeholders deliver benefits that are greater than the sum that each partner could have achieved alone (Irfan, 2021; Rajala, 2019). However, only limited information about implementing educational cross-sectoral partnerships, such as how collaboration is initiated and what the targeted aims might be is available. The literature usually focuses either on school–private sector collaboration where the primary focus is on facilitating school-to-work transitions (e.g. Flynn et al., 2016; Rusten & Hermelin, 2017), or on school–third sector collaboration, where organizations operating in the space between government and private businesses provide supplementary and complementary services and learning contents to schools and promote civic participation among students (e.g. Cohen & Eyal, 2021; Eyal & Berkovich, 2019). Further, there is often a fundamental difference in the motives of stakeholders. Whereas schools’ overall motive is the student’s growth as a person, other actors might impose more direct interests such as profit-orientated outcomes (Flynn et al., 2016). Schools and external stakeholders may, further, have contrasting ideological agendas (Eyal & Berkovich, 2019; Yemini et al., 2018). Moreover, the wider impacts of external networks, such as ethical issues, power relations, mutual exchange, and co-learning through school–stakeholder partnerships, including governmental, private businesses and nonprofit sector organizations, have not been discussed in depth (Eyal & Berkovich, 2019; Kukkonen, 2020; Yemini et al., 2018). The nature of collaborative pedagogical activities engaging external partners also differs considerably, depending on the level of collaboration, from aligning processes (coordination) to sharing tasks to complete a project (cooperation), and to eventually sharing a vision of creating something new (collaboration) (Lahti et al., 2004; see also Engeström et al., 1997).

Nevertheless, considering the complementary cultural, epistemic and practical resources of school-community partners, innovative ideas can be converted into educational solutions and can create value for both students and partnering organizations (Flynn et al., 2016). The present study helps to fill this research gap and clarifies with whom educators collaborate and how external partnerships are organized and applied in Finnish urban area schools to enrich pedagogical practices.

Teachers’ innovative professional activity and networks as a means of school development

Expanding pedagogical activities beyond the school context requires that teachers engage with external stakeholders and thereby build cross-contextual networks. Cross-sectoral networking is, however, a challenging and potentially distressing process of breaking social and epistemic barriers (Packer & Goicoechea, 2000). It requires teachers to reconstruct their professional roles and to re-design and re-orchestrate their pedagogical practices in collaboration with community partners, which necessitates a high level of epistemic fluency among teachers (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017). Nevertheless, by initiating collaboration with external stakeholders, teachers are able to build their professional competence and networked expertise (Hakkarainen et al., 2004, 2017) in terms of accessing novel epistemic resources, exchanging knowledge and experiences, and thereby expanding their pedagogical repertoire and improving their collaborative professional capabilities. Advancing cross-sectoral collaboration in the educational context requires holistic and systemic changes in school cultures and practices (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Lavonen & Korhonen, 2017). A fundamental aspect of systemic change in schools is encouraging teachers’ innovative professional activity (Vermeulen et al., 2022). Teachers’ innovative professional activity entails the creative exploration and adoption of new methods, collaboration with colleagues, ongoing reflection when addressing educational challenges, enhancing students’ learning experiences, and meeting emerging educational needs.

Improving schools and student achievement through teacher collaboration networks (within and between schools) is the current focus of schools in many countries (Moolenaar et al., 2012; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Educational researchers, practitioners and policy makers are gradually acknowledging teacher networks and professional learning communities (PLCs) as effective strategies in pursuing pedagogical and systemic school improvement and overall development of school culture (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Owen, 2015). Research shows that dense professional network structures among teachers are related to the schools’ innovative climate, and are associated with strong teacher involvement in decision-making (Moolenaar et al., 2011; Owen, 2015). Previous studies also indicate that well-connected within and between school teacher networks are associated with strong teacher collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000) and improved teaching quality supporting student achievement (Moolenaar et al., 2011, 2012; Trust et al., 2016). Co-teaching is considered to improve teachers’ professionalism and wellbeing (Ahonen et al., 2023). Furthermore, teachers who are centrally positioned in teacher network(s) tend to have positive views of the innovation climate of their school (Moolenaar et al., 2011). However, teachers’ innovation efforts are critically dependent on the support of both school leaders and municipalities (Messmann et al., 2018). This being said, teachers’ transformative efforts should be legitimized by giving them designated roles in pursuing innovation work and in sharing knowledge within and between schools (Messmann et al., 2018; Reinius et al., 2022; Tiippana et al., 2024).

Educational practices are gradually moving from the solo-teaching that characterizes enclosed classrooms into more collaborative practices entailing more intensive collegial collaboration from co- or simultaneous teaching to multiprofessional arrangements of interdisciplinary study units (Härkki et al., 2021; Kokko et al., 2021). Within this development, bonding social capital (e.g. Mulford, 2007; Virtanen et al., 2013) associated with reciprocal collegial bonds becomes important (Daly et al., 2010; Frank et al., 2004; Penuel et al., 2009; Yoon & Baker-Doyle, 2018). It is critical for exchanging complex knowledge, making coordinated efforts to locally adapt innovations, and for sharing personal support (Coburn et al., 2012). It is also important to break down the boundaries of school and teacher networks and to collaborate with diverse external stakeholders, and, thereby, build bridging social capital (Hakkarainen et al., 2017; Kumpulainen, 2013; Lahti et al., 2004; Mulford, 2007; Tiippana et al., 2023; Virtanen et al., 2013). However, little attention has been given to cross-contextual collaboration between teachers and partnering stakeholders representing other professions as a means of school development. Further, McCormick et al. (2011) have argued that interrelations between bonding and bridging social capital should be examined. Accordingly, there is a need to understand how teachers’ collegial networks are linked with cross-sectoral ones, and to comprehend what happens when teachers and students move from one institutional space to another. Further, well-connected teachers should be considered epistemic brokers who exceed their professional boundaries and utilize their personal network linkages in order to share novel pedagogic ideas and practical experiences when cultivating networked learning at schools (McCormick et al., 2011).

Due to their high level of education and high degree of autonomy, Finnish teachers are expected to apply novel educational practices and solutions to their teaching (Lavonen & Korhonen, 2017). For instance, the education provider in the Finnish capital area has established strategy objectives guiding educators to follow the principle of “the entire city as a learning environment” (School District Office of Helsinki, 2016). According to this principle, a portion of lessons is to be held in premises outside the school building. There are also policy objectives guiding teachers’ practices in order to support students’ school transition phases (“school path”), making for a more cohesive collaboration between day care, preschool, and primary and middle school teachers and pupils.

It has generally been acknowledged in Finland that professional teachers are competent and empowered to connect learning across settings, communities and learners’ lives. However, building networks and partnerships requires novel competencies from teachers (Epstein, 2019; Hakkarainen et al., 2017; Kumpulainen, 2013; Rajala et al., 2016). Opening up schools to the surrounding society requires systemic educational change; such changes are, however, slow, cyclical processes that require considerable effort and time (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Lavonen & Korhonen, 2017).

Research aims

The purpose of this study is to investigate educators’ experiences on cross-sectoral, pedagogical collaboration with their external stakeholder networks. The focus is especially on activities in which students are involved, hence teachers’ professional development-related cross-sectoral activities are excluded in the analysis. This study describes how external partnerships are applied to enrich pedagogical practices and examines what kind of stakeholders teachers and schools partner with. This study also examines how the partnerships are initiated and maintained, and what are the factors that hinder the building of external networks. The research questions are as follows:

1. What kind of collaborative pedagogical activities are teachers engaged in with external stakeholders?

   1. How and by whom is the external collaboration initiated and maintained?

   2. With whom do they collaborate?

2. What are the factors hindering successful networking practices?

Method

Context, participants and data

The research was conducted in the context of a multidisciplinary research project Growing Mind aiming at educational transformation and at supporting educators in their professional learning at schools in the capital area of Finland. The research data consist of semi-structured educator interviews (N = 63) including 57 teacher and 6 principal and vice-principal interviews. The interviewees represent six different schools; two comprehensive schools and four primary schools (Table 1). Interviewees were selected to represent various grades, various roles (school leadership, classroom and subject teachers, special needs teachers). Their teaching experience varied from one to forty years, and 76% of teachers were female.

Table 1. Number of participants per schools and roles.

School		Role					Totals
ID	Comprehensive/ Primary school (Students age, years)	Classroom teacher	Classroom and subject matter teacher	Subject matter teacher	Special needs teacher	Principal & Vice principal	Total	%
A	Comprehensive (7-15)	3	2	4	2	2	13	20
B	Comprehensive (7-15)	5	0	2	1	1	9	14
C	Primary (7-10)	5	1	0	2	1	9	14
D	Primary (7-12)	11	0	0	3	0	14	23
E	Primary (7-12)	4	4	1	1	1	11	17
F	Primary (7-12)	3	1	2	0	1	7	11
	Total	31	8	9	9	6	63	100
	%	50	13	14	14	9	100	100

The same interview frame was applied in each interview, with slightly varying questions according to respondents’ leadership or teaching role. The interview frame contained a total of 30 questions on schools’ operating culture, pedagogical practices, teachers’ internal and external collaboration practices, professional development aspirations, and experienced school development needs.

Data analysis

Transcribed interview data were coded, structured and analyzed in Nvivo. Two researchers coded the data, with one being responsible for categorizing the coded references. Categories were confirmed in reoccurring meetings consisting of three researchers (authors), of which two were senior researchers. The first author was involved in conducting all stages of the data collection and analysis. First all the transcripts were read, and then all contents relating to collaboration with external stakeholders were categorized, summarizing this data into descriptive codes (Saldaña, 2016). We included all text segments where stakeholders’ or organizations’ names were mentioned: we collaborate with the [city district] music academy (C2), which described what kind of activities the collaboration represented: we went to see a theater performance (A12), and noted how collaboration was initiated and maintained: As the person responsible for sports and physical education, I am in touch [with external stakeholders] every now and then; a tennis course was organized, for example, last year (D19). We also examined those text segments that described the educators’ experiences of external collaboration to figure out which factors were hindering collaborative activities: And maybe you can’t always search for or don’t know how to look for [a collaboration partner]. In a way, we can’t find each other. (E7)

Subsequently, we reviewed the coded text references and decided to disregard references related to pupils’ participation and students’ welfare group activities (the welfare group consists of the school nurse, school psychologists and other welfare officials), as we considered them to be the schools’ internal actors and practices. We also disregarded references related to teachers’ professional development-related activities, such as participating in trainings, courses and development projects, as they were not pedagogical activities conducted with pupils, and, therefore, did not match the research interest of this study. Eventually the final coding structure of collaborative pedagogical practices with external stakeholders (a total of 490 references) was categorized into three networking levels: city, school and teacher level, further assorted according to network types and several stakeholder categories. Network levels and stakeholder categories are presented and explored in detail in the following results section.

Results

Teachers’ external networks and collaborative pedagogical practices

The analyses performed to answer the first research question indicated that there are actors at three levels that teachers collaborate with (Figure 1). First, city level networks are imposed and organized at the city level and are utilized among all schools in the region. Second, school level networks are initiated and maintained at school level, either by the principal, or collectively by teachers through an agreed coordinating teacher. And third, teacher level networks are initiated and maintained by individual teachers according to their personal interests and personal connections.

Figure 1. Initiation and maintenance of collaboration in different types of school networks.

City level networks

Common city level networks are imposed by city-level agreements and executed by schools and teachers according to their needs, wishes and schedules. We considered that city-level networks consisted of two network types: a) public actors and b) school path actors with other schools, preschools, and day cares (Table 2).

Table 2. Common city-level networks.

Network type (Number of coded references) Stakeholder category	N^a teachers/schools	Illustrative excerpt from interviews^b
Public actors (90)	35/6
Library	25/6	Then another one [partner] is our local library. Which we visit relatively often, and just now we’ve visited the library for the first time with my third graders, and we’ve already booked a Helsinki-themed book talk session for November. (E7)
Arts Centers	18/5	Well now it has been, let’s say every year, as I have now taught 3-4 graders for a while, very good collaboration with art education, in the art center of (name of the premise). (B4)
Congregations	19/6	And then of course, I’m cooperating with the (name of the city district) parish now, as it is one of my team’s tasks. We attend the Christmas church and then the Easter church. So we organize these and it runs quite naturally for us. (A2)
School path actors (30)	15/6	Well, there are those preschool groups and those preschool teachers who I collaborate with. (F9)

^aNumber of teachers/schools collaborating with stakeholder(s) in each category.

^bAll excerpts have been translated from Finnish into English by the first author, Netta Tiippana.

Common city-level networks represented public actors, such as libraries, arts & culture centers and church congregations. Analysis indicated that these city-level partnerships were generally well known among educators and were used by all participating schools. According to educators, there were long traditions and well-established procedures on both sides when collaborating with various city-level partners. Educators considered that these partnerships were beneficial and enriched regular instructional practices. In particular, services and collaboration with libraries as well as with arts and culture centers were popular and were even perceived as being necessary to fulfill teaching goals. Educators experienced operating with these partners to be very functional and straightforward. For instance, on the partners’ side, there were assigned contact persons, agreed grade levels for specific arts and culture activities, and operations were adjusted to the schools’ and classes’ schedules and annual plans. However, the nature of these partnerships was not ‘collaborative’ in the sense that pedagogical activities were not jointly planned and executed by teachers and partnering organization representatives. Instead, activities were planned and facilitated by either the partner or the teacher. For instance, partnering organizations provided the facilities and/or the content and the teacher brought the students. According to educators, the start of these activities was two-directional and both parties, either the school’s or the stakeholder’s contact person, would agree upon the activity, visit or event. There were various way in which schools internally organized collaboration with city-level partners. The principal from school A stated that in their school the responsibility for coordinating the collaboration fell upon the teachers:

The youth center, the library, the parish, there is a lot there, and we have teachers responsible for running it [collaboration with stakeholders]. And there are also various cultural institutions, and again there is the teacher who is in charge and coordinates those things. (A33)

Similarly, one of the teachers explained that also in school F there were coordinating teachers who were responsible for collaboration.

It’s usually the teachers who are the ones responsible and they coordinate things together. (F10)

School path actors represent collaboration between day care, preschool, elementary grades and secondary grades. Aim of this type of collaboration is to prepare students for upcoming transitions from school form to another and mitigate the impact of the transition as usually the transition has implications in the form of different teachers, premises, peers and operating culture. Educators explained that requirement of carrying out school path collaboration is imposed by regional school authority. Nevertheless, planning and implementation responsibility is on the schools’ side, practically with teachers. In practice principal/school leadership cascades the responsibility to relevant teachers who are teaching the classes in transition phase. These teachers pointed out that they plan and execute collaborative pedagogical activities together with the teachers in the partnering day cares, preschools, and secondary schools. Hence, the activities are planned and executed in a collaborative manner and hence can be considered collaborative in nature.

School-level networks

Shared school-level networks were initiated and maintained at the school level. A larger variety of stakeholders were involved in school-level networks compared to city-level networks. The interviewees mentioned diverse stakeholders who varied according to the school’s location, emphasis and goals. The principal’s and teachers’ own interests influenced with whom the cooperation was established. Although these partnerships were described as continuous and long-lasting, they were not necessarily very intense. We identified three network types to be included in school-level networks: a) community actors, which represented various public and private actors as well as associations and other actors, b) home and school actors, and c) wellbeing and preventive actors (Table 3).

Table 3. Shared school-level networks.

Network type (Number of coded references) Stakeholder category	N teachers/schools	Illustrative excerpt from interviews
Community actors (68)	32/6
Arts and culture	7/3	And then I’m [collaborating] with the (name of the city district) music academy. I’m participating in the role of a music teacher, so we’re collaborating in the form of various small concerts and other projects in which I’m involved. (C9)
Clubs, hobbies, sports	13/5	We’ve had sports clubs, for instance a tennis club (name) has been training us. (D12)
Youth work	11/5	When I was a preparatory class teacher, we had very close collaboration with the local youth center. So, we ran a project with the youth counselor, and we saw each other at least every couple of weeks or so with the students. [The counselor] was either at school, or we were with [the counselor] at the youth center or somewhere (B21)
Municipalities, social actors, associations	8/4	We collaborate with the environmental services of the city region (name). (…) We’re going to tour a sewage purification plant, and maybe there’s some kind of training for teachers included for three hours. But we have been here earlier too, and then someone from there has come to our school to present things (C6)
Public authorities	7/3	By the way, these solid partners, like the fire department, there’s an agreement there, and they’ll contact us if we forget. (F3)
Other	6/4	Those school grandmas, pensioners, they came here to read with the children (E11)
Home and school actors (110)	37/6	Well, probably the parents’ committee is one of the partners at the school. But with that, probably the biggest [events] are some of the fairs like the Christmas fair, and when they get funds from there, they organize a concert or a theater show or something like that. (F3)
Wellbeing and preventive actors (29)	11/4	And then we’ll have that, that… a new job description, that coach. There has been a need [for the coach]; there is a field of work between the teaching staff and the student welfare group that is not filled by child protection and child psychiatry. (A16)

Regarding shared school-level collaboration with community actors, the practices and the amount varied considerably depending on the school. Teachers in some schools mainly used common city-level networks and there were no clear school-level partners, whereas educators from some schools named several stakeholders with whom their school engaged in collaborative activities. It appeared that the role and proactivity of the leadership had a significant impact on how committed and large-scale the partnerships were. In school C, the principal had initiated numerous longstanding partnerships with local operators. These partnerships on the one hand provided after-school activities to students and thereby enabled simple forms of collaboration, for example with local sports clubs. On the other hand, mature and refined collaboration with a local music institute enriched the school’s music curriculum by bringing arts education within everyone’s reach and by lowering the threshold of instrument training for all.

It’s now been about fifteen years since I’ve put together a selection of clubs, that is, all those regional operators who are willing and able, have run clubs free of charge. (C10, principal)

Then, the music academy. Right, I was familiar with the principal there, and we started this project, bringing basic art education into everyone’s reach. That is, musical instrument coaching and free student places at the academy. (…) And really, you would get playing lessons at school, so it would be like beginning with a low threshold. So that is the collaboration pattern with the music academy right next door. (C10, principal)

It was characteristic of the educators’ interviews that if the principal had coordinated the school level networks, several teachers in this school mentioned these external stakeholders, which indicated the school-level commitment. Alternatively school-level partnerships were collectively initiated and maintained. Distributing ownership to teams and sharing responsibilities were considered to ease up single teachers’ workload when not establishing one’s own network of external actors. For example, teachers coordinated external networks through an agreed coordinating teacher, or assigned teacher teams according to subject matter expertise or grade levels to be responsible for initiating partnerships in certain subject areas, as in schools A and D:

We have a management team that has actively gathered actors from outside and they have come here a couple of times, three times a year. (…) The teachers per class levels consider together who they’ll call and where they’ll go and the teachers’ teams have felt that this [external collaboration] will develop transversal skills. (A16, principal)

When it [networks coordination] comes through the [teacher] team, it means that everyone doesn’t need to manage their own network for things like that, but it can be handled also somewhat centrally when we have a school this size. (D6)

In addition to collaboration initiated and maintained by teachers, the proactivity of external stakeholders also appeared to play an important role in network creation. Some (n = 7) teachers discussed receiving post and emails from local operators advertising collaboration opportunities. Whether the collaboration is then actualized or not is rather incidental, and depends on the timing, situation, interest and role of the receiver.

Naturally, collaboration among home and school actors was also discussed by many (n = 37) educators. Teachers described collaboration with parents being mainly regular information sharing and communication. Although teachers mentioned annual assessment discussions with each pupil and their parents as a common practice, contact with parents was only mentioned typically in relation to more specific cases, such as students’ additional need for support. Parents were usually seen as an inherent part of the school community, and educators debated among themselves whether parents are actually considered to be internal or external partners. More reciprocal parental activities and involvement, such as collaborative planning related to schoolwork, were also raised. Parents’ proactive cooperation appeared in the form of school-level parent associations and class- level parent committees, and was mainly limited to organizing fairs or fundraising events. There were also a few teachers (n = 9) who mentioned that parents participated in special activity days and teaching sessions on specific topics.

Lastly, activities with wellbeing and preventive actors varied depending on the school. It appeared more characteristic¹ of middle schools (Schools A and B) than primary schools that educators discussed collaboration with actors who enforced student wellbeing. Especially principals and special needs teachers in middle schools described the school-level collaboration that the schools conducted with actors such as school coaches,² social workers, therapists and youth workers. Furthermore, they referred to incidents where collaboration with child welfare and protection as well as psychiatric nurses had been conducted in their schools.

Teacher-level networks

Personal teacher-level networks were initiated and maintained by individual teachers according to their personal interests and personal connections. We considered that teacher-level networks consisted of two network types: a) community actors, such as various public and private actors as well as with associations and other actors, and b) excursions and expert visits (Table 4).

Table 4. Teacher-level networks.

Network type (Number of coded references) Stakeholder category	N teachers/schools	Illustrative excerpt from interviews
Community actors (71)	14/5
Arts and culture	4/3	The Sibelius Academy together with the Finnish National Opera and other [stakeholders] jointly organized a project “Listen, I compose”, so I’ve always had a couple of students involved in it, which means that they [the students] get to compose their own piece together with the professionals, which is then performed in a big hall in the Music Hall. (E7)
Exercise and sports	6/2	As I’ve been teaching sports [physical education] for a long time, I have this (name of a club] judo club here close by [as a partner]. And I’ve been working together with them for a really long time. And I have always participated with my students. There was also some research done on children’s exercise, and for a long time I’ve always had classes there. (E6)
Language education and international networks	4/2	and there is now one school from Austria, through my own connections, with which we cooperate, but it’s not … official or bigger than that. (F3)
Social actors and municipality, associations	3/3	I’m thinking that during Christmas time we would go there [assisted living house for seniors] to make people happy, that it could really be anything depending on the group in the old people’s home, it could be some song performance from us to them or doing crafts together, or something. (D15)
Student trainees	4/2	I’ve had students studying to become music teachers… er, having students practising for a few years in a row now with me. So they have done their first teaching practice in my class. (E7)
Excursions and expert visits (96)	34/6
Arts and culture	8/3	We went to see a theater performance (A12)
Exercise and sports	3/2	I organized so that all the classes in our school went to familiarize themselves with this kind of [martial art] sport, Taido. I’ve practised that myself so it was easy, in a way. (D15)
Community and society	15/4	It depends a little on the year, that sometimes there is some non-governmental organization or others that I have invited to visit… Amnesty and others, it’s like that, it’s random. (A2) Now, in the entrepreneurship study unit in the sixth grade, I have now run it twice, so I make use of my friends who are working in marketing and such. (A5)
Science, nature and environment	10/5	These [studying beyond school premises] are more like this, that let’s go to Harakka (Name of the premise) nature center to have a nature school day, or to Meriharju’s (Name of the premise) nature house. (E9)
Sights	20/6	…or we go to a museum and we make use of these opportunities over here. (F10)

The analysis indicated that activities conducted with personal teacher-level community actors were either well-utilized or non-existent, depending on the teacher. Teachers who continuously used external networks in their teaching were enthusiastic about the possibilities and extra resources gained through partnerships. They had created their own system of communicating, scheduling, and organizing collaboration with their partners, and usually carried on with these collaborative activities year after year.

For example, we have done process work together with the National Theater in such a way that there is kind of an initial event at the beginning, information sharing. And then there are sections to be worked on in class, and lessons held by the teacher. And then there is a workshop again at the theater and a theater performance, which is really cool. (E9)

Typical of teacher-level networks was that they were closely related to classroom teachers’ interests and subject teachers’ subject matter. For instance, international networks were initiated and maintained by language teachers, whereas music teachers were connected with orchestras, opera, and music teacher trainees. Overall, long-term teacher-level collaborations focused mainly on partners in the area of arts (visual arts, music, drama), as well as sports and physical exercise. Additionally, educators discussed collaboration with actors representing social and municipality centers involving activities with, for instance, elderly citizens.

The analysis revealed that the final network type, excursions and expert visits, were the commonest and most popular type of networks that educators used. A good half of the teachers (n = 34) listed without any effort numerous public premises, sights and centers that they had visited with their students as well as guests they had invited to their classrooms. The premises and actors mentioned often related to arts and culture, exercise and sports, society, as well as nature and the environment, e.g. nature schools, bird watching, fishing and so on. Excursions were described as low threshold networks due to easy access; these types of activities were actually not experienced as a particular ‘collaboration’, in the sense that the pedagogical activities were not collaboratively planned with the stakeholder involved. Instead, teachers individually planned and reasoned their visits in order to supplement their teaching, to augment curricular topics and to enrich the learning experience of the students.

Well, for example these kind of visits, they are like low-threshold activities, the type of activity that we really go out there, visit somewhere where there is something that we are not able to offer here at the school, not able to show here. (A20)

Teachers and principals shared a similar view of initiating and maintaining teacher-level networks—school leadership empowered and encouraged teachers to individually coordinate external partnerships and excursions:

Oh, I don’t even know everything what those teachers of ours make use of. Sure, all sorts of people at all sorts of time come to visit us. And our students go wherever and whenever, well, yes … Yes, the teachers know that I don’t coordinate those [external stakeholder activities]. (A16, principal)

The principal from school E described further how educators in their school are obliged to execute the city-level strategic goal and policy objective of utilizing public premises to enlarge learning environments:

Then we have this [city-level] objective that six percent of lessons must be held outside of school. So then we’ll go on a field trip, and (name of the city district) is a great location, so we can walk here and there, to some wonderful learning environments, or we’ll jump on a tram and go to [name of the] library. But now you have to leave the school. Last year it was five percent, which means it was nine and a half days that you had to be elsewhere from school, now it’s six percent and it’s probably a little over ten days. About a good fifty hours. (E1, principal)

Factors hindering teachers’ external networking practices

To answer the second research question, we examined educators’ descriptions of hindering factors regarding their external networking practices. Hindering factors were categorized into three main categories 1. Teachers’ personal factors, 2. Schools’ systemic factors and 3. Institutional systemic factors (Table 5).

Table 5. Factors hindering teachers’ external networking practices.

Hindering factors
1. Teachers’ personal factors	a) Effort and time. Requires too much effort and organization from individual teachers
	b) Arrangements and skills. Difficult to organize and initiate partnerships; requires skills that are currently lacking
2. Schools’ systemic factors	c) Un-organized. No agreed school-wide systems to coordinate external activities
	d) Hectic days. Problematic to match external activities with hectic and busy school days
3. Institutional systemic factors	e) No tradition. External pedagogical partnerships is a marginal approach and no tradition exists in the educational field
	f) Lack of funds

Teachers’ personal factors

Even though teachers possessed a positive mindset toward external collaboration and had preliminary ideas of collaborative activities with external stakeholders, many teachers described several reasons why they were unable to proceed with their plans. Teachers pointed out that contacting potential partners require a) effort and time beyond teaching hours, which they feel is too draining. Teachers thought that initiating and maintaining relationships alone, as a single teacher, is too heavy a workload, and they felt that it is not feasible with current resources and time allocations.

So now it’s been five weeks [since the start of semester] and this thing [external collaboration] has been on my mind, but somehow I feel like there are always more important things. And especially my own wellbeing; it feels like I just don’t have the strength to do it. Always… somehow even that sort of matter becomes so hard… sort of hard to start contacting someone. (E10)

Now I’ve thought that we will go to that old people’s home close by. But then even these things require making arrangements and being in contact with them on your own time. (D15)

We also considered b) arrangements and skills as a factor hindering teachers’ networking practices. Some teachers mentioned that finding suitable partners is challenging, and they are insecure about how to look for collaboration opportunities. Teachers further explained that single events are easier to arrange than recurring profound collaboration with a partnering organization as they consider collaborative planning and mutual facilitation to be demanding. Teachers also mentioned that working together with a partner related to special content areas and that required them to delve into and familiarize themselves with a new field.

Schools’ systemic factors

Educators stated that schools and teachers have an excessive number of opportunities and choices for networking and partners, especially in large cities and in the capital area as is their case. However, collaborative practices are c) un-organized, and there does not appear to be a school-wide coordination and strategy on external networking. According to educators, public and private stakeholders in the neighborhoods are in fact frequently approaching schools, however their emails reach randomly either school leaders, individual teachers or are left to certain teachers who represent specific subject areas. This is described as an uncontrollable email flow, leading to uncertainty by whom and how these prospect partners and invitations should be dealt with. Educators raised the point that stakeholders’ communication is often hard to anticipate and requires prompt reactions, which conflicts with teachers’ practices, as they need to integrate collaborative activities into weekly and annual plans of the class and the school.

We get offers as well, of course … And then, in a way, the downside is that sometimes we get some message so suddenly. Say, the principal then forwards it to the teachers (…) and then it’s something that’s about to start soon, we don’t seem to have time to react. In a way, it should more predictable. Sometimes it seems that those parties who approach the school, they don’t always understand that they can’t do it like that. Like announce right away that this or that will start next week. You don’t necessarily have time to build that thing in. (B3)

Teachers also referred to d) hectic weekdays. Schools already have many internal activities that disrupt teachers’ normal work day routines, and create frequent ‘fuss’ in the form of adjusting schedules and coordinating changes. Hence, additional deviations due to external collaborative activities are not necessarily desirable to teachers. Some teachers also mention that teachers’ job descriptions have recently changed drastically and there are already increasing requirements concerning internal collaboration (e.g. team teaching within school) as well as increasing the number of visits and fieldtrips (e.g. city-level strategy objectives), which are felt to be time consuming. This consequently interferes with the planning of collaborative teaching and learning periods with external stakeholders.

In this everyday school life it [external collaboration] has been something that has unfortunately been needed to cut back. Because it requires that “Okay, now I’ll find out who it is out there who would be the one, who can come and tell us about this topic, where can I find his contact information, and when is a convenient time for him.” And so this pattern has been cut out, because now it’s necessary to get this everyday life going a little first. (A20)

Institutional systemic factors

Some educators raised the point that co-designing a learning unit in collaboration with external partner is a rather controversial idea and there is e) no tradition for such a pedagogical practice. One of the teachers further explained that this tradition is lacking across schools and in the entire educational field, and perhaps therefore applying collaborative practices is not gaining popularity among teachers.

Well, I honestly don’t know. Maybe it’s rather a new idea that there should be such an actor with whom we would work longer together. …maybe it does not have that much of a tradition yet. (E7)

Another teacher wondered whether external collaboration was rather marginal. Perhaps teachers were reserved about showing interest in networking if they felt they would face judgment and criticism from their peers. Few teachers discussed the idea that the mindset of ‘let’s do things as they have always been done’ might explain why cross-sectoral collaborative activities were not advancing well in schools. Furthermore, interviews revealed some level of caution toward motives of commercial actors, but on the other hand one of the teachers was doubtful whether commercial operators would even have any interest in collaborating with schools and students. Another hindering factor raised was teachers’ conservative and rather possessive approach to lesson frameworks and traditional classroom-based teaching methods. One of the teachers argued that since external collaborative activities are cross-disciplinary in nature, teachers’ sticking with subject-specific lesson frameworks would ruin the possibilities of collaboration. On the other hand, collaborative pedagogical activities would require seeing the benefits of a non-linear pedagogical approach and expanded learning environments. Finally, f) funding was noted as a hindering factor by only a few interviewees, as they felt that chargeable external activities limited teachers’ choices in networking.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate Finnish teachers’ experiences of pedagogical activities carried out in collaboration with external stakeholders, thereby expanding the contexts of school learning. To overcome the gap in previous literature, we focused specifically on pedagogic activities that were carried out together with students and appeared to be cross-sectoral in nature.

Key findings

The first research question concerned what kind of cross-sectoral collaborative pedagogical practices teachers applied, and with whom, as well as how and by whom collaboration was initiated and maintained. The analysis indicated that there were three network levels that the teachers collaborated with: 1. common city-level, 2. shared school-level and 3. personal teacher-level networks. Collaborative activities initiated at the common city level were experienced operationally as practical and contentwise rewarding by educators. Yet, the number of these public actors was rather minimal, limited to only a few such as libraries, regional arts and culture centers, and church congregations. Teachers and students actively participated in the programs offered by these actors, but the activities were not jointly designed and rarely jointly facilitated either.

Shared school-level collaborative activities which were initiated and organized by principals appeared to be actively adopted by all teachers within a school. Although collaboration with shared school-level actors would have been a desired practice among teachers, it was a rather scarce arrangement among participating schools. Positive experiences regarding functional common city-level and exemplary school-level partnerships highlight the fundamental role of leadership, both by education providers (city level) and principals (school level), in order to cultivate opportunities to utilize public and community actor networks. Regarding personal teacher-level networks, collaborative practices and long-term partnerships initiated and utilized by individual teachers were either actively used or non-existent depending on teachers’ activities, personal interests and connections. Excursions and visits were highly utilized networking type, which, however, did not require actual collaboration between teachers and external stakeholders, but appeared more like the coordination of activities for one-off visits.

The second research question addressed factors perceived by teachers to hinder their networking practices with external actors. The analysis revealed three hindering factor categories. Firstly, in the context of teachers’ personal factors, the interviewees pointed out that initiating cross-sectoral pedagogical partnerships is challenging and causes a heavy workload, especially if initiating and maintaining partnerships relied on individual teachers. Secondly, schools’ systemic factors entailed that there were generally no school-wide strategies on external networking, and the initiation of associated collaborative practices was often rather un-organized at the school level. And thirdly, institutional systemic factors referred to teachers’ thinking, where cross-sectoral collaboration was seen as a marginal pedagogical approach with a lack of previous tradition.

Interpretation and implications

The present investigation provide information of various stakeholders that teachers networked with from personal to school and city level. Beyond identifying teachers’ networking partners, it is also important to consider the quality of these networks. Teachers’ roles, in fact, differed greatly depending on whether the shared activities required the alignment of processes (coordination), sharing tasks to complete a project (cooperation), or sharing a vision to create something new (collaboration) (Hakkarainen et al., 2004; see also Engeström et al., 1997). Here, ‘collaboration’ is considered to entail socially shared participation in joint activity requiring the highest level of commitment from both sides. The results indicated that the nature of teachers’ networks and activities conducted with cross-sectoral actors varied considerably. The majority of the discussed cross-sectoral activities in all three network levels (i.e. city, school, teacher level), could be seen as ‘coordination’ and ‘cooperation’ in nature, because of the limited synchronization of activities. It was, for instance, common that an external actor was responsible for the content or provided the premise, and the teacher brought the students.

However, there were also some examples of ‘collaboration’ in the sense of shared vision and shared planning and facilitation with cross-sectoral actors among the schools studied. For example, school-level collaboration with the music academy where novel organizational and pedagogical practices were designed together in order to integrate new contents to curriculum, and to enable instrument training to all students seemed to represent ‘collaboration’ in a sense of visioning together novel pedagogical solutions. Cross-sectoral collaboration as a highest level of shared activity requires educators to cross socio-cultural and epistemic boundaries (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011), and thereby carries the most potential for learning and creation of networked expertise. These are higher-level competencies that arise from sustained collaborative efforts to solve problems and build knowledge together (Hakkarainen et al., 2004, 2017). Nevertheless, our results indicate that teachers experienced creating networks as burdensome and even challenging. This is understandable because building networks requires novel competencies from teachers (Epstein, 2019; Lavonen & Korhonen, 2017; Rajala et al., 2016) such as being able to engage in multi-professional collaboration (Kumpulainen, 2013). Hence, building professional learning communities, such as the nationwide Innokas Network³ in Finland (Korhonen et al., 2014), supports teachers in developing the required networked competences and the entire school culture and innovative climate (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Owen, 2015; Vangrieken et al., 2015).

Transformation from a solely operating teacher toward a collaborative professional, interconnecting with cross-sectoral stakeholders requires systemic reconstruction of teacher practices, school structures and learning principles (Ahonen et al., 2023). This kind of systemic change at schools is a slow process (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Lavonen & Korhonen, 2017). A key role in building individual and collective networking capabilities rests with those active teachers who innovate and try out new pedagogical approaches to enrich learning and teaching in their own classrooms. When their work is recognized it contributes to the learning and development of the entire school (Reinius et al., 2022; Vermeulen et al., 2022). Moreover, recent school reform efforts promoting co-teaching practices within schools (eg. Ahonen et al., 2023; Kokko et al., 2021) are likely to support the development of external and cross-sectoral co-working practices (Mulford, 2007). On the one hand, individual teachers’ mental and practical workload in network building is shared with peer teacher(s). On the other hand, organizational structures and pedagogical approaches are already shaped at the school level to support collaborative working practices. This development gradually allows fuller and more systematic utilization of communal and cultural resources and opportunities in the surrounding community (Kumpulainen, 2013). It also diminishes the existing gap between formal and informal learning (Hakkarainen et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2013).

Overall, the networked society gradually urges schools to follow societal evolution toward networked learning in order to integrate the educational system into the practices of the surrounding society and to secure students’ ability to participate in this networked society. The expansion of learning networks due to the digital technology revolution and the increase in global connections, has forced educational policy makers to prompt researchers to develop more innovative pedagogical methods in collaboration with school practitioners (e.g. Korhonen et al., 2023; Tiippana et al., 2023). Networked learning is centered on the social, personal and technological challenges of our time and raises the issue of the accomplishment of individual and collective goals (Goodyear et al., 2004). McCormick et al. (2011) have suggested developing networking thinking among schools. They argue that school leaders need to be aware of the informal and personal networks of their teachers and give them opportunities to develop networks and networking capabilities (McCormick et al., 2011). To complement our findings, for future studies it would be relevant to investigate how to build the capacity for schools to support not only collaborative activity but networking capabilities (Frank et al., 2004; Mulford, 2007; Virtanen et al., 2013). The networked society together with the digital transformation of education calls on teachers to cultivate their transformative agency (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017; Stetsenko, 2017), to proactively build networks and to conduct pedagogical and professional innovations in collaboration with external stakeholders.

Limitations

This study involved tracing teachers’ experiences of pedagogical activities carried out in collaboration with external stakeholders. In order to provide a comprehensive view of such practices across the teacher community as a whole (rather than merely focus on active innovation), our study involved interviewing 57 teachers and six principals from six schools. However, the participants were from urban area schools in Helsinki, Finland’s capital, which provide many opportunities for networking with external stakeholders. Hence networks in smaller communities or rural areas regarding collaboration opportunities with external stakeholders is likely to look different. The interviews provided content-rich knowledge of the practitioners’ networking practices across the micro (personal), meso (school) and macro level (city). A limitation of the study, however, was that the stakeholders’ perceptions of collaboration with the schools were not documented. We did not, moreover, carry out actual social network analysis, such as tracing educators’ eco-centric networks. It would have also been desirable to provide a more detailed description and analysis of pedagogic activities enacted when collaborating with external stakeholders. Nevertheless, the study produces valuable information on teachers’ practices of expanding learning environments by multi-level collaboration with external stakeholders.

Ethical approval

University of Helsinki Ethical review board in humanities and behavioral sciences Statement 20/2018, accepted 6.6.2018.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Strategic Research Council of the Academy of Finland, Project Growing Mind, Grant numbers 312527 and 336064.

Notes

1 Eight out of eleven participants discussing wellbeing and preventive actors came from the two middle schools, Schools A and B.

2 School coaches work with other school staff as safe adults who, among other things, meet and listen to pupils, prevent bullying and loneliness as well as promote a sense of community and good team spirit. (City of Helsinki website).

3 The Innokas Network encourages schools to arrange their own activities that support the learning of 21st century skills and to participate in education development. The Innokas network comprises over 750 schools throughout Finland. For more information, see https://www.innokas.fi/en/.