From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance
in Education
This page intentionally left blank
From Pedagogy to Quality
Assurance in Education:
An International Perspective
EDITED BY
HEIDI FLAVIAN
Achva Academic College, Israel
United Kingdom – North America – Japan – India – Malaysia – China
Emerald Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK
First edition 2020
© 2020 Edited material Heidi Flavian © 2020 chapter content to the respective authors
Reprints and permissions service
Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in
any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise
without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting
restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA
by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those
of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of
its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’
suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-83867-107-5 (Print)
ISBN: 978-1-83867-106-8 (Online)
ISBN: 978-1-83867-108-2 (Epub)
Contents
Author Biographies
vii
Acknowledgements
xiii
Part I: Introduction
Chapter 1 From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education:
An International Perspective
Heidi Flavian
3
Part II: Education and Schools
Chapter 2.1 Critical Thinking Pedagogy and Quality
Assurance in the United States
Valerie Lovegreen
13
Chapter 2.2 Proposal to Promote Quality of Education:
A View from Spain
Ernesto López-Gómez, Raúl González Fernández,
Antonio Medina and Samuel Gento
29
Chapter 2.3 The Management and Assurance of Quality
in Romanian Schools
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache, Ruxandra Folostina and
Teodora Michel
45
Chapter 2.4 Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for
Educational Quality Assurance in Turkey
Nükhet Çıkrıkçı, H. Eren Suna and Yurdagül Günal
63
Chapter 2.5 Congruence Between Pedagogical and Assessment
Approaches: A Case of One Large Province in South Africa
Bongani D. Bantwini
87
vi
Contents
Part III: Special Education
Chapter 3.1 Inclusion of Children with Special Needs as
an Opportunity to Increase the Quality of Teaching in Israel
Bilha Paryente and Heidi Flavian
103
Chapter 3.2 Inclusion, Diversity and Quality in the Mexican
Educational Context: Perceptions of Teachers in the State
of Sonora (Mexico)
Manuela Guillén Lúgigo, Blanca Valenzuela and
Reyna Campa Álvarez
117
Part IV: Higher Education and Adult Education
Chapter 4.1 Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai Higher
Education Institutions
Buratin Khampirat, Narupollawat Hastindra Na Ayudhaya and
Phanommas Bamrungsin
129
Chapter 4.2 Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
Ineta Luka, Andra Fernate, Rita Birzina and Tamara Pigozne
155
Index175
Author Biographies
Phanommas Bamrungsin received her M.Ed. from Asia-Pacific International
University, Thailand. She is a Lecturer of Mahamakut Buddhist University,
Mahapajapati Buddhist College. Her teaching mostly emphasises on educational
areas. Thus, her published researches are also based on educational areas such
as cooperative education, peace for female education, quality assurance and
Buddhist education.
Bongani D. Bantwini is a Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Education at Walter
Sisulu University, Butterworth Campus, Eastern Cape Province South Africa.
He is a Fulbright scholarship Fellow and has received both his Masters and
PhD degrees in Elementary Education with a focus on science education from
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. He has held various
positions as a science teacher, lecturer, professor and as a researcher both in the
USA and South Africa. He has conducted several small to large scale research
and evaluation studies, and wrote a number of successful grant proposals. His
research interest includes primary school science education with a focus on
teacher professional development, teaching and learning, science education
reforms and school district issues focussing on districts role in supporting teachers,
relationship of districts with schools and district leadership. He has several single
and co-authored publications in national and international refereed journals and
continues to contribute in his field.
Rita Birzina is from the University of Latvia, Latvia. She is the Dr. paed., Senior
Researcher, Head of several teacher education programmes at the Faculty of
Biology. She is also the author of 45 papers on biology didactics, developing
scientific and digital literacy, e-learning, LLL in internationally reviewed editions
and three book chapters on e-learning in HEIs. She is a Member of ASEM LLL
Hub, Research NW1 ‘Development of ICT skills, e-learning and the culture
of e-learning in LLL (e-ASEM)’, Co-convenor of EERA NW11, Secretary of
Doctoral School ‘Human Capacity and Life Wide Learning in Inclusive Contexts
of Diversity’ and the Council of Biology Professors.
Reyna Campa Álvarez is a Research Professor at the Universidad de Sonora,
México, in the Department of Psychology and Communication Sciences of the
Social Sciences Faculty.
viii
Author Biographies
Narupollawat Hastindra Na Ayudhaya has been an English Teacher in both public
and private university in Thailand since 2006. He is currently studying a degree
of Doctor of Management in Cooperative Education at Suranaree University of
Technology, Thailand. His research interests include English language instruction, quality assurance, workplace language and cooperative education.
Dr Nükhet Çıkrıkçı (Demirtaşlı) is from the İstanbul Aydin University. She
obtained her BSc and MSc degrees from Psychology and Psychometry, respectively,
at Hacettepe Üniversity. She completed her PhD in Educational Measurement
and Evaluation at Ankara University. Her studies focussed on testing of student
achievement, teachers’ proficiency for assessment of student achievement, item
response theory and educational accountability. She has many articles that are
published national and international journals and presented papers at national
and international conferences.
Andra Fernate is from the Latvian Academy of Sport Education, Latvia. She
is Dr. paed., Professor, Vice-rector of Studies. She is the author of 74 papers
on sport science area, LLL quality, effectiveness, quality assurance in education,
sociocultural approach to developing core competences in the life wide learning,
etc. in internationally reviewed editions, one monograph and four book chapters
on education and learning in HEIs, development of core competences. She is a
Member of ASEM LLL Hub, Research NW5 ‘ASEM LLL Core Competences’,
Co-convenor of EERA NW11 and Expert of the Academy of Sciences of Latvia
in Sport Science and Pedagogy.
Dr Heidi Flavian is a Senior Lecturer, a Researcher and the Head of Special
Education Department at Achva Academic College in Israel, and serves a Senior
Lecturer in the International Team in the Feuerstein Institute since 2002. She is
also a Co-editor of the Journal of Quality Assurance in Education, and served
as a Editor-In-Chief for the Journal of Quality Assurance in Education in 2018.
After many years of research and practice, her first book Mediation and Thinking
Development in Schools was published in 2019. Her main areas of research and
publishing are teacher training, mediation, thinking processes among students,
and teaching students with special needs.
Ruxandra Folostina is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Psychology and
Educational Sciences, University of Bucharest and Visiting Professor at the
University of Limerick and University of Barcelona. She is also an Associate
Professor at the National University of Physical Education and Sports from
Bucharest and President of the Romanian Association of Special Education.
She has worked in the therapy of autism spectrum disorders for many years and
provided clinical psychological services to children with ADHD, intellectual
disability, and children with learning disorders. She is specialised in play
therapy and drama therapy, Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Programmes.
Previously, she was employed as an Educational Psychologist at the St Nicholas
Special School in Bucharest.
Author Biographies
ix
Samuel Gento is an Educator who has contributed to educational systems around
the world throughout his professional life. He was a Primary School Teacher,
a Secondary School Teacher, an Inspector of Education and continued on to
university where he has been Associate Professor, Tenure Professor and Full
Professor. Currently, he is Emeritus Professor at Universidad Camilo José Cela,
Spain. He is also Doctor Honor Cause by the University of Latvia and Founder
and Honorary President of the ‘European Association of Leadership and Quality
of Education’. Along with his personal academic promotion, he focussed on a
variety of studies in quality of education and leadership, and presented them at
a various conferences and published a wide variety of papers. He acted as Link
Convenor for nine years (from 2007 to 2015) and is still today active member of
Network 11 on ‘Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance’.
Raúl González Fernández has a degree in Psychopedagogy from the University of
Vigo, Spain and a Doctorate in Educational Sciences from the National University
of Distance Education (UNED), Spain). He is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Didactics, School Organisation and Special Didactics of the Faculty of
Education of UNED and Secretary of the European Association of ’Leadership
and Quality of Education’. His research is focussed on teacher training, educational
treatment of diversity, leadership and improvement of educational quality.
Manuela Guillén Lúgigo is a Research Professor at the Universidad de Sonora,
México, in the Department of Social Work of the Social Sciences Faculty and the
Integral Postgraduate Degree in Social Sciences.
Dr Yurdagül Günal is from the Trabzon University. She received her master’s and
PhD degrees in Measurement and Evaluation Department at Ankara University
in 2004 and in 2014, respectively. She also had a master’s degree in Educational
Management and Economy Department at Karadeniz Technical University. She
served as a School Counsellor and an Expert in Measurement and Evaluation
in the Ministry of National Education between 2003 and 2008. She is currently
an Assistant Professor in Educational Sciences Department of Fatih Faculty of
Education at Trabzon University. Some of her research areas include effective
school and student achievement, factors affecting student achievement, educational measurement and evaluation, classroom practices of measurement and
evaluation and teacher competencies in measurement and evaluation.
Buratin Khampirat, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Educational Research at
Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand. Her research interests focus on
assessment of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education institutions, employability, career and student development, developing research instruments, assessment
of competencies using structural equation modelling and multilevel modelling.
Ernesto López-Gómez has a degree in Pedagogy with Honors from Universidad
Complutense de Madrid, Spain. He is a Doctor in Education awarded with
Extraordinary Doctorate Mention (Universidad Nacional de Educación a
x
Author Biographies
Distancia, UNED). Currently, he is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Didactics, School Organisation and Special Education in the Faculty of Education
of UNED. He also serves as Secretary General of Spanish Society of Pedagogy
(SEP) from november 2018. His research focusses on teacher education, faculty
development, university tutoring, and higher education.
Valerie Lovegreen has a bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education from Rhode
Island College, a master’s degree in Communicative Disorders from the University of Central Florida and a PhD in Psychology from Northcentral University.
She has been a Speech Language Pathologist for 31 years, specialising in cognition and language. She has homeschooled students, owned a small private school
for students with learning challenges and served as guidance counsellor, principal
and clinical director at a K through 12 school and clinic for children with learning
challenges. Currently, she provides language and cognitive therapy to clients from
age 2 through adult and trains teachers and therapists in Instrumental Enrichment. She has written a chapter on social cognition for an edited book entitled
Developing Empathy in the Early Years by Helen Garnett and a chapter on language and cognition in narrative development for an upcoming book edited by
Helen Lumgair.
Ineta Luka is from the Turiba University, Latvia. She is a Dr. paed., Professor,
Head of the Language Department. She is the author of 65 papers on language
teaching/learning, competence development, higher education efficiency, LLL,
etc. in internationally reviewed editions, two monographs and four book chapters
on teaching/learning in HEIs. She is a Member of ASEM (Asia-Europe meeting) LLL Hub, Research NW4 ‘National Strategies for LLL’, Co-convenor of
EERA NW11 ‘Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance’ and Expert of
the Academy of Sciences of Latvia in Pedagogy.
Antonio Medina is Emeritus Professor at Universidad Nacional de Educación
a Distancia, Spain, in the area of Teaching and School Organisation. He has
supervised over 120 doctoral theses and has published numerous research papers
in international journals and edited around 20 books on topics such as teacher
training, institutional development, leadership, quality and assessment, teaching
methods, among others. He has developed 20 national and international R&D
projects on the previous topics. He is a Professor Honoris Cause in IUNIR,
Argentina and also in the University of Santander Mexico in 2015.
Teodora Michel is a Primary School Teacher and Headmistress at the Uruguay
School in Bucharest. She got her PhD in Educational Sciences with a research
paper about positive approach in mass education with inclusion for special
educational needs. She ran two documentation stages as a PhD student with a
scholarship within the Romanian Academy project called ‘Romanian culture
and European cultural models: Research, synchronisation, durability’, one documentation stage within the Florence University, the Educational Sciences Faculty and she participated in the training programme called ‘Learning Propensity
Author Biographies
xi
Assessment Device Basic (LPAD-B)’ organised by herself in partnership with the
Feuerstein institute, and another documentation stage within the Eötvös Loránd
University at the Special Psychology Faculty Bárczi Gusztáv and within the Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development.
Dr Bilha Paryente is a Lecturer and a Researcher at the Achva Academic College
in Israel. She is a Senior Educational Psychologist in a private clinic and served
in a regional public psychological service for more than 10 years. Her main areas
of research and publishing are children’s and parent’s perspectives regarding
stressful events and teacher training.
Tamara Pigozne is from the University of Latvia, Latvia. She is a Dr. paed.,
Senior Researcher at the Scientific Institute of Pedagogy of the Faculty of
Education, Psychology, and Art. She is the author of 33 papers on AE, adult
educators’ competencies, e-learning, inclusive education, STEM teaching and
learning, character education and stress coping. She has the research, managerial,
administrative and volunteer experience participating in many international and
national projects.
Dr H. Eren Suna is from the Ministry of National Education in the Turkish
Republic. He is the Advisor to the Minister. His study fields are item and test-level
bias analysis, effective school studies, accountability and transparency of educational systems, vocational education and training (VET) systems, and school
effect on academic achievement. He also studies on effects of educational policies
and transition systems between school levels. His published papers mostly focus
on the effects of various factors on students’ academic achievement, effects of
diverse transition systems from middle school to high school in Turkey, structuring the vocational education and training systems, comparative analysis of methods which are used in human resource management and psychometric analysis of
diverse measurement tools which are used as standardised high-stake tests.
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache is working as Junior Lecturer and Junior Researcher
at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Bucharest
since 2015. In February 2016, she obtained her PhD in domain of Educational
Sciences, titled Quality Management and Quality Assurance in Special School –
A Co-responsibility Approach. She has working experience as a specialist for
children with mental disability, but also with children with associated problems
(including hearing disability), in classroom as teacher and also individual as
therapist (psychodiagnostic, cognitive, and speech therapy) or support teacher
(in mainstream schools). She is an Expert in Management, Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment and Learning Propensity Assessment Device, Alternative and
Augmentative Communication.
Blanca Valenzuela is a Research Professor at the Universidad de Sonora, México,
in the Department of Psychology and Communication Sciences of the Social
Sciences Faculty and the Integral Postgraduate Degree in Social Sciences.
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgements
This book presents a joined work of variety of researchers from around the world.
Therefore, I would like to thank each of the authors for sharing their studies and
knowledge and for their great contribution to the final result. Moreover, I would
also like to thank my family for their encouragements throughout the process of
writing and editing this book.
This page intentionally left blank
Part I
Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 1
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in
Education: An International Perspective
Heidi Flavian
Keywords: Pedagogy; education; special education; higher education;
quality assurance; learning
The idea of writing a book that integrates different perspectives about pedagogy
and quality assurance in education was developed during researchers’ meetings
at international ECER (European Conference on Educational Research, which
is part of the European Educational Research Association (EERA)) conferences
over a number of years. These annual meetings, at which all researchers presented
the quality assurance of education in their countries, led to the understanding
that this knowledge should be shared with other researchers around the world.
The necessity of these international perspectives is strengthened nowadays, when
people are relocating from one country to another, and immigrant children need
to integrate in schools all over the world. Thus, an understanding of different
approaches towards quality assurance based on different pedagogical approaches
has become highly significant.
As the editor of the book and co-author of one of the chapters, I believe it is
unique in its integration of several approaches for quality assurance in educational
systems, based on the different leading pedagogy approaches in different countries.
******
Educational development is a dynamic process influenced by a variety of factors
such as culture, language and, mostly, society’s goals. Throughout the years, educators, pedagogues, psychologists and others have developed different approaches
and models in an attempt to achieve efficient and effective learning processes in their
countries. At the same time, researchers develop different ways to monitor those
learning processes in order to consider their quality, practical and effectiveness over
the long term. Looking at the leading visions different countries have while developing their local educational processes leads to the understanding that beyond the differences, all countries share the same core goal: teaching children via a path that will
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 3–9
Copyright © 2020 by Heidi Flavian. Published under Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201002
4
Heidi Flavian
allow them in the future to be an active and contributing part of the society they live
in. However, what this actual path is may differ somewhat from country to country.
Another common goal educators share is their wish to base educational processes on
solid pedagogy theories that will afford them the highest quality of education system
to promote attainment of their stated goals. Nevertheless, the cultural differences
that may be evident throughout these processes are also reflected through the variety
of quality assurance tools that are developed according to the sub-goals each country defines. Therefore, one cannot simply replicate educational or quality assurance
processes from one culture to another without understanding the core cultural perspectives and pedagogical approach that underpin them, and then making the necessary adaptations to the other culture. Although learning from different educational
processes in different countries may be seem complicated because of the dynamic
social changes taking place around the world, it is essential to better recognise the differences in order to develop practical and quality educational processes that promote
the understanding of different learning developments.
This book provides an overview of the variety ways researchers implement
pedagogical approaches through the educational system they work in. The
authors of this book hail from nine different countries and four different continents to present a unique international perspective. In each chapter, the authors
present the leading updated pedagogical approach in their country, focussing on
their core educational challenges, along with the quality assurance process used,
in order to manage the defined educational challenge.
Generally, while conducting comparisons there is a tendency to emphasise differences and conceal the common criteria which may be efficiently used to promote
programmes and processes. In this book, however, because the commonalities will
be so useful, the uniqueness of the educational and quality assurance processes of
each country are presented from the common perspective all authors share; that
educators should learn one from another in order to further the improvement of
education systems around the world. This core perspective is presented in each
chapter along with three other common criteria: (1) the challenges educators face
while striving to improve educational programmes and to assure the quality of
their innovations, (2) the challenges educators deal with while investigating the
quality of education in an era of global dynamic changes in all areas and (3) the
need to keep up with the standards of quality assurance defined by policymakers.
Nevertheless, in our dynamic world, while developing new educational programmes accompanied by a variety of quality assurance processes, recognising
and defining the differences is no less crucial. Throughout this book, authors
refer to differences that develop from different cultural perspectives or social processes. Recognising these differences will allow appropriate and efficient quality
assurance processes in education.
Quality assurance and pedagogy are the main concepts all our authors use. The
practical perspectives presented in terms of these two concepts may differ, and yet,
the authors developed their perceptions from the core definitions of these concepts.
Quality assurance in general is a process that seeks to guarantee that core
goals, which were carefully defined before implementing a certain programme,
are achieved in the most efficient ways. Quality assurance is designed to examine
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education
5
every factor that might contribute to the success or failure of a certain process.
It should always conclude with recommendations for improvement. Due to the
complexity of the process, different researchers relate to quality assurance from
different perspectives. The basis for the development of these different approaches
relies on the on-going debates in regard to how and why quality assurance
should be conducted. Nevertheless, the variety of perspectives regarding quality
assurance may be organised and recognised as a process that focusses specifically
on protecting, demonstrating or enhancing quality in variety of domains.
Whereas there are different approaches to how quality assurance should be
conducted, it is crucial to remember that every such process should be tailored
to the specific programme being assessed, according to its specific goals. Yet, the
core principles of quality assurance should be clear and maintained throughout in
order to allow other people to learn from its results.
Pedagogy is the domain of teaching in general and theories and practices of
learning. Pedagogy, as an academic discipline, aims to offer the knowledge of how
to teach alongside consideration of the necessary teaching and learning skills for
different learners and different contents. While implementing pedagogy theories,
teachers also have to consider the culture in which the learning is taking place
along with the social, political and psychological perspectives of all participants.
Educators who use the concept of pedagogy to describe the act of teaching usually refer to the actions, judgments and teaching strategies that teachers use.
Educators who practiced teaching for many years with different population
of learners began to integrate a variety of pedagogy theories while planning and
conducting their teaching. Therefore, while following a variety of curricula, principles from different theories of pedagogy may look familiar, and it can be hard to
recognise one specific theory within them.
Although theories of pedagogy have been developing for centuries, the understanding that teaching can be improved by integrating quality assurance began only a few
decades ago. Moreover, it is essential to keep in mind that on a daily basis, the people
responsible for turning those theories and visions into practice are the teachers. They
are the professionals who integrate and modify the variety of pedagogy approaches
with the results of the quality assurance processes, along with the dynamic changes
in their society, in order to develop better curricula and learning processes for their
learners. Hence, the knowledge created and accumulated from educational quality
assurance processes should be shared by educators all over the world.
As mentioned earlier, through this book variety of educators from different
countries share the pedagogy and quality assurance processes commonly conducted in their countries. In addition to the shared use of those two main concepts, the chapters have been organised into three main sections according to
common topics the authors chose to focus on: (1) education and schools; (2) special education and (3) higher education and adult education.
Education and Schools
Although from a broad spectrum education begins with birth, when referring
to formal education the focus is different. Around the world, the concept of
6
Heidi Flavian
official education is used in reference to the educational processes conducted
from preschool through to academia. Thus, the first section of the book contains
five chapters written about practicing education and pedagogy in schools. These
authors present the current main perspectives and practices in the USA, Spain,
Romania, Turkey and South Africa.
Critical thinking is one of the most challenging terms that include some of the
main thinking components such as the ability to analyse, reflect, judge and strategise systematically, and solve problems. In her chapter, Critical Thinking Pedagogy
and Quality Assurance in the United States, Lovegreen refers to the various definitions of the concepts along with how educators focus on how to develop them
in order to promote academic achievement due to its importance in developing
life-long learners. The variety of definitions, taxonomies, models and theories of
critical thinking developed over the years makes a significant contribution to the
pedagogical approaches to the teaching of critical thinking in the United States.
Beyond the challenge of defining critical thinking, teaching it is even more challenging. Moreover, pedagogues in the USA defined the core 4Cs for learning in the
twenty-first century: collaboration, communication, creativity and critical thinking. Hence, teaching of critical thinking nowadays is integrated through pedagogical approaches, including project-based learning, project-based design, e-learning
and active learning and descriptions of instructional pedagogy including the
general, infusion, immersion and mixed approaches. In this chapter, Lovegreen
stresses that quality assurance is an essential component in ensuring that pedagogical approaches to critical thinking are effective, and discusses the contribution of
core standards in the teaching of critical thinking in the United States.
While worldwide interest in educational quality has increased, many international organisations and national education systems have conducted studies on
the practical meaning of quality, the various ways it can be measured and the
factors that promote it as a basis for designing education reforms and rendering
good practices visible. In this chapter, the authors from Spain; López-Gómez,
González Fernández, Medina and Gento, explore conceptual perspectives on
educational quality that are informed by various pedagogical approaches and
examine the initiatives implemented in Spain to improve educational quality in
non-university contexts, while analysing education legislation over the past 30 years.
In their chapter, Proposals to Promote Quality of Education: A View from Spain, the
authors also propose the elements they believe might further promote educational
quality in non-university settings in Spain and elsewhere. These proposals revolve
around the educational project, teacher training and professional development,
diversity and inclusion in education and community leadership.
Following the development of quality assurance processes and their implications in Romania led the authors; Tudorache, Folostina and Michel, to write
about it in their chapter, The Management and Assurance of Quality in Romanian
Schools. The authors allow us to better understand the unique influences of both
social and political changes on education in the country. Apparently, quality assurance was originally developed from ISO definitions, but it strengthened in 2006
after the Education Quality Assurance Law was adopted (L87/2006). This law
defined the main quality of education concepts, stating a methodology related to
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education
7
the internal and external assurance of quality, establishing the responsibilities for
quality assurance through national agencies. In addition, the law refers also to the
responsibility for quality assurance at pre-university and university institutions.
The leading principle for the quality assurance and the abovementioned law is that
school is not only a place where we teach children to write, read and other knowledge, but also where they develop their autonomy and form their personality.
Moreover, schools should have the necessary resources to remove economic,
social, cultural inequity in order to offer equal chances in learning and development. Although the authors of this chapter propose a model of intervention to
promote improving value for the quality assurance of education in Romania, this
model may also be generalised and implemented in other countries as well.
The fourth chapter in this section was written by Çıkrıkçı, Suna and Günal
who wrote about Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality
Assurance in Turkey. In their chapter, they explain the mutual development of
Turkish educational and institutional quality assurance, as well as the meaning
of school effectiveness from the Turkish perspective. Understanding that education is widely accepted as a life-long process, school is the institution that was
established to provide good quality academic education which involves complex
and more abstract knowledge and ideas as well as literacy and simple numerical
skills to be imparted to the students. In Turkey, education is one of the state’s
basic functions that must be implemented and performed according to the constitution, under the supervision and control of the state. Accordingly, all types
of educational programmes, including those conducted within higher education
institutions, are supervised by the government quality assurance council. Nevertheless, educational programmes and teacher-training programmes may develop
their education curricula independently as long as they follow the defined quality
assurance criteria and vision.
Bantwini, from South Africa, who wrote the fifth chapter in this section, share
with the readers the important discussion whether or not there is congruence
between the assessment and pedagogical approaches used when teaching natural
science and technology education in South Africa. This discussion is presented in
his chapter, Congruence between Pedagogical and Assessment Approaches: A Case
of One Large Province in South Africa, after conducting an intensive research
project with fourth-grade teachers of natural science and technology. The study
reveals the lack of congruence between pedagogical and assessment approaches
used in teaching, and a clear lack of holistic thinking about both teaching and
learning processes. Thus, the main argument is that there is a need for congruence between pedagogical approaches and assessment methods in order to benefit
teaching-learning processes.
Special Education
The phrase ‘education for all’ is accepted by most educators and educational policymakers, and is implemented in the majority of countries around the world in different formats. Nevertheless, due to the social changes cultures undergo, practicing
this perception of education changes dynamically as time passes even within the
8
Heidi Flavian
same country. The differences between how ‘education for all’ is practice may be
presented along the continuum from exclusion to inclusion: from providing education for learners with special needs in isolated programmes up to full inclusion
programmes in which all learners learn together, regardless of their emotional,
psychological, cognitive or any other differences. Authors from two counties,
Israel and Mexico, wrote about the unique inclusion pedagogy approaches in their
countries and how quality assurance is developed in order to promote proper and
updated educational processes among learners with special needs.
Paryente and Flavian, from Israel present how the education system has
adopted the inclusion process in order to increase both the quality and the effectiveness of education in their country. The core idea that is the basis for inclusion
in Israel, as in many other countries, is that inclusion of children with special needs
into mainstream schools reflects society’s view of their role as caregivers for all citizens, regardless of any understanding of the benefits that educating for inclusion
might have. Nevertheless, the unique perspective Paryente and Flavian present
in their chapter entitled Inclusion of Children with Special Needs as an Opportunity to Increase the Quality of Teaching in Israel is the advantages educational
leaders have identified in the process of inclusion. These advantages can be used
to promote quality teacher-training programmes and as a result, higher-quality
education for all. On the basis of the new inclusion law in Israel, the authors
offer better understanding of possible implications of the new inclusion policy
in Israeli elementary schools which will allow the development of innovative and
quality teacher-training programmes, and the quality of teaching in general.
The authors from Mexico, Guillén Lúgigo, Valenzuela and Campa Álvarez,
present some evidence of an empirical exploration carried out with 178 primary
school teachers from the State of Sonora, Mexico, about their perceptions regarding diversity and inclusion. The study they conducted on the basis of mixed methodology is described in their chapter, Inclusion, Diversity and Quality in the Mexican
Educational Context: Perceptions of Teachers in the State of Sonora (Mexico).
The results allow appreciating in general a tendency to incorporate diversity in the
appreciation and valuation schemes. However, there are also appreciations that
make an important set of deficiencies to face diversity in schools evident
Higher Education and Adult Education
The third section of this book presents perspectives of quality assurance of academic institutions for schools graduates. Although the authors of these two
chapters are from two different continents, they share core ideas of how quality
assurance should be conducted in higher education programmes.
Nowadays in Thailand, higher education institutions are affiliated with the
Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation and other relevant ministries which connect the state-of-the-art technology/facilities to all
academic programmes. Writing about Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
Higher Education Institutions (HEI), the authors Khampirat, Chottum and Bamrungsin present some general information about Thailand’s higher education
system, in order to explain the success in the growth in the number of students
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education
9
in higher education across the country, despite the variety of requirements to
improve national accountability in higher education across many decades. In
this chapter, readers can learn about the criteria, processes and systems adopted
into the model of quality assurance such as higher education standards, the curriculum accreditation process and the Thailand Qualifications Framework. The
chapter also provides the linkage between the National Education Act, policies
and standards, quality assurance and feedback for continuous improvement as the
key component of quality assurance in the education system. Finally, the chapter
presents the challenges and opportunities in the rapid changes of the twenty-first
century and globalisation as the main points and crucial factors requiring Thai
HEIs to continue improving their quality.
Within the field of higher education, numerous adult education programmes
aim to provide adults with academic knowledge and skills. However, these programmes differ from other academic programmes in universities mainly, because
they address a different population of learners. The authors from Latvia; Luka,
Fernate, Birzina and Pigozne, have contributed to this book by presenting the
challenges Latvia’s adult educational programmes face while implementing a
quality assurance approach to all the programmes. Their chapter, Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia, contributes to the overall understanding of
the terminology used through adult education in Latvia, and allows us to better
realising how complicated it is to use quality assurance criteria when there is a gap
between the learners’ needs and the education system’s goals.
******
To summarise all the above, I would like to emphasise the depth and width of
the knowledge and information shared in these chapters, that will surely serve as
a solid basis for fruitful discussions among educators within and across countries
as they seek to enhance the quality assurance strategies applied to their own education systems.
This page intentionally left blank
Part II
Education and Schools
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 2.1
Critical Thinking Pedagogy and Quality
Assurance in the United States
Valerie Lovegreen
Abstract
Critical thinking is a challenging term to describe but considered necessary for
academic achievement, success in the global job market, and essential in developing a life-long learner (Dwyer, Hogan, & Stewart, 2012). Many definitions
exist, but some of the components include the ability to analyse, reflect, judge,
and strategise in a systematic way, to be able to solve problems (Dwyer et al.,
2012). Some of the definitions, taxonomies, models, and theories of critical
thinking have been built by Western culture, and the United States contributes
information towards this Western approach (Nicholas & Raider-Roth, 2016;
Wang, 2017). These definitions, taxonomies, models, and theories make a significant contribution to the pedagogical approaches to the teaching of critical
thinking in the United States. This chapter details the structures that support
the definitions of critical thinking and the history of the connections between
critical thinking and classroom instruction in the United States.
Critical thinking is a necessary construct for twenty-first century learning
and discussed in scholarly professional literature and popular media (Dwyer,
2017). The term is a part of the twenty-first century four Cs of learning: collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking (Cunningham,
2018). The teaching of critical thinking can be challenging, and this chapter presents an overview of some helpful pedagogical approaches, including
project-based learning, project-based design, e-learning, and active learning
and descriptions of instructional pedagogy including the general, infusion,
immersion, and mixed approaches (Abrami et al., 2008; Dwyer, 2017; Ennis,
1989; Marin & Halpern, 2011; Willingham, 2008). Quality assurance is an
essential component in ensuring pedagogical approaches to critical thinking
are effective. The contribution of core standards in the teaching of critical
thinking in the United States will be discussed.
Keywords: Critical thinking; higher-order thinking; problem solving; taxonomy;
learning; pedagogy
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 13–28
Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Lovegreen. Published under Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201004
14
Valerie Lovegreen
Many educational curricula, standards, assessments, and pedagogical plans across
the United States contain the term critical thinking, which suggests this phenomenon holds a seemingly important place in academia from the elementary school
level through the university level (Anderson, 2015). In 2010, when the US Department of Labor and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics outlined the job outlook for
the period between 2008 and 2018, the report suggested that critical thinking is necessary for automation technology, because machines would take on tasks formerly
completed by humans, but humans would need the critical thinking skills required
for successful machine programming (Butler, 2012). Critical thinking is a necessary
component for individuals involved in political decision making, protecting free
speech, ensuring social equity, and in defending the freedoms of a democratic society (Westheimer, 2008). Some scholars suggest that the teaching of critical thinking
may be hampered by current educational policy that focuses teachers’ efforts on
preparing students to do well on standardised tests and achieve standards in the
curricula (Clemmitt, 2015; Westheimer, 2008). In setting the goal to teach facts, the
possibility for critical thinking is diminished or even eliminated (Westheimer, 2008).
Discussion of critical thinking in education occurs beyond the walls of academia (Ennis, 2018). Presidents, commissions, and media agencies speak and write
about the impact of critical thinking on classroom learning (Ennis, 2018). President
George H. W. Bush mentioned the importance of critical thinking in his America
2000 initiative, created in 1991 as a strategy to achieve six educational goals by the
year 2000 (United States Department of Education, 1991). President Barak Obama
mentioned critical thinking in his 2014 State of the Union Address (Ennis, 2018;
Obama, 2014). The President suggested that problem solving, critical thinking, as
well as science, technology, engineering, and math would make significant contributions to the future of the economy of the United States (Obama, 2014).
The Challenges
The teaching of critical thinking faces challenges in the areas of definition and pedagogy (Willingham, 2008). Educators in the United States comment on how difficult
it is to develop these abilities, and although most scholars believe that it is possible to
teach critical thinking, occasionally there is still debate about this question (Nicholas &
Raider-Roth, 2016). Ennis (2018) suggested that critical thinking is a teachable phenomenon but that current methods are not successful in achieving this goal.
In addition to the discussion about whether critical thinking can be taught,
scholars debate whether it is subject specific, a general skill separate from subject matter, or in combination of the two, further complicating the issue of when,
where, and how to develop these skills in students (Cargas, Williams, & Rosenberg,
2017; Ennis, 2018; Huber & Kuncel, 2016; Nicholas & Raider-Roth, 2016; Willingham, 2008). Some scholars take a generalist approach and suggest that the teaching
of critical thinking in one context will transcend to other areas, while others take a
specifist approach and view critical thinking as subject specific and not transferable
to different situations or environments (Nicholas & Raider-Roth, 2016).
McPeck (1990) suggested that there are different types of critical thinking so the
teaching of the phenomenon must be subject specific. Willingham (2008) reported
Critical Thinking Pedagogy
15
that critical thinking skills should not be taught as a general process and skills must
be linked with content knowledge for successful learning. Ennis (2018) suggested
that a subject-specific approach is most effective so that students can use the subject
at hand to critically contemplate an idea and not be hampered by general critical
thinking strategies that may not be helpful to the subject or topic at hand. Kuncel
(2011) suggested that critical thinking is not a general skill but is a set of skills
that are specific to a particular task, and under certain conditions, explicit instruction may lead to transfer of subject-specific critical thinking skills to other subjects and tasks that would benefit from the same thinking process (Kuncel, 2011).
Other scholars suggest that critical thinking transcends subject matter (Nicholas &
Raider-Roth, 2016). Dwyer, Boswell, and Elliott (2015) proposed that both general
and subject-specific teaching processes are successful approaches. Halpern’s (2017)
research suggested that regardless of whether critical thinking is taught as a general
subject or within a subject, to be effective, explicit instruction is key to success.
Critical Thinking Definitions
Many definitions of critical thinking exist and defining the phenomenon continues
to be a challenge (Nicholas & Raider-Roth, 2016). The disciplines of philosophy,
psychology, and education discuss critical thinking, generating a plethora of meanings, used in a variety of ways (Nicholas & Raider-Roth, 2016). Critical thinking,
problem solving, and higher-order thinking are terms that are used interchangeably,
compounding the problem (Johnson & Hamby, 2015). There is no standard definition used by all disciplines, which makes conversation about the phenomenon, the
development of assessments and interventions, and the teaching of critical thinking
a challenge (Johnson & Hamby, 2015; Nicholas & Raider-Roth, 2016).
Some scholars balk at the idea of a collective definition, suggesting that critical
thinking is such a complex process that defining the term would not represent the
phenomenon (Anderson, 2015). Paul (1990) described macro-abilities and microskills in conjunction with critical thinking, suggesting that the ability to think
about broad, complex, or abstract thinking processes constitute macro-abilities,
which would require more simplistic micro-skills to be able to think about the
more involved processes, and listed 35 different dimensions of critical thinking
macro- and micro-skills (Paul & Binker, 1990). Ennis (2018) suggested that more
information is needed concerning the definition of critical thinking before a usable definition supports the efficient assessment and teaching of the phenomenon.
Critical Thinking Taxonomies
Scholars create taxonomies as tools to understand critical thinking, and some
combine critical thinking with other thinking phenomena while others focus on
critical thinking itself (Dick, 1991; Paul, 1985). Bloom (1956) was one of the first
to create a taxonomy, used today to describe critical thinking and other higherorder processes, but the original intent was to provide a system for classifying
educational objectives for curriculum planning and evaluation (Bloom, 1956).
Now, Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives is a critical component of
16
Valerie Lovegreen
many teacher preparation programmes, educational pedagogy, assessments, and
used in research studies (Agarwal, 2019). Although Bloom (1956) did not specifically mention critical thinking, he referenced the phenomenon in his scholarly
writing (Agarwal, 2019). Krathwohl (2002) and Anderson et al. (2001) added a
layer to the original Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy to describe types of knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002). The addition of four levels of knowledge; factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive, created a two-dimensional taxonomy, and critical thinking was not included but mentioned as necessary for classroom success
(Krathwohl, 2002). Darwazeh (2017) revised both Bloom’s (1956) and Krathwohl’s (2002) taxonomies, adding two types of remembering, organising, and
metacognition to the pyramid for a total of 10 categories. Although again, there
is no mention of critical thinking, Darwazeh (2017) stated that the categories help
students to think creatively and critically.
Other scholars generated taxonomies to describe how learning occurs, or how
thinking occurs, specifically critical thinking (Dick, 1991; Ennis, 1987; Paul &
Elder, 2007; Sternberg, 1986). Paul and Elder (2007) created a Taxonomy of
Socratic Questions to help students use critical thinking to understand what they
are learning. Sternberg (1986) named his taxonomy a triarchic theory of human
intelligence, and stated that critical thinking incorporated metacognition, performance, and knowledge-acquisition, all necessary for learning. Ennis (1987)
created a complex model of 12 critical thinking abilities and 14 critical thinking dispositions to outline the phenomenon of critical thinking. Dick (1991) created an iterative taxonomy, collecting information for the work of other scholars,
organising the information into 15 different types and five classifications.
Critical Thinking Models and Theories
Often models are used to represent critical thinking, and Ennis (1987) developed
a model to illustrate problem solving and included critical thinking and other
phenomena. Facione’s (2000) model was more complex and included skills and
dispositions, based in part on the 1990 Delphi Report. Paul (2005) created a complex model of critical thinking that included structures of thought, intellectual
standards, and intellectual traits. As early as 1962, Ennis suggested that a theory
of critical thinking could help identify similarities and differences with other
thinking processes. Facione (1984) suggested the need for a theory that outlined
the connections between theory and practice, while Norris and Phillips (1987)
referred to Greek philosophers in a discussion of critical thinking theory. Educators such as Dewey (1910), Smith (1959), and Ennis (1987) suggest that critical
thinking helps uncover the truth. Sternberg (1986) proposed placing the theory of
critical thinking under the umbrella of intelligence. At present, there is no single
theory of critical thinking (Coney, 2015; Facione, 2000).
The History of Critical Thinking in American Education
Although it may not have been termed critical thinking, Glaser (1941) spoke of
the importance of the ability to think critically in the minds of early American
Critical Thinking Pedagogy
17
politicians, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who understood
the value of the relationship of educating young people who would contribute
to the success of the newly formed country (Glaser, 1941). Historically, scholars
in America viewed the ability to think critically as integral to good citizenship,
and understanding the economic, political, and social aspects of government processes called for the capacity to think critically and uphold and defend the values
of a democratic society (Glaser, 1941).
John Dewey’s (1910) insights on the importance of reflection and his (Dewey,
1933) commentary on the importance of critical thinking in education may have
been the beginnings of acknowledging the importance of critical thinking for teaching and learning in the United States (Ennis, 2018). Dewey (1910) described critical
thinking as an educational goal and reflective thinking as a way to support both
curiosity and scientific thinking (Hitchcock, 2018). Dewey (1910) suggested that
critical thinking could contribute to life happiness and social enhancements. Dewey’s (1910) original work included the word critical, but by 1933, Dewey replaced
the term critical with reflection, possibly suggesting that it is with reflection that
critical thinking is accomplished (Hitchcock, 2018). In the 1930s, the Progressive
Education Association in the United States studied the use of Dewey’s concepts in
secondary schools to improve critical thinking skills (Hitchcock, 2018). Teachers
added problem-solving experiences to enhance meaning in thinking. Results indicated that students who participated in this process achieved more success than the
control group who participated in traditional classroom learning (Hitchcock, 2018).
In the mid-1900s, federal, state, and local politicians, and educational administrators stressed the importance of critical thinking in education (Glaser, 1941).
The Educational Policies Commission (1938) affirmed this sentiment, suggesting
that the educational goals needed to shift from memorisation to critical thinking,
and shared teacher knowledge to student constructed knowledge (Glaser, 1941). The
National Education Association identified the value of critical thinking in all phases
of learning, but the transfer of this knowledge to classroom practice was limited, and
there were criticisms from educators regarding the lack of effective plans, activities,
and processes to ensure students developed critical thinking skills (Glaser, 1941).
In the 1940s, Glaser created a series of critical thinking lessons, administered to
high school students as part of an English class. Post-test scores revealed significant
improvement for the students who participated in the lessons over those in a control
group, which was maintained for at least six months after the lessons were completed, an early suggestion that advancements in critical thinking occur with explicit
instruction (Hitchcock, 2018).
Between 1950 and 1975, three scholars made important contributions to the
assessment and teaching of the phenomenon (Ennis, 1987; Lipman, 1973; Smith,
1959). Smith (1959) focussed on the teaching of critical thinking by developing a
logical, structural sequence for teachers (Smith, 1959). Ennis (1963) devoted an
entire article in the Harvard Educational Review to the phenomenon, describing
three dimensions of critical thinking; logical, criterial, and pragmatic, with a total
of 12 components (Hitchcock, 2018). Lipman (1973) chose to describe and define
critical thinking within the confines of philosophy, viewing critical thinking as
applied thinking, and his programme, Philosophy for Children was designed to
18
Valerie Lovegreen
teach children how to become critical analysers through the use of philosophy
novels (Lipman, 1973).
Educators in the United States began to look to identify the knowledge and
skills necessary for success in academia and in life and focus on setting standards
as targets to attain these skills (Gamson, Eckert, & Anderson, 2019). Whether it
was 1949 when Ralph Tyler described a set of standards or 2015 with the creation
of the Common Core State Standards, these statements guide the design of materials and pedagogy that will result in successful student learning (Gamson et al.,
2019). In 1983, a report called A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) jump-started a move towards curriculum standards
to cure the ills that were impacting American education (Gamson et al., 2019).
States tried to discover how to assess basic skills in reading, math, and writing,
and by the mid-1980s, most states had minimum competency standards and
measures, linked to grade promotions and graduation from high school (Gamson
et al., 2019). States were aware that in using competencies it was challenging to
assess higher-order thinking skills like critical thinking, so instead of developing
ways to measure these higher-order thinking processes, states switched to using
competency tests (Gamson et al., 2019). By the 1980s and 1990s, some educators
began to suggest that student progress was weak because the standards were not
designed to develop higher-order thinking skills (Gamson et al., 2019).
In spite of the competencies testing, scholars in the 1970s and 1980s expanded
their interest in thinking skills, seeking to identify reasoning skills as competencies
on college entrance exams, and creating critical thinking or logic courses as a part
of college coursework (Hitchcock, 2018). In the mid to late 1980s, the American
Psychological Association sought to understand the meaning of the term critical
thinking and asked Facione (1990) to organise a Delphi study, asking experts
from a variety of fields to define the term (Hitchcock, 2018). The Delphi Report
brought together experts in critical thinking from around the nation to dialogue
and create a definition that would assist in creating assessment and intervention
tools and standardise the term in curricula and pedagogy (Facione, 1990). Forty
experts shared their perspectives and developed a collective definition that identified six critical thinking cognitive skills, with sixteen subskills and twelve affective
elements with a variety of sub-elements (Facione, 1990). After this publication,
some scholars embraced the common definition while other scholars suggested
that the plethora of types of critical thinking precluded a universal definition
(Coney, 2015; McPeck, 1990).
Recognising the importance of critical thinking as a global initiative, in 2018,
the United States was one of the countries that participated in the Organisation for Economic Development called for a study on how to improve critical
thinking skills in higher education (OECD Directorate for Education and Skills,
2018). Currently, there is a great deal of conversation about critical thinking in
the popular media. In an article in Forbes Magazine, Bouygues (2018) discussed
critical thinking as a central skill in life suggesting schools must integrate critical thinking both within subjects and as a general subject since research indicates that each alternative improves critical thinking ability (Abrami, Bernard, &
Borokhovski, 2015).
Critical Thinking Pedagogy
19
General, Infusion, Immersion, and Mixed Approaches to the
Teaching of Critical Thinking
Ennis (1989) classified critical thinking pedagogy into four types: general, immersion, infusion, and mixed (Abrami et al., 2008; Ennis, 1989). In the general category, both skills and dispositions are infused into general learning objectives, while
infusion and immersion approaches use specific subject matter in teaching critical
thinking (Abrami et al., 2008; Ennis, 1989). In the infusion approach, critical thinking is an explicit endeavour and implicit in the immersion approach, and in the
mixed category, critical thinking is presented explicitly within a subject but as a separate process (Abrami et al., 2008). Abrami et al. (2008) studied Ennis’ four types
of critical thinking instruction and found a mixed method was the best course of
teaching. Marin and Halpern (2011) propose that explicit instruction using modelling, supporting thoughtful responses, skills practice, and metacognition is an effective way to enhance critical thinking. The creation of challenging tasks improves
critical thinking skills, and rubrics help both faculty and students to achieve goals
and improve both critical thinking skills and dispositions (Cargas et al., 2017).
Willingham (2008) proposed that the challenge in critical thinking lies in the
creation of a relationship between the need to think critically and the knowledge
of what to think critically about, which helps to explain why students can think
critically under certain conditions and struggle in other situations (Willingham,
2008). According to Willingham (2008), the level of success or struggle may be
due to limited content knowledge, or critical thinking ability, or a combination of
both, making the teaching and learning a challenging prospect. In a description of
knowledge and critical thinking, Willingham (2008) suggests the need to focus on
both the deep structure and the surface structure of a learning experience (Willingham, 2008). As the surface structure of the learning links with prior knowledge,
the task seems simpler, so the learner may be unaware of the need to keep thinking and search for the deeper meaning (Willingham, 2008). To make use of deep
structure, the learner must identify the deep structure, but even more importantly,
must know to look for the deep structure underlying the task (Willingham, 2008).
Critical Thinking Pedagogy in the United States
Project-based Learning
Project-based learning offers students an opportunity to address a problem or
generate a product, and critical thinking skills are a necessary component as students critically think about the best ways to complete the process (UNT Teaching
Commons, 2019). Projects themselves are not considered project-based learning,
because project-based learning targets the process of learning and the needs and
interests of the learners are the central focus and drive the project (TeachThought,
2018). Organisations like the Buck Institute for Education and Academic Impressions suggest that project-based learning is key to enhancing critical thinking
skills, and they offer professional development programmes to guide teachers in
using this type of pedagogy for improving the critical thinking skills of their students (Buck Institute for Education, 2019).
20
Valerie Lovegreen
Problem-based Learning
Problem-based learning aligns with improved critical thinking and enhanced cognitive development (Kumar & Refaei, 2017). Problem-based learning promotes critical thinking by guiding students to think through problems that require a definitive
answer (UNT Teaching Commons, 2019). The product is in the solving of the problem, which differs from project-based learning where a product is created (UNT
Teaching Commons, 2019). In solving problems, students use their thinking skills
to critically evaluate situations, analyse perspectives, and synthesise to generate a
solution. There are different frameworks that teachers can use to design problembased learning, steps which can include mapping the problem, developing a prototype, ensuring creativity in thinking, setting goals and embracing a challenge, all
which require critical thinking (TeachThought, 2018). Problem-based learning and
writing tasks contain semi-structured or unstructured opportunities that benefit
from productive critical thinking skill because when the students think through a
process before acting, the critical thinking helps develop and streamline ideas that
will enhance the process or product (Kumar & Refaei, 2017).
Project-based Design
Project-based design differs from project-based learning in that project-based
design follows a framework of design thinking, which includes empathy about a
situation, defining a problem, idea generation, and creation and testing of a prototype, steps which may be used in both project-based learning and problem-based
learning (Dam & Siang, 2019). The Buck Institute for Education created projectbased design, a guide for the planning of project-based learning, which can help
teachers focus on critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration, components from the four Cs (collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking) of learning and innovation skills for twenty-first century
learning (Buck Institute for Education, 2019). Labelled design thinking, this process is iterative, and students use critical thinking to define and redefine projects and
problems using a solution-based framework and a hands-on experience (Dam &
Siang, 2019). Design thinking can move a student from a fixed way of thinking
about a concept or a construct to a new perspective, through critically thinking
about the situation using the framework of design thinking (Dam & Siang, 2019).
e-Learning
Some scholars and educators suggest that e-learning is a powerful way to enhance
critical thinking (Belin, 2017). Incorporating demonstrations rather than lectures
and allowing for flexibility within lessons can support challenge, creativity, and
individuality, which will reflect the critical thinking capacity of learners (Belin,
2017). e-Learning can also be used to teach critical thinking, through course
offerings for educators as part of professional development (The Foundation for
Critical Thinking, 2019). Research suggests that for e-learning to offer significant
opportunity for critical thinking development, students must actively engage in
tasks and assignments (Saadé, Morin, & Thomas, 2012).
Critical Thinking Pedagogy
21
Active Learning
Active learning has become a successful way to navigate the challenges of teaching
critical thinking in the classroom (Ruder, Stanford, & Gandhi, 2018; Styers, Van
Zandt, & Hayden, 2018). Active learning activities include guided-inquiry, model
building, case studies, clicker-based responding, pair-share, and exercises designed
with critical thinking questions in mind (Styers et al., 2018). Students report that
active learning in the form of activities and interactive assignments made a more
significant contribution to their critical thinking than other types of learning
(Saadé et al., 2012). Active learning activities promote critical thinking in science
classrooms through the use of clicker-based interactions, group collaboration for
problem solving, hands-on activities, and think–pair–share experiences (Styers
et al., 2018). Active learning such as guided inquiry, teamwork, problem solving, and
enhanced oral and written communication enhance critical thinking and promote
skills which link classroom learning with workplace success (Ruder et al., 2018).
Flipped Classroom Model
There are connections between the flipped classroom model and improved critical
thinking skills, with some educators suggesting that this model offers more time
for critical thinking in the classroom (Styers et al., 2018). A flipped model shifts
the traditional classroom structure by using classroom time for guided activities,
and lectures become part of assigned work to be done at home (Smith et al.,
2018). In studies using a flipped model in both a general education college course
and a science course, scores on critical thinking tests improved after a semester of
using the flipped model (Smith et al., 2018; Styers et al., 2018).
Collaborative Learning
Collaborative learning activities promote the development of critical thinking
abilities where learning is shared among individuals, supporting the use of dialogue, making connections with others, viewing other perspectives, and solving
problems or generating collective insights (Cunningham, 2018; Loes & Pascarella,
2017; Schipke, 2018). programmes such as Philosophy for Children (Lipman,
1973), now termed P4C, challenge critical thinking by using a framework of a
community of inquiry to support interactions for collaborative learning (Cunningham, 2018). Collaborative learning and technology are often combined, with
critical thinking skills enhanced as a result, because with interactions via social
media, social collaboration occurs, and can lead to improved critical thinking
ability (Schipke, 2018). With collaborative learning, students make more progress
than in individual learning, because they both receive and provide support, which
generates the need for critical thinking (Schipke, 2018).
Argument Mapping
Mapping strategies guide students to think critically using mind mapping to explore
concepts, concept mapping to identify relationships, and argument mapping for
22
Valerie Lovegreen
making inferences and evaluating information (Davies, 2011). Adding argument
mapping to pedagogy has been shown to enhance critical thinking skills and dispositions, offering both cognitive and affective enhancement to thinking critically
(Davies, 2011; Dwyer, Hogan, & Stewart, 2012). Reflective thinking often requires
critical thinking to isolate and solve a problem or to generate necessary insights
to create novel information, and argument mapping has been shown to slow the
ineffective responses of quick thinkers by highlighting the benefits of reflection,
which enhances critical thinking ability (Hoffman, 2018).
Critical Thinking at the University Level
In the United States, scholars in higher education suggest that critical thinking
ability is a necessity at the college level of learning (Abrami et al., 2008; Cargas
et al., 2017; Shim & Walczak, 2012). Scholars and academics believe that the college experience improves critical thinking, but research varies as to what types of
interventions or pedagogy enhance critical thinking or whether the course design,
the content, or the types of assigned tasks are responsible for the improved ability, although studies that critical thinking skills show improvement during the
college years, especially when given more time to reflect and respond (Huber &
Kuncel, 2016).
Kelly-Riley (2003) found that when faculty used a critical thinking rubric with
constructs such as identification of the problem, developing clear and alternative perspectives, recognising assumptions, evaluating evidence, and assessment of
conclusions, student critical thinking scores improved. Ennis (2018) created a fictional critical thinking course called ‘Introduction to Critical Thinking’ that could
be used at the university level to enhance the general critical thinking skills and
dispositions of first-year college students. The 30-week programme would include
small and large group problem-based learning activities, lectures, and discussion
about the concept of critical thinking (Ennis, 2018). Students would participate
in case studies originating from three different disciplines, providing students
opportunities to hone their critical thinking skills (Ennis, 2018). The course would
conclude with formative and summative assessments and a final Thesis project,
providing opportunity for analysis of critical thinking skill (Ennis, 2018). Teachers
would use explicit teaching of critical thinking as pedagogy and be mindful of the
importance of teaching for transfer (Ennis, 2018).
At the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, several faculty members
wanted to improve their pedagogy for critical thinking by working together and
learn from each other, enhancing their teaching processes, so they participated in
workshops, completed written assignments, and worked collaboratively to study
critical thinking to develop successful pedagogical processes (Boyd, Dooley, &
Kurten, 2017). Results revealed the faculty’s positive perspective, and they became
more knowledgeable about critical thinking and more adept at using effective
pedagogy in their classes (Boyd et al., 2017).
Shim and Walczak (2012) found that asking challenging questions that
included compare and contrast tasks and integrating ideas resulted in improved
students’ critical thinking skills but the practice of asking students to explain
Critical Thinking Pedagogy
23
abstract concepts improved students’ perspectives of their abilities but did not
have a direct effect on their skills (Shim & Walczak, 2012). When teachers focus
on the thinking characteristics of a task rather than the type of task to present,
they can identify the type of critical thinking needed for the task and students’
critical thinking skills improve (Shim & Walczak, 2012).
Critical Thinking at the High School Level
High school requires students to be attentive to direct learning and independent
in self-learning, requiring them to reflect and think critically about how to achieve
both of these objectives (Wilson & Conyers, 2014). Science teachers realise the
importance and value of critical thinking at the high school level and allow students time and support students in learning to think critically about science topics
(Kinslow & Sadler, 2018). The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2019)
supports the development of critical thinking in science classes, and reflection is
a key critical thinking skill in science classes. These same skills are necessary with
media literacy, so teachers develop frameworks that guide students in critically
evaluating information available to them via various media outlets (Kinslow &
Sadler, 2018). When high school students learn how to metacognitively develop
learning and study habits and have the critical thinking skills to use these habits
in the right place, at the right time, they have the potential for successful learning
(Wilson & Conyers, 2014).
Critical Thinking in Middle School
Critical thinking and twenty-first century skill development are vital to student
success during middle school years (Cohen, Renken, & Calandra, 2017). Both
teachers and students view critical thinking as valuable and necessary for success, but sometimes middle school students underestimate the amount or type of
critical thinking that is necessary during learning activities (Cohen et al., 2017).
Explicit instruction across subjects can improve the ability to know when to use
critical thinking and the amount of critical thinking required for accuracy and
precision in thinking (Cohen et al., 2017).
Critical thinking is vital in reading and essential for literacy success, especially
at the middle school level (Sun, 2017). Analysis of novels with specific critical
questions presented to middle school students who were required to reflect and
then respond, improved critical thinking (Sun, 2017). The teacher noted that students were more apt to inquire about unknown or confusing information, became
more engaged as a result of the activity, and were able to view situations from
multiple perspectives more easily, which enhanced their ability to empathise (Sun,
2017). Literacy activities promoted critical thinking with middle school students
in an after-school programme, and improvements included enhanced motivation,
memory retrieval, and improved ability to analyse information from a critical
perspective (Gross, Latham, Underhill, & Bak, 2016). In middle school, students
are aware of the need to do well on standardised tests and student anxiety may
run high, so teaching students to use their critical thinking skills to identify stress
24
Valerie Lovegreen
and choose a previously learned stress reduction techniques may reduce the stress
and pave the way for the student to be able to use clear thinking during test taking
(Wilson & Conyers, 2014).
Critical Thinking in the Elementary School
There are fewer studies on the impact of critical thinking at the elementary level
than in the higher grades, but these studies reveal the positive impact that teaching critical thinking has on academic development (Kettler, 2014). Elementary
school students are ready for critical thinking, and some suggest there are not
enough opportunities afforded them during their school years to develop the skill
(Wexler, 2018). With the focus on reading and math, subjects like science, history, and the arts have a smaller presence in the elementary grades, but in these
subjects, knowledge combined with critical thinking allows students to learn how
to construct and evaluate scientific, historical, and cultural knowledge (Wexler,
2018). When reading and math scores do not meet the standards, more focus is
placed on these subjects, to the detriment of the others, which may inhibit critical thinking development (Clemmitt, 2015). At the elementary level, the metacognitive strategy of ‘plan, do, review’ can be used successfully to help students
learning how to think critically about planning first, then responding, and finally,
critically thinking about the success of the action (Wilson & Conyers, 2014).
Conclusion
Critical thinking is a complex phenomenon and defining the construct and developing assessment tools and effective pedagogy is a challenging task (Abrami
et al., 2008). A study by Butler, Pentoney, and Bong (2017) found that critical
thinking skills are a better predictor of life success than intelligence, and those
who are adept at critical thinking have fewer instances of negative life events
(Butler et al., 2017). Critical thinking can be developed more easily than intelligence, and these skills are maintained over time (Bouygues, 2018). If critical
thinking is a better predictor of the ability to deal with real-world problems than
intelligence, promotion of pedagogy to improve critical thinking in classroom
teaching and learning is critical to classroom instruction (Butler et al., 2017).
Generating critical thinking students will have a positive influence on classroom
learning and a tremendous impact on society, as students become adults who
make informed decisions on topics including politics, economics, interpersonal
decisions, and social interactions (Butler et al., 2017). At present, scholars suggest
they do not yet understand the complex process of learning with a clarity that
links successful teaching and learning for all students (Willingham, 2019). The
advent of technology and the speed and availability of knowledge via the Internet
does not assure that learners are capable of the skills necessary in learning how to
use this information effectively (Willingham, 2019). In considering the learning
needs of students in the twenty-second century, educators will need to discover
what human thinking skills will be required to efficiently and effectively handle
this wealth of knowledge to achieve success in life and allow students to grow into
Critical Thinking Pedagogy
25
a life of well-being. Additional research designed to improve our understanding
of critical thinking may generate the necessary definition of the phenomenon
that will be useful for scholars and educators, enhancing pedagogy and quality
assurance. Armed with a sound definition, scholars may create a theory of critical
thinking that will guide future pedagogy, assessments, and interventions that will
improve student outcomes at every level of education.
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., &
Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.
Agarwal, P. K. (2019). Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact
knowledge before higher order learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2),
189–209. doi:10.1037/edu0000282; 10.1037/edu0000282.supp (Supplemental)
Anderson, M. (2015). The case against “critical thinking skills”: In pursuit of a humanizing pedagogy. Philosophical Studies in Education, 46, 83–89.
Belin, A. (2017). How to develop critical thinking in students through e-learning. Retrieved
from https://www.teachercast.net/blog/elearning-critical-thinking-skills/
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives (Vol. 1, pp. 20–24). Cognitive
Domain. New York, NY: McKay.
Bouygues, H. (2018). How critical thinking improves life outcomes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/helenleebouygues/2018/11/21/how-critical-thinkingimproves-life-outcomes/#79f3819e4811
Boyd, B. L., Dooley, K. E., & Kurten, J. S. (2017). Creating a faculty cadre of critical thinking fellows. NACTA Journal, 61(3), 202–207.
Buck Institute for Education. (2019). Gold standard PBL: Essential project design elements. Retrieved from https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl/gold-standard-projectdesign
Butler, H. A. (2012). Halpern critical thinking assessment predicts real-world outcomes of
critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 721–729. doi:10.1002/acp.2851
Butler, H. A., Pentoney, C., & Bong, M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical
thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 25, 38–46.
Cargas, S., Williams, S., & Rosenberg, M. (2017). An approach to teaching critical thinking
across disciplines using performance tasks with a common rubric. Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 26, 24–37. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.05.005
Clemmitt, M. (2015). Teaching critical thinking: Should schools do more to foster analytical
skills? CQ Researcher, 25(14), 313–336.
Cohen, J. D., Renken, M., & Calandra, B. (2017). Urban middle school students, twentyfirst century skills, and STEM-ICT careers: Selected findings from a front-end
analysis. Techtrends, 61(4), 380–385.
Coney, C. L. (2015). Critical thinking in its contexts and in itself. Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 47(5), 515–528.
Cunningham, R. (2018). Creative, collaborative, critical and caring thinking. Mathematics
Teaching, 263, 21–25.
Dam, R., & Siang, T. (2019). What is design thinking and why is it so popular? Retrieved
from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-design-thinkingand-why-is-it-so-popular
26
Valerie Lovegreen
Darwazeh, A. N. (2017). A new revision of the [revised] Bloom’s taxonomy. Distance
Learning, 14(3), 13–28.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the
differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D C Heath. doi:10.1037/10903-000
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think : A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Dick, R. D. (1991). An empirical taxonomy of critical thinking. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 18(2), 79–92.
Dwyer, C., Hogan, M., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a
method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments.
Metacognition & Learning, 7(3), 219–244. doi:10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1
Dwyer, C. P., Boswell, A., & Elliott, M. A. (2015). An evaluation of critical thinking competencies in business settings. Journal of Education for Business, 90(5), 260–269. doi:
10.1080/08832323.2015.1038978
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In
J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice
(pp. 9–26). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed
research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of
educational assessment and instruction. The Delphi Report, Corpus ID: 113754750.
Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Critical-Thinking%3A-AStatement-of-Expert-Consensus-Facione/b17e784638ef88d1cf73a6f99c130f59fe0bbc0d.
Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement,
and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.
Gamson, D. A., Eckert, S. A., & Anderson, J. (2019). Standards, instructional objectives
and curriculum design: A complex relationship. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(6), 8–12.
doi:10.1177/0031721719834022
Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. Teachers
College Contributions to Education, 843, 9–13.
Gross, M., Latham, D., Underhill, J., & Bak, H. (2016). The peritext book club: Reading
to foster critical thinking about STEAM texts. School Library Research, 19, 1–17.
Halpern, D. F. (2017). Whither psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4),
665–668. doi:10.1177/1745691616677097
Hitchcock, D. (2018). Critical thinking. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
critical-thinking/
Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2018). Stimulating reflection and self-correcting reasoning through
argument mapping: Three approaches. Topoi, 37(1), 185–199. doi:10.1007/s11245016-9408-x
Huber, C. R., & Kuncel, N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 431–468.
Johnson, R. H., & Hamby, B. (2015). A meta-level approach to the problem of defining
‘Critical thinking’. Argumentation, 29(4), 417–430.
Kelly-Riley, D. (2003). Washington state university critical thinking project: Improving
student learning outcomes through faculty practice. Assessment Update, 15(4), 5–7.
Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing
identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly,
58(2), 127–136.
Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2018). Making science relevant. Science Teacher, 86(1), 40–45.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Critical Thinking Pedagogy
27
Kumar, R., & Refaei, B. (2017). Problem-based learning pedagogy fosters students’ critical
thinking about writing. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 11(2),
1–10.
Kuncel, N. R. (2011). Measurement and meaning of critical thinking. Paper presented at
the Draft Report for the National Research Council’s 21st Century Skills Workshop.
Lipman, M. (1973). Philosophy for children. Retrieved from http://proxy1.ncu.edu/
login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED
103296&site=eds-live
Loes, C. N., & Pascarella, E. T. (2017). Collaborative learning and critical thinking: Testing the
link. Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 726–753. doi:10.1080/00221546.2017.1291257
Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
6(1), 1–13.
McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis. Educational
Researcher, 19(4), 10–12.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
Next Generation Science Standards. (2019). FAQs. Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/faqs##Contents1
Nicholas, M. C., & Raider-Roth, M. (2016). A hopeful pedagogy to critical thinking.
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–10.
Obama, B. (2014). State of the Union. White House. Retrieved from http://www.Whitehouse.
gov/the-Press-office/2014/01/28/president-Barack-Obamas-State-Union-Address.
Accessed on March 24, 2014.
OECD Directorate for Education and Skills. (2018). Fostering and assessing students’
creative and critical thinking in higher education. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.
org/education/ceri/Fostering-and-assessing-students-creative-and-critical-thinkingskills-in-higher-education.pdf
Paul, R. (2005). The state of critical thinking today. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2005(130), 27–38.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning. Journal of
Developmental Education, 31(1), 36–37.
Paul, R. W. (1985). The critical-thinking movement. National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi
Journal, 65(1), 2–3.
Paul, R. W., & Binker, A. J. A. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Technical report, Center for Critical Thinking and
Moral Critique, Sonoma State University.
Ruder, S. M., Stanford, C., & Gandhi, A. (2018). Scaffolding STEM classrooms to integrate
key workplace skills: Development of resources for active learning environments.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(5), 29–35. doi:10.2505/4/jcst18_047_05_29
Saadé, R. G., Morin, D., & Thomas, J. D. E. (2012). Critical thinking in E-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1608–1617. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.025
Schipke, R. C. (2018). Cooperative learning and web 2.0: A social perspective on critical
thinking. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 27(2), 193–208.
Shim, W., & Walczak, K. (2012). The impact of faculty teaching practices on the development of students’ critical thinking skills. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 24(1), 16–30.
Smith, B. O. (1959). A study of the logic of teaching: The logical structure of teaching and the
development of critical thinking. A Report of the First Phase of a Five-Year Research
Project, Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, University of Illinois,
Champaign, IL.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement, and improvement.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED272882.pdf.
28
Valerie Lovegreen
Styers, M. L., Van Zandt, P. A., & Hayden, K. L. (2018). Active learning in flipped life
science courses promotes development of critical thinking skills. CBE – Life Sciences
Education, 17(3), 39.
Sun, L. (2017). Critical encounters in a middle school English language arts classroom:
Using graphic novels to teach critical thinking & reading for peace education.
Multicultural Education, 25(1), 22–28.
TeachThought. (2018). The difference between projects and project-based learning.
Retrieved from https://www.teachthought.com/project-based-learning/differencebetween-projects-and-project-based-learning/
The Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2019). Online courses in critical thinking. Retrieved
from https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/online-courses-for-instructors/574
United States Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy:
Sourcebook. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
UNT Teaching Commons. (2019). Problem-based learning vs. project-based learning.
Retrieved from https://teachingcommons.unt.edu/teaching-essentials/engagedlearning/problem-based-learning-vs-project-based-learning
Wang, X. (2017). The construction of researcher–researched relationships in school ethnography: Doing research, participating in the field and reflecting on ethical dilemmas. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(7), 763–779.
Westheimer, J. (2008). No child left thinking: Democracy at-risk in American schools.
Independent School, 67(3), 32–42.
Wexler, N. (2018). Why American students haven’t gotten better at reading in 20 years.
Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/04/-americanstudents-reading/557915/
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education
Policy Review, 109(4), 21–32. doi:10.3200/AEPR.109.4, 21-32
Willingham, D. T. (2019). Commentary: The digital expansion of the mind gone wrong
in education. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8, 20–24.
doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.12.001
Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2014). The boss of my brain. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/
publications/educational-leadership/oct14/vol72/num02/£The-Boss-of-My-Brain£.
aspx
Chapter 2.2
Proposal to Promote Quality of Education:
A View from Spain
Ernesto López-Gómez, Raúl González Fernández,
Antonio Medina and Samuel Gento
Abstract
Recent decades have witnessed increasing interest worldwide in educational
quality. Many international organisations and national education systems
have conducted studies on the meaning of quality, the various ways in which it
can be measured and the factors that promote it as a basis for designing education reforms and rendering good practices visible. In this chapter, the authors
explore conceptual perspectives on educational quality that are informed by
various pedagogical approaches and examine the initiatives implemented in
Spain to improve educational quality in non-university contexts, analysing
education legislation over the past 30 years. The authors also propose basic
elements or strategies that the authors believe would further promote educational quality in non-university settings in Spain and elsewhere. These proposals revolve around the educational project, teacher training and professional
development, diversity and inclusion in education and community leadership.
Keywords: Educational quality; basic education; proposals; Spain;
competences; leadership
1. Introduction
Few concepts are employed so frequently with so much ambiguity as quality (Pérez-Juste, 2005). In education as in other fields, the concept of quality is
imprecise, with various meanings that reflect diverse interpretations (Sallis, 2014).
There is no single accepted definition of educational quality, rendering it difficult to develop a shared understanding. Thus, ‘quality education’ means different
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 29–44
Copyright © 2020 by Ernesto López-Gómez, Raúl González Fernández, Antonio Medina and
Samuel Gento. Published under Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201005
30
Ernesto López-Gómez et al.
things to different people according to their interests (e.g. governments, education
authorities, s­ tudents, teachers, families and social entities). Despite these different
understandings of what constitutes quality, consensus does exist however on the
importance of providing a quality education.
The pursuit of educational quality and a quality education is neither a new idea
nor a response to a new need, but is rather a concern as old as reflection on education itself (Adams, Acedo, & Popa, 2012; García-Hoz, 1980). Recent decades
have witnessed increasing interest worldwide in the meaning and measurement of
educational quality as a basis for designing education reform. Rather than being a
rhetorical goal, many international organisations and national education systems
are committed to developing education indicators in order to implement quality
education measures (Engel & Rutkowski, 2014).
In this chapter, we aim to achieve three inter-related goals: to explore various
conceptual perspectives on educational quality informed by various pedagogical
approaches, to examine the initiatives implemented in Spain to improve educational quality in non-university contexts and to propose basic elements or strategies that we believe would further promote educational quality in non-university
settings in Spain and elsewhere.
2. On the Concept of Quality Education: The Shift from
Educational Goals to Indicators
The difficulty of conceptualising quality contrasts starkly with the urgent need
to use the concept correctly. It is important to have a clear understanding of the
various meanings encompassed within the concept otherwise there is a danger
that it will become a mere slogan; a rhetorical term or word with a high moral
tone but little practical value. It bears asking whether quality is a valuable and
meaningful concept or conversely, one that reflects theoretical and bureaucratic
concerns, offering little content and less guidance (Kumar & Sarangapani, 2004).
Schindler, Elvidge, Welzant, and Crawford (2015) have described two strategies
to define quality that have informed our analysis of the concept of educational
quality. The first strategy is to construct a broad definition focussing on the
purpose and fundamental goal of education, which is to produce educated people.
This raises two questions: what is the mission of education? And what are the
essential elements of an educated person? Popular definitions of education include
expressions such as ‘the development of desirable qualities in people’, ‘intentional
development of human potential’ and ‘all-round personal development’ (IbáñezMartín, 2017; Ozoliņš, 2013; Peters, 1967). This is also how education is defined
in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN General
Assembly, 1948), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (UN General Assembly, 1966); the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UN General Assembly, 1989) and the Spanish Constitution (1978).
Hence, the first requirement of a quality education is to provide a comprehensive educational process, and the ultimate purpose of education is to fully develop
the human potential of each person as an individual forming part of a community. Thus, the goal of quality is to fully develop each and every person within the
context of the here and now (Pérez-Juste, 2005).
Proposal to Promote Quality of Education
31
However, there is no consensus on these ‘desirable qualities’ or the essential
elements of ‘all-round development’. Multiple proposals and interpretations
have been suggested with many nuances (e.g. well-rounded education, human
flourishing, character development, education as initiation, education as humanisation). Nevertheless, it is necessary to understand the purpose of education
before conducting any detailed examination of educational quality.
Our proposal is that achieving all-round personal development entails nurturing intelligence but also instilling moral capabilities, civic virtues and ethical values. Consequently, academic skills should be fostered synergistically with human,
cultural and civic skills. We say synergistically because of the need to consider a
holistic educational process that unifies various aspects rather than merely juxtaposing them. A less integrated approach, or one which prioritises academic development above all else, will lead to partial or piecemeal instead of well-rounded
learning. Therefore, unless education facilitates holistic, all-round development, it
cannot be said to be of quality (García-Hoz, 1980; Gento, 2002; Ibañez-Martín,
2017; Pérez-Juste, 2005).
The second strategy for defining educational quality proposed by Schindler
et al. (2015) is to identify specific indicators that reflect the desired goals or outcomes.
From this perspective, quality is considered a multidimensional concept in which
specific dimensions interact. This idea of quality quantified by indicators could lead
to a limited vision if restricted exclusively to academic aspects without pursuing
educational outcomes focussed on human development (Engel & Rutkowski, 2014).
Nonetheless, these dimensions and indicators can be used to propose strategies
to promote development and ensure that quality does not become a static goal.
The pursuit of quality is a challenge that entails a constant quest for excellence in a
given educational, political, economic and social context. In this respect, models of
quality can be useful to reflect this strategy, as can the various initiatives that have
emerged in recent decades to certify educational institutions through International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards or the European Foundation
Quality Management (EFQM) framework.
Various models of quality have been proposed in Spain. We shall highlight
two of them. The first, the Model of Total Quality in Educational Institutions
(Gento, 2002) proposes two components of quality in an educational institution:
identifiers and predictors. The former (educational product, student and staff satisfaction and educational impact) are used to assess evidence of quality, while the
latter (availability of means, planning, resource management, methodology and
pedagogical leadership) predict its existence. The second model, the Integrated
Quality Project (Villa et al., 2003) consists of six areas (institutional approaches,
organisational structures, mutual tolerance, guidance and mentoring, curricular
scope and family and environment) and three overarching aspects (organisational
culture, processes and outcomes) that have a direct impact on the above areas.
The global recommendations of international agencies (the OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the European Union)
and the approaches adopted by neighbouring education systems have exerted
a marked influence on the formulation and focus of education legislation in
Spain (Bonal & Tarabini, 2013). In North America and Europe, the term quality
32
Ernesto López-Gómez et al.
education has several meanings and is sometimes used synonymously with ‘school
improvement’ or ‘school effectiveness’, while large international organisations
such as the World Bank, the OECD and UNESCO use other interpretations of
quality education (Lauwerier, 2017).
As Engel and Rutkowski (2014) have indicated, Education at a Glance indicators and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) exert a
considerable influence on national education policy, but exhibit a limited vision
of the meaning of ‘developing a quality education’, creating tensions at local,
regional, national and international level, as evidenced in developing countries
(Hickey & Hossain, 2019). Context unquestionably determines the idea of quality.
Any understanding of a quality education necessarily entails careful analysis of
the context in which a reform or programme is established (Adams et al., 2012).
However, in our view, educational quality requires an educational process that is
oriented towards the purposes described above, as well as indicators that estimate
and capture the entirety of this process and the outcomes it yields.
3. Seeking Synergy between and Integration of Pedagogical
Approaches for a Quality Framework
There are several conceptual perspectives on quality (Barrett, Chawla-Duggan,
Lowe, Nikel, & Ukpo, 2006; Chitty, 2002; Delors, 1996; Hawes & Stephens, 1990;
Kumar & Sarangapani, 2004; Nikel & Lowe, 2010), all of which are based on different but inter-related pedagogical approaches (Table 1).
The Learning: The Treasure Within report presents UNESCO’s global vision of
education from the perspective of lifelong learning (Delors, 1996), which has been
influential in the development of concepts related to educational quality. This proposal is based on four interconnected and equally important pillars of education.
⦁⦁ Learning to know involves mastering the tools of knowledge and understand-
ing, and ‘learning to learn’. Besides satisfying intellectual curiosity, knowledge
enables people to develop the skills necessary to continue learning throughout
life. In sum, learning to know means acquiring a body of knowledge and a
thirst for knowledge. Thus, knowledge is both a means and an end.
⦁⦁ Learning to do entails acquiring the skills to deal satisfactorily with a variety of
situations in life. Learning to do involves thinking in context, in practice and in
action, both at work and in life generally.
⦁⦁ Learning to live together is a fundamental aspect of education and social development. It means assuming one’s responsibility to participate in and contribute to society, working together for the common good, and implies meeting
contemporary social and cultural challenges and understanding local needs
and global trends from the perspective of ‘glocalisation’ (Robertson, 1995).
⦁⦁ In our view, learning to be represents the heart of education and is unquestionably the primary purpose and worth of a quality education. Learning to
be demands collaboration between schools, families and society as a whole in
order to fully develop each person (Delors, 2013).
‘Something more’
(excellence and human
betterment)
Hawes and
Stephens (1990)
Nikel and
Lowe (2010)
Sustainability
Relevance (personal and social)
Essential element of social progress
and social change
Learning to live together
Responsiveness Reflexivity Relevance Equity
Humanist perspective
Human fullfillment
Kumar and Sarangapani
(2004)and Barrett et al.
(2006)
Learning to be
Chitty (2002)
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Economic and positivism
perspectives
Efficiency
Preparation for the world of work
Learning to do Learning to know
Perspectives and Priorities on Quality in Education
Perspectives and Priorities for Quality Education.
Delors (1996)
Authors
Table 1.
Proposal to Promote Quality of Education
33
34
Ernesto López-Gómez et al.
Meanwhile, Chitty (2002) identified three purposes of educational paradigms,
which implicitly encompass different interpretations of quality: human fulfilment,
preparation for the world of work and essential element of social progress and social
change. In other words, humanist, utilitarian and transformational visions of education represent a means to improve society. The latter stance includes work by authors
such as Dewey and Freire on the narrow divide between school and society and considers the contribution of education to community development. Thus, education
provides the capacity and resolves to improve society in light of changing needs.
Hawes and Stephens (1990) suggested that quality could be interpreted from
three standpoints: efficiency in meeting set goals (achieving and improving different types of standard), relevance to human and environmental needs and conditions (considering that education has personal and social benefits demanded by
the context) and ‘something more’ (value added) in relation to the pursuit of
excellence and human betterment.
Kumar and Sarangapani (2004) and Barrett et al. (2006) have identified two
broad perspectives on quality that should complement one another and are to some
extent interdependent. The first of these, with philosophical roots in human capital
theory, adopts an ‘economic’ vision of education, viewed in terms of ‘inputs and
outputs’ (Kumar & Sarangapani, 2004). This is a positivist approach focussed on
results and the acquisition of learning in terms of cognitive achievement, based on
various indicators of efficacy and effectiveness (Barrett et al., 2006). In short, it uses
quantitative, quantifiable results as a measure of quality. Examples include performance indicators, enrolment and retention rates and national and international tests.
The second perspective adopts the humanist vision of education, where students
are at the centre of the educational process. Humanist approaches have been described
as participatory and democratic (Kumar & Sarangapani, 2004) and are aimed at
developing the whole person and all people (Barrett et al., 2006). Thus, a quality
education includes personal and wider social goals (e.g. social justice, human rights,
moral development, civic education, democracy and environmental sustainability).
Lastly, Nikel and Lowe (2010) have stated that quality is a construct in balanced ‘dynamic tension’ between seven conceptual dimensions: effectiveness
(achievement of objectives), efficiency (maximising use of resources), equity (universal access to education), responsiveness (personalisation, uniqueness of the
student), relevance (education for life, lifelong learning), reflexivity (adaptation
to change and commitment) and sustainability (responsibility and glocalisation).
From this perspective, quality is considered a question of process and strategy.
While these notions of educational quality share a common horizon, seeking on
the one hand to ensure students’ cognitive development, and on the other, to develop
attitudes, skills and values that facilitate individual well-being and social development,
there remains much emphasis on the quantitative aspects of education. These priorities are the result of technocratic rationalisation, in which students are viewed as consumers rather than learners. However, schools should be seen as places where cultural
attitudes and values are acquired. Therefore, pedagogies based on learning, shared
leadership and inclusivity should be considered examples of quality education, and
shall form the fundamental basis for our proposal in this chapter, as in some way they
have for Spain’s education laws over the past 30 years, analysed below.
Proposal to Promote Quality of Education
35
4. Quality in the Non-university Education System in Spain:
Legislative Guidelines
The idea of quality has existed in the Spanish education system for decades, but
especially since the 1990s, evidenced by initiatives such as plans to assess university quality, the education system, schools and teaching staff.
Below, we shall discuss educational quality from the perspective of Spanish
legislation, analysing the laws that have regulated pre-university education. More
specifically, we shall examine the ‘idea of quality’ reflected in five education laws
passed in 1990, 1995, 2002, 2006 and 2013. These undeniably represent many
reforms over a short period of time, and reflect the stances of a succession of
Spanish governments of a different political stripe.
The Organic Law on General Regulation of the Educational System (LOGSE,
1990) reorganised the education system by establishing the stages of preschool, primary and secondary education (encompassing compulsory and noncompulsory secondary education and intermediate vocational training), advanced
vocational training and university education. Compulsory education provided by
the State thus comprised 10 years of schooling (from 6–16 years old) based on a
comprehensive school model.
The LOGSE (1990) included various factors that promoted quality (articles
55–62): teacher training and qualification, curriculum planning, educational
resources, leadership, education research and innovation, educational and vocational guidance, school inspections and assessment of the education system. The
main contribution of this law was to explicitly recognise the need to link quality
to social equity, although the financial resources provided were insufficient.
Meanwhile, the Organic Law on the Participation, Evaluation and Governance of
Educational Centres (LOPEG, 1995) contained measures aimed at achieving further
improvements in quality. The most important of these included school autonomy
and the participation of the education community and local organisations in its
operation; the creation of a setting that stimulated professional teaching practice;
processes to ensure student socialisation and the balanced development of their
capabilities; an appropriate evaluation system; prioritising of disadvantaged schools
and students and the transmission of values as the guiding principle of education.
The Organic Law on the Quality of Education (LOCE, 2002) introduced a
reform aimed at reducing school dropout rates, which at that time hovered around
25% (higher than the mean for the European Union). Here, the concept of quality
was associated with staying in the education system. The law defined three aspects
that encompassed 12 principles of quality, most notably equity, the transmission
of values, lifelong learning, recognition of the teaching function and reinforcement of school autonomy via head teachers.
In its preamble, the Organic Law on Education (LOE, 2006) indicated that ‘a
good education is the greatest wealth and the primary resource of a country and
its citizens’. This law stressed the need to provide a quality education for all citizens of both sexes, regardless of their conditions and circumstances, at all levels
of the education system. It also underlined the need for the education community
to collaborate in order to achieve this ambitious objective (Tiana, 2009).
36
Ernesto López-Gómez et al.
Priority was given to a series of factors that promoted educational quality,
especially teacher training and qualification; team work; the provision of education
resources; teaching research, experimentation and renewal; promoting reading and
the use of libraries; pedagogic, organisational and managerial autonomy; leadership; educational and vocational guidance; school inspections and evaluation.
Another important aspect of the LOE (2006) was its strong commitment to
the education objectives established by the European Union. This involved two
requirements, the first of which was to overhaul teacher training, adapting preservice training to the European environment and enhancing professional development linked to teaching practice. The second was to provide a legal framework
for lifelong learning and the European model of key competences.
It is also worth mentioning that evaluation was considered an effective means to
diagnose and improve educational processes and one that should involve students,
teaching staff, educational institutions, the curriculum and the education authorities.
Lastly, the LOE (2006) indicated the importance of endowing the education system
with greater flexibility by enhancing the autonomy of educational institutions, thus
enabling them to adapt to the specific characteristics of their environment and students and ensure that everyone achieved the best possible academic success.
The preamble to the Organic Law on the Improvement of Educational Quality
(LOMCE, 2013), which is currently in force, indicated the need to improve students’
educational level as the primary measure to ensure their access to highly skilled
jobs. There were three main motives for this reform: the results obtained by students in international evaluation tests such as PISA, the high rates of early dropout
from education and training and the low number of students achieving excellence.
The express goal of the reform was locate education at the heart of society and
the economy. Consequently, the LOMCE (2013) seeks to integrate two contexts
with inherently different dynamics: the market and school (Montes & Gamboa,
2018). This controversial and hotly debated stance views quality in terms of system efficiency, educational utility and economic development.
In addition, the LOMCE (2013) highlights the importance of strengthening
the autonomy of school management teams and promoting the development of
pedagogical leadership. For example, it stresses the need to increase the autonomy
of educational institutions as a mechanism to improve their results. Thus, each
educational institution is expected to determine the strengths and weaknesses of
its environment and context of action in order to tailor its courses and methodological approach accordingly.
Educational institutions must also be accountable and capable of demonstrating that the available resources have been used effectively to improve outcomes.
This accountability extends to students, which is another controversial aspect of
the LOMCE (2013). Students will be subject to external evaluations in accordance with international criteria (PISA standards), although the results obtained
in these tests, which focus on their level of skills acquisition, are intended for
diagnostic purposes in order to tailor learning accordingly. Another important
aspect is that the curriculum has been streamlined to ensure mastery of the basic
skills and reinforce instrumental knowledge. A further aim is to develop the key
competences for social, civic and lifelong learning. Attention is also paid to diversity, and progress through secondary education has been made more flexible (e.g.
Proposal to Promote Quality of Education
37
learning improvement programmes, promotion of vocational training and fasttrack entry into non-compulsory secondary education) to ensure that all students
develop their full potential according to their strengths and circumstances.
On the 7 November 2018, the Secretary of State for Education issued a document entitled ‘Proposals for amending the Organic Law on Education’, organised
around seven blocks. In broad terms, the document analyses problems derived
from the LOMCE (2013) and proposes solutions. However, at the time of writing,
the proposed amendments have not been enacted.
A review of these laws indicates that the subject of education has not always
been addressed from a consistent stance (Pérez-Juste, 2005). Suffice it to recall
that the LOGSE (1990) and the LOE (2006) considered quality from the perspective of factors that would promote it, the LOPEG (1995) proposed a series of
measures to achieve further progress in improving quality, while the LOCE (2012)
and the LOMCE (2013) refer to the pillars and principles of quality.
Returning to the subject under discussion, some of the most recent education laws
explicitly include the term quality in their title (LOCE, 2002; LOMCE, 2013), and the
word has appeared in the texts with increasing frequency over time. In the LGE (1970),
it appeared three times, whereas in the LOGSE (1990) and the LOPEG (1995), it was
mentioned 23 and 21 times respectively. By the time we reach the LOCE (2002), LOE
(2006) and LOMCE (2013), the word quality appears 42, 68 and 47 times, respectively.
However, rather than frequency, it is of more interest here to identify the elements
and strategies that have been considered important to improve educational quality in
Spain, and in accordance with this analysis, to describe our proposal.
5. Elements and Strategies to Improve Educational Quality
The third aim of this chapter is to propose strategies that we believe would further
promote educational quality in non-university settings in Spain and elsewhere.
Although international readers may feel that other key aspects of a quality education are missing, an overview of the most recent education laws enacted in Spain
shed light on the following elements or strategies, which are inter-related through
the educational project that defines the school’s identity and describes its overall
organisation within its context.
5.1 The Educational Project in Institutions: Compass for Quality
The existence of a long-term mission, of an educational project unanimously supported by all members of a school, is fundamental to quality. Educational quality
cannot be achieved solely through means and materials, which are mere instruments in its service, although it is essential to have appropriate, necessary and sufficient resources. Educational quality is reflected in the quality of the educational
project, in other words in the objectives and goal proposed (Ibáñez-Martín, 2009)
and the plans and programmes formulated to achieve them.
The educational project defines the ideal to which the institution aspires.
It should be well founded and designed and appropriate to the context of the
educational institution. The education community assumes and shares the project through an active commitment that informs all activities. In addition, the
38
Ernesto López-Gómez et al.
educational project should have an effective review and development procedure
to ensure continuous improvement (Pérez-Juste, 2005).
Thus, the educational project clarifies the school’s educational goals, goals that
must go beyond academic outcomes. There is no doubt that education is frequently
and mistakenly judged in terms of ‘academic achievement’, as evidenced in Spain
by the disproportionate importance attached to standardised test scores and the
percentage of a school’s students who pass the university entrance examination.
We believe that ‘academic achievement’, which rewards students’ cognitive
development, and ‘human development’, which facilitates students’ personal
growth, should be equally and synergistically fostered in educational institutions.
Educational projects are essential to attain this goal. Educational excellence can
only be achieved by planning a truly meaningful learning experience that nurtures
students’ all-round development. Such projects involve the entire education community and entail reflecting on the curriculum delivered – beyond officially established subject matter – and seeking teacher and teaching excellence in the school.
This question is discussed below.
5.2 Teacher Training and Professional Development
Education is delivered by teachers. To ensure educational quality, it is essential to
provide good pre-service training and subsequent professional development for
education professionals (e.g. teachers, counsellors and specialists). The provision of
training that promotes professional development is a key strategy to achieve quality.
There is a commonly held view that pre-service training should focus on the
subject matter (content knowledge) that trainee teachers will one day teach. Obviously, this is necessary, but it is insufficient. Pedagogical training is also essential,
in order to provide trainees with the necessary tools, elucidate the importance
of the teaching role and instil the qualities and knowledge necessary to become
a good teacher and exercise the profession with lucidity (Ibáñez-Martín, 2017).
Education professionals in general and teachers in particular must possess key
competences in order to deliver a quality, student-centred education. In Spain,
the following competencies are considered of particular importance: planning,
communication, teaching methodology, tutoring, digital evaluation and research
and innovation (Medina, 2013; Zabalza, 2004).
In line with the European Higher Education Area, pre-service training for the
early stages of education is now delivered via undergraduate teaching degrees
specialising in early childhood or primary education. These take four academic
years and are worth 240 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). The degrees
include courses on subject matter and associated areas (100 ECTS) and on theoretical and practical knowledge (60 ECTS), as well as optional subjects that
enable trainees to develop a specialisation according to their interests (30 ECTS
credits), a teaching practicum and a final year project (50 ECTS credits).
In contrast, pre-service training for secondary education teachers is delivered
via a master’s teaching degree specialising in secondary education (60 ECTS),
taken after successfully completing an undergraduate degree in the subject to be
taught (e.g. history, physics, chemistry or languages), which has no pedagogical
training. The master’s degree includes basic training in educational psychology
Proposal to Promote Quality of Education
39
for the purposes of teaching and the acquisition of basic skills, combined with an
introduction to professional practice by means of a teaching practicum.
Pre-service training is updated via professional development. In Spain, the
education authorities (at local, regional and state level) provide this on-site at
schools and through working groups, seminars and face-to-face, blended and online courses. In theory, this education should meet the training needs identified in
teachers’ practice, updating their knowledge in such a way as to enable them to
tackle emerging educational challenges.
At present, one important approach that draws on international research
involves learning networks (Azorín, 2019). This professional development approach
facilitates greater collaboration between education professionals in the education
community and beyond. The aim is to provide the space and time to collaboratively
develop good learning practices, which are unquestionably important for quality.
5.3 Promoting Attention to Diversity in the Educational Process as a
Tool for Equity (and Quality)
Another element that contributes to quality and is a means to achieve equity is
the inclusion of attention to diversity in all its aspects (e.g. cultural, social, linguistic and academic) in schools and therefore in the educational project. This
was proposed 25 years ago, in the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action
on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994), and according to Ainscow, Slee,
and Best (2019), writing in the editorial of a recent special issue of the International Journal of Inclusive Education, it has significantly helped to consolidate the
assumption that every learner matters equally and has the right to receive effective
educational opportunities. Thus, the inclusion of attention to diversity in schools
is now considered an important element of pedagogical renewal within the paradigm of total quality (Gento & González, 2014).
In recent decades, education policies in Spain (LOE, 2006; LOGSE, 1990;
LOMCE, 2013) have promoted the inclusion of attention to diversity in schools,
defined as an educational response to all students who at some point in their
schooling have experienced learning difficulties, and have shifted the setting for
this action from special needs education to the inclusive school environment.
Over time, the scope of diversity has widened beyond students who have ‘special
education needs’ to include all students (Parrilla, 2008).
Attention to diversity implies providing individual support tailored to each
student’s profile, needs and characteristics, within the context of his or her peer
group and in such a way that each student is enabled to develop his or her full
potential as an active member of the community (Chiner & Cardona, 2013). To
achieve this, teaching staff must create new educational spaces and times, promote flexible groups, individualised methods, positive interactions and mutual
learning and leverage education technologies.
The aim is to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach (same methods, same
content and same tasks for everyone) towards the provision of direct support for
each student, co-teaching and peer help and the use of activities (scaled according
to difficulty), strategies and resources commensurate with the specific competences
of each student. To this end, the education authorities must provide the services and
40
Ernesto López-Gómez et al.
resources necessary to ensure equity and equality of opportunities and thus enable all students to develop their full potential. In an inclusive school environment,
attention to diversity entails attending to students with special educational needs
(physical, mental or sensory disabilities and personality or behaviour disorders),
students with high intellectual capacities, students who have entered the education
system later than usual and students with specific learning difficulties.
In sum, inclusive education refers to an effective and coordinated response to
student diversity, adapting schools and the teaching–learning process to student
characteristics and needs. When inclusion is implemented appropriately, with the
necessary conditions and elements, it plays a fundamental role in improving educational quality (Parrilla, 2008).
5.4 Developing Leadership in the Community
Fostering pedagogical leadership is a key strategy for promoting the quality of educational institutions (Bolívar, Caballero, & García-Gárnica, 2017; Gento, González,
Palomares, & Orden, 2018). The objectives of this strategy include improving educational processes and promoting the potential of all members of an educational
institution. Therefore, leadership must be shared and exercised by all members at
both individual and institution level. These two levels are analysed below.
Individual pedagogical leadership is exercised in a personal capacity by professionals within the educational institution (head teacher, director of studies and
teachers). As the driving force behind the various elements that make up the educational process, the head teacher plays a very important role.
The quality of a school unquestionably depends to a large extent on having
a management team that is committed to achieving quality and stimulates and
encourages all education community members to pursue quality. A head teacher’s function bears more relation to the pursuit of excellence than to bureaucracy
(Ibáñez-Martín, 2009). Head teachers must reward teachers’ work, ensure sufficient
flexibility to facilitate innovation in teaching (Sugrue, 2015) and propose initiatives
that spur everyone to meet the challenge. They must coordinate the collection of
data that serve as indicators of compliance with the educational project and help
identify the school’s strengths and weaknesses. They must also concern themselves
with the teachers’ professional careers and manage economic resources so that the
school is equipped with the necessary material means. Therefore, their function has
a significant impact on student learning (Leithwood, Sun, & Pollock, 2017).
Furthermore, as mid-level managers, head teachers are responsible for ensuring satisfactory academic and pedagogical performance in their schools. These
responsibilities endow head teachers with an important role in processes of
change and improvement in educational quality (Shaked & Schechter, 2018).
Meanwhile, as leaders helping students to achieve their potential as individuals
and members of society, teachers emerge as a primary factor for improving the
teaching-learning process, academic outcomes and students’ all-round education
(Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016), as we noted in the first of our proposals.
However, the exercise of leadership within a school cannot be reduced
solely and exclusively to one person or professional role (Spillane & Ortiz, 2019).
Thus, collegiate pedagogical leadership is implemented by teams whose actions are
Proposal to Promote Quality of Education
41
aimed at providing an impetus to all other members of the institution (González,
Khampirat, López-Gómez & Silva, 2020). In Spain, this leadership may be
exercised by the teaching staff, the school council, the teaching coordination
committee, the educational stage team (in early childhood and primary schools)
and departments (in secondary education).
Thus, the teaching staff are responsible for planning, coordinating and deciding on various educational aspects of the school, and therefore their actions are
important when initiating processes aimed at improvement (Gento, 2002). Meanwhile, the school council, composed of different members of the education community (head teacher, town council representatives, teaching staff representatives
and parents), also has some responsibilities that could contribute to improving
educational quality, particularly those related to evaluation and approval of the
school’s general annual programme and assessment of trends in academic performance and test results obtained. Lastly, the teaching coordination committee,
consisting among others of the head teacher, the director of studies and teachers responsible for coordinating the educational stage, also plays a major role in
improving educational processes, because it is responsible for coordinating the
pedagogical and teaching function of the teachers and of the school itself.
Due to the impact of pedagogical leadership on educational quality, there
is a pressing need to improve it by means of initial and continuing training
for pedagogical leaders. Such training should focus on two important aspects
(López-Gómez & González, 2018) that influence good leadership (i.e. uplifting,
consistent, inspirational and sustainable leadership).
The first concerns learning how to cultivate interpersonal relations in leadership and foster trust as the basis for ensuring that personal and professional
values, beliefs and attitudes interact dynamically and are renovated and updated.
This requires authentic conversations that go beyond teachers’ meetings and permit the construction of trust, being appropriate here to distinguish between good
relations and solid professional relationships.
The second aspect concerns learning to lead by nurturing professional capital
and building capacity in schools to ensure continuity of leadership projects. Thus,
a leader’s initial vision should focus more on transforming the school than on taking charge. It is not so much a matter of ‘having a team’ as of ‘building a team’
(building capacity). In this manner, leadership creates community.
6. Conclusion and Final Remarks
We believe that educational quality is based on the objectives and values that
inform the essentially human activity of providing a holistic and all-round education. Given that this is a multidimensional and complex concept with many
different approaches (Table 1), one of the major challenges is to balance tensions
that may arise when tackling some aspects of quality that could affect others.
One example is the attempt to increase equity in a system, which might prompt
concerns about efficiency (Barrett et al., 2006; Nikel & Lowe, 2010).
Over the past 30 years, Spain’s education policies have achieved outstanding progress in indicators of quality, equity and excellence, although the various laws have
not always adopted mutually coherent stances (Pérez-Juste, 2005), an issue that has
42
Ernesto López-Gómez et al.
been debated in depth within the education community. This has prompted us to
propose the need to adopt stable, widely accepted policies that maintain the same
direction and promote sustainable development over time, in order to achieve the
best educational quality and the greatest social equity possible. A pact on education
in Spain is required that allows all students to develop their full potential and renders
it possible to achieve an broader interpretation of the right to education, one which
focusses as much – if not more – on the quality of education as on the quantity.
In addition, the present analysis has shown that one of the major spurs for
educational reform in Spain, at least as regards the most recent laws, has been the
goals established by the international communities to which Spain belongs, especially the European Union, which views education as an important element of
competitiveness and development and promotes lifelong learning and the acquisition of key competences.
As indicated earlier, quality can be interpreted in many different ways and
analysed from various perspectives. Therefore, caution should be exercised when
developing strategies to improve quality. However, we believe that the function of
the educational project as a compass for excellence, teacher training and professional development, attention to diversity and inclusion and the development of
community leadership are crucial elements and strategies to improve quality.
We need a culture of excellence that permeates every classroom, department
and school. The function of teachers, educational leaders and school management teams is to strive for excellence conceived not solely in terms of academic
performance but also in terms of providing the best possible education for each
and every student and fostering a passion for learning.
Acknowledgements
This chapter is partially contextualised in the research project (EDU2016-78451-P),
funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, within the
research activities of the ForInterMed-UNED Group (Ref. 125).
References
Adams, D., Acedo, C., & Popa, S. (2012). In search of quality education. In C. Acedo,
D. Adams, & S. Popa (Eds.), Quality and qualities: Tensions in education reforms
(pp. 1–22). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Ainscow, M., Slee, R., & Best, M. (2019). Editorial: The Salamanca Statement: 25 years
on. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 671–676. doi:10.1080/
13603116.2019.1622800
Azorín, C. (2019). The emergence of professional learning networks in Spain. Journal of
Professional Capital and Community, 4(1), 36–51. doi:10.1108/JPCC-03-2018-0012
Barrett, A. M., Chawla-Duggan, R., Lowe, J., Nikel, J., & Ukpo, E. (2006). The concept of
quality in education: A review of the ‘international’ literature on the concept of quality
in education. Bristol: EdQual RPC.
Bolívar, A., Caballero, K., & García-Garnica, M. (2017). Evaluación multidimensional del
liderazgo pedagógico: Claves para la mejora escolar. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas
Públicas em Educação, 25(95), 483–506. doi:10.1590/s0104-40362017002500780
Proposal to Promote Quality of Education
43
Bonal, X., & Tarabini, A. (2013). The role of PISA in shaping hegemonic educational
discourses, policies and practices: The case of Spain. Research in Comparative and
International Education, 8(3), 335–341.
Chiner, E., & Cardona, M. C. (2013). Inclusive education in Spain: How do skills,
resources, and supports affect regular education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion?
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(5), 526–541.
Chitty, C. (2002). Understanding schools and schooling. London: Routledge Falmer.
Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How
successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make
a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258. doi:10.1177/
0013161X15616863
Delors, J. (2013). The treasure within: Learning to know, learning to do, learning to live
together and learning to be. What is the value of that treasure 15 years after its publication? International Review of Education, 59(3), 319–330. Retrieved from https://
www.jstor.org/stable/24637131
Delors, J. (coord.). (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Paris: UNESCO.
Engel, L. C., & Rutkowski, D. (2014). Global influences on national definitions of quality education: Examples from Spain and Italy. Policy Futures in Education, 12(6),
769–783. doi:10.2304/pfie.2014.12.6.769
García-Hoz, V. (1980). La calidad de la educación: Una interrogante a las ciencias de la
educación, a la política docente ya la actividad escolar. Aula abierta, 30, 4–17.
Gento, S. (2002). Instituciones educativas para la calidad total. Madrid: La Muralla.
Gento, S., & González, R. (2014). Axiological basis for a curriculum design in educational
institutions of quality: A view from Spain. In D. Brook (Ed.), Qualities of education
in a globalised world (pp. 131–148). Rotterdam: Sense.
Gento, S., González, R., Palomares, A., & Orden, V. J. (2018). Integración de perspectivas sobre el perfil metodológico de una educación de calidad. Bordón. Revista de
Pedagogía, 70(1), 25–42. doi:10.13042/Bordon.2017.50833
González, R., Khampirat, B., López-Gómez, E., & Silva, H. (2020). Evidence of pedagogical
leadership of principals, middle managers and teachers by stakeholders´perspectiva.
Estudios Sobre Educación (in press).
Hawes, H., & Stephens, D. (1990). Questions of quality: Primary education and development.
London: Longman.
Hickey, S., & Hossain, N. (Eds.). (2019). The politics of education in developing countries:
From schooling to learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ibáñez-Martín, J. A. (2009). Elementos básicos de un ethos escolar orientado a la excelencia. In J. A. Ibáñez-Martín (Ed.), Educación, conocimiento y justicia (pp. 307–318).
Madrid: Dykinson.
Ibáñez-Martín, J. A. (2017). Horizontes para los educadores. Las profesiones educativas y la
promoción de la plenitud humana. Madrid: Dykinson.
Kumar, K., & Sarangapani, P. M. (2004). History of the quality debate. Contemporary
Education Dialogue, 2(1), 30–52. doi:10.1177/097318490400200103
Lauwerier, T. (2017). L’éducation au service du développement. La vision de la Banque mondiale, de l’OCDE et de l’UNESCO. Education en Débats: Analyse Comparée, 8, 43–58.
Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Pollock, K. (Eds.). (2017). How school leaders contribute to student
success: The four paths framework. New York, NY: Springer.
LGE. (1970, August 4). Law 14/1970, General of education and financing of the educational
reform. Retrieved from https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-1970-852
LOCE. (2002, December 23). Organic Law 10/2002, Quality of education. Retrieved from
https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2002/12/23/10
LOE. (2006, May 3). Organic Law 2/2006 of Education. Retrieved from https://www.boe.
es/eli/es/lo/2006/05/03/2/con
LOGSE. (1990, October 10). Organic Law 1/1990, General regulation of the educational
system. Retrieved from https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/1990/10/03/1
44
Ernesto López-Gómez et al.
LOMCE. (2013, December 9). Organic Law 8/2013, for the improvement of educational
quality. Retrieved from https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2013/BOE-A-2013-12886consolidado.pdf
LOPEG. (1995, November 20). Organic Law 9/1995, of the participation, evaluation and governance of educational centers. Retrieved from https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/1995/11/20/9
López-Gómez, E., & González, R. (2018). La confianza relacional y la creación de capital
profesional: Claves del liderazgo en las instituciones educativas. In A. Medina &
E. Pérez (coords.), Formación de líderes y directivos para el desarrollo sustentable de
organizaciones e instituciones (pp. 39–53). Madrid: Universitas.
Medina, A. (coord.). (2013). Formación del profesorado. Actividades innovadoras para el
dominio de las competencias docentes. Madrid: Ramón Areces.
Montes, A. J., & Gamboa, A. A. (2018). Perspectives on the quality of basic education
in Ibero-America: Spain and Colombia insights. Revista Historia de la Educación
Latinoamericana, 20(31), 229–244.
Nikel, J., & Lowe, J. (2010). Talking of fabric: A multi-dimensional model of quality in
education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(5),
589–605. doi:10.1080/03057920902909477
Ozoliņš, J. T. (2013). R. S. Peters and J. H. Newman on the aims of education. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 45(2), 153–170. doi:10.1080/00131857.2012.752990
Parrilla, Á. (2008). Inclusive education in Spain: A view from inside. In Policy, experience and
change: Cross-cultural reflections on Inclusive Education (pp. 19–36). Dordrecht: Springer.
Pérez Juste, R. (2005). Calidad de la educación. Calidad en educación. Hacia la necesaria
integración. Educación XX1, 8, 11–33.
Peters, R. S. (Ed.). (1967). The concept of education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time–space and homogeneity–heterogeneity. In
M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25–45).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sallis, E. (2014). Total quality management in education. London: Routledge.
Schindler, L. A., Elvidge, S. P., Welzant, H., & Crawford, L. (2015). Definitions of quality in higher
education: a synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications:
HLRC, 5(3), 3–13. doi:10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244
Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2018). School middle leaders’ sense making of a generally
outlined education reform. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18, 412–432. doi:10.1080/
15700763.2018.1450513
Spanish Constitution (1978). Official State Gazette, 29 December. Retrieved from https://
www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1978-31229
Spillane, J. P., & Ortiz, M. (2019). Perspectiva distribuida del liderazgo y la gestión escolar:
Elementos e implicancias cruciales. Revista Eletrônica de Educação, 13(1), 169–181.
Sugrue, C. (2015). Unmasking school leadership: A longitudinal life history of school leaders.
London: Springer.
Tiana, A. (2009). Por qué hicimos la ley orgánica de educación. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer.
UNESCO. (1994). Final report: World conference on special needs education: Access and
quality. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education, UNESCO, Paris.
UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December.
Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
UN General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, 16 December. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/professionalinterest/
pages/cescr.aspx
UN General Assembly. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November. Retrieved
from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
Villa, A., Goikoetxea, E., Auzmendi, E., Solabarrieta, J., Gorriño, M., & Pereda, V. (2003).
Ámbitos y criterios de la calidad pedagógica. Bilbao: Ediciones Mensajero.
Zabalza, M. A. (2004). Competencias docentes del profesorado universitario. Madrid: Narcea.
Chapter 2.3
The Management and Assurance
of Quality in Romanian Schools
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache, Ruxandra Folostina and
Teodora Michel*
Abstract
The Romanian quality legislation is based on ISO 9001 family definition and
considers the quality of education as mixed characteristics of a study programme and its supplier through which the expectations of the beneficiaries
are met, as well as the quality standards. In 2006, the Education Quality Assurance Law was adopted (L87/2006). The law defined the main quality of education concepts, stating a methodology related to the internal and external assurance of quality, establishing the responsibilities for quality assurance through
two national agencies (ARACIS for higher studies and the other – ARACIP
for pre-university studies). Also, within the same law the structures which are
responsible for quality assurance at a pre-university and university institutions
are mentioned – The Evaluation and Quality Assurance Committee.
A downside for national specific standards, augmented by the lack of domain politics is the limited consulting of the interested groups. The authors
are sharing the opinion based on which the study of education quality requires
the recognition (and taking of the responsibility) of the complex and questionable nature of the cultural, economic, political and even historical implications which are executed on this reality. From this perspective, the school
is not only a place where authors are teaching the child to write, read and
other knowledge, but also develops his autonomy and forms his p
­ ersonality.
Sometimes the school becomes favourable for discrimination and inequality, raising significant barriers in becoming its beneficiary when they present
vulnerability. That’s why the school should have the necessary resources to
remove economic, social, cultural inequity in order to offer equal chances in
learning and development. The education as well as disability are strongly
contextualised in the social map of the community. The authors consider the
quality in education as being defined by the educational politics which are
met with the school practices in the specific context of a community.
* Equal contribution of the authors
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 45–62
Copyright © 2020 by Loredana-Adriana Tudorache, Ruxandra Folostina and Teodora Michel.
Published under Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201006.
46
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache et al.
The quality as the expression of a politics should become intrinsic to education giving the system processes new connotations. It influences the school
processes just as those are developed both strategically, as well as at an educational practices level. At the school institution level it gets redefined, needs to
be assumed and supported by all the interested strategic groups involved (institutional and personal accountability). That is why the authors are proposing in this chapter a model of intervention with improving value for the quality management, experienced in 10 schools (five special and five mainstream
schools) in an analysis of multiple cases based on quality process deployment.
Keywords: Quality assurance; school quality deployment; quality
methodology; inclusive school; internal reference of school; special
educational needs
Literature Review
Romanian quality legislation starts from the ISO definition and considers the
quality education as being the set of characteristics of a study programme and
of its provider which fulfils the expectations of the beneficiaries as well as the
quality standards. In this sense, the customer defines quality, and the school is the
one that ensures it. The report element in quality implementation is the national
system of standards.
However, in 2006, the Education Quality Assurance Law No. 87 was enforced
in Romania by which:
⦁⦁ are defined the main concepts related to the quality of education;
⦁⦁ there is established a methodology for internal and external quality assurance;
and
⦁⦁ there are established the quality assurance responsibilities by setting up two
responsible national agencies (one for higher education, ARACIS, and the
other for pre-university education, ARACIP).
The quality assurance methodology in education includes the following
components:
(a) Criteria (fundamental aspects of the organisation and functioning of an education-providing organisation).
(b) Standards and benchmarks:
⦁⦁ The standard represents the description of requirements formulated in
terms of rules or results, which define the minimum compulsory level of
achieving an activity in education.
⦁⦁ The benchmark represents the description of requirements that define an
optimum level of performing an activity by an education-providing organisation based on good practices at national, European or world level.
The Management and Assurance of Quality in Romanian Schools
47
(c) Performance indicators (instrument for measuring the level of achieving an
activity carried out by an education-providing organisation by reference to
standards, respectively to benchmarks).
(d) Qualifications (the learning result achieved by attending and completing a
programme of professional or university studies).
The areas and criteria are common to the national education system – thus
they are valid both in higher education and pre-university education, both in public and private education.
Also, the same law specifies the quality assurance structures at the level of
pre-university education institutions – the Assessment and Quality Assurance
Committee (AQAC). Within AQAC, it is ensured the representation of all actors
involved/stakeholders of the school: teachers, trade unions, parents, pupils, local
public authorities and national minorities.
As a result, the concern of national agencies has aimed for the construction of
management and quality assurance systems in order to identify the limit between
operation and quality, the systems created following to consciously move beyond
this ‘border’ by applying the other two concepts – ‘added value’ and ‘value created’.
Thus quality in education is assured by the following processes:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
effective planning and delivery of the expected learning outcomes;
monitoring of results;
internal assessment of results;
external assessment of the results; and
continuous improvement of educational outcomes.
Ensuring the quality of education is achieved through a set of development
actions for the institutional capacity to design, plan and implement study programmes, through which is built the trust of the beneficiaries that the educationproviding organisation meets the quality standards.
According to the National Report on the Quality Level of Educational Services registered by the Standards in force and the one registered by the new standards in Romania, the following types of external assessment are regulated:
⦁⦁ for the establishment of new educational units, respectively for the development
of new levels/specialisations/professional qualifications, the external assessment
is made in order to authorise their temporary operation;
⦁⦁ after the completion of a schooling cycle, within the maximum 2 years from
the graduation of the first promotion of an authorised school/authorised level/
authorised specialisation/professional qualification, the external assessment
for accreditation is carried out; and
⦁⦁ from 5 to 5 years, for any accredited education provider, periodic external
assessment is carried out.
The external assessment process is carried out in the majority of European
countries in three stages:
48
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache et al.
⦁⦁ collecting and analysing data on each school;
⦁⦁ a visit to the school in order to observe the educational practices and ethos of
the organisation, the analysis of facilities and of various documents for consultation of the teaching staff and managers, and in some cases for other relevant
stakeholders (parents, pupils, representatives of local councils); and
⦁⦁ the assessment report, its validation and the decision on the consequences of
the assessment.
The external assessment is completed with the awarding of the school’s grades
(a significant stage both in the self-assessment as well as in external assessment) by
reference to each performance indicator from the benchmarks assessed. Grades
that can be achieved are the following:
⦁⦁ ‘unsatisfactory’ in case of failure of at least one descriptor of the standards of
accreditation and periodic assessment;
⦁⦁ ‘satisfactory’ when all the descriptors of the standards of accreditation and
periodic assessment are met;
⦁⦁ ‘good’ in case of fulfilling all the descriptors of the standards of accreditation
and periodic assessment and at least one descriptor of the benchmarks;
⦁⦁ ‘very good’, in case of fulfilling all the descriptors of the standards of accredi-
tation and periodic assessment and all descriptors of the benchmarks; and
⦁⦁ ‘excellent’ in case of fulfilling all the descriptors of the standards of accredita-
tion and periodic assessment.
The evolution of the quality concept highlights the dynamics of this concept
over time, an extension of its complexity from the perfection of the product and
the diminution of losses to innovation and responsibility, from product-centred
to experience-centred quality, both from industry and from education perspective. There are also visible the increase in the quality role within the development
strategy at organisations level, the determinant role of the quality culture and the
significance of the specialised staff, as well as of the studies in the field.
The widespread standards are the measure of the modern world. Initially used
in industry for products, they have penetrated into all services by naming, describing, measuring and comparing. Some specialists (such as Vlăsceanu, Grunberg, &
­Parlea, 2007) consider that they are among the most confusing ones of quality terms.
In common sense, standards are often similar to the quality concept. Standards may have descriptive or prescriptive value, being either indicative or mandatory. Generally, standards illustrate the good practice by providing a guide on the
organisational development. This is a guide for local authorities and potential
partners in terms of resources to be allocated.
According to the ‘evidence culture’, the achievement of standards can be
proved by:
(a) measuring performances (mostly quantitative) with reference to the progress
achieved by the beneficiary in its development areas (social, cognitive, emotional,
attitude, etc.), to the knowledge gained, to the added value and through and
The Management and Assurance of Quality in Romanian Schools
49
(b) measuring perception for the services provided, namely by measuring
satisfaction with services.
On the other hand, there are enough voices that believe that in educational
practice are aspects hardly standardised related to the ‘humanity’ of each individual, pedagogy being in fact a relationship where the pupil presents a set of
goals, interests, needs and meanings, a system capable of self-learning and selfdevelopment (Stan E, 2004).
Sorin Cristea (2013) warns about the ‘perverse social effects’ generated by
the predominantly economic approach of the objective education management
through:
⦁⦁ ‘alienation of pedagogical language (teacher – service provider, pupil/pupils –
customer);
⦁⦁ the negative interference maintained between the pedagogical efficiency and
the economic efficiency of the school management activity; and
⦁⦁ neglecting or even ignoring the fact that school is, through its specificity, an
organisation specialised in designing and delivering education/training with
medium- and long-term effects, objectively determined by the priority significance of the cultural function in relation to the economic and political functions subordinated to it’.
In this context, the author believes that quality management must ‘express a
pedagogical reality’, avoiding the confusion generated by taking over the economic model of quality and the risks of expanding the quantitative assessment
procedures to the detriment of formative and prospective aspects, ‘the true stake
of education’.
The school must respond to certain rigours and social principles delineated at
the national level through decision-makers, but they should not become a Procust
bed for the school development. School uses a multitude of levers aiming for
the social-economic and cultural development. It is a negotiator with the society
and a producer of values that can lead to progress, not a subservient of it. From
the perspective of special education, school acquires a certain social mission that
imprints it as a direction for the society development – inclusion and, implicitly,
providing equal chances.
Inclusion means making from schools support and stimulation spaces both for
the staff and for the pupils. It involves strengthening communities that encourage
and capitalise their own performances. But inclusion also implies the creation of
some communities in a broad sense. Schools can work with other organisations
and communities in order to improve the educational opportunities and social
conditions from the localities where they are found (Ainscow & Booth, 2011, p. 7).
Methodology
We consider that the national system of standards can only partially meet the
requirements of the beneficiaries regarding the quality of educational services,
50
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache et al.
providing an ‘external reference’. Remus Chină warns about the phenomenon of ‘paradox of the minimum level’ that is born from the reporting of
the institutional development to the external standard (national standard of
assessment) which he turns into a goal or a strategic target, an unrealistic and
artificial approach that, according to the author, defines the current state of
the Romanian educational system. While building the internal reference (here
the strategic plan) is a realistic and appropriate method of relating to the needs
of the beneficiary, to the values promoted by the school, to the socio-economiccultural reality of the school community.
It represents the ‘internal reference’ of the school (Chină, 2015) and represents
the internal standard that arises from the very reality of the school helping it to
fulfil its mission. Through the methodology proposed, it is thus debated, known
and undertaken by those involved becoming an expression of a partnership relationship of the school development within a community context. It is, therefore,
an approach that provides through the consulting mechanism the advantages of
co-accountability of stakeholder groups. The model comes in addition to the
usual approach of planning (predominantly made by SWOT and sometimes
­PESTEL by the school principal) bringing the beneficiary to the forefront and
the way he turns from a passive element ‘reflected’ in the mirror of the school
principal, into an active element involved in the institutional development that
makes known not only his specific development needs, but also his solutions.
Applying this model of drafting the internal reference within the five special
schools and five mainstream schools allowed the achievement of a study/analysis
with multiple cases. There was felt an urgent need for an approach starting from
the clarification of the conceptual framework to the use of tools in applying the
norms and their mechanisms, the application of a model based on the quality
methodology at institutional level (voice of the beneficiary, stakeholders’ sheet,
matrix of affinities, solution/goals tree, decision-making tree). These methods
commonly used in the modern quality management provide a viable solution for
the development of a real quality management system, based on the needs of the
beneficiary (‘explicit and implicit’).
Since for each school is collected necessary data on the description of the social
unit of the school and the way of implementing the current quality management
and quality assurance policies, the case study takes the specific form of the study/
analysis with multiple cases. Studies with multiple cases allow replication and
make more certain generalisations, which generalisations are made analytically,
not statistically.
The case study topic is approached as an integrated system, treated holistically,
the researcher being more concerned about how than why the phenomenon studied is presented in a certain way, the case being a contemporary phenomenon in a
real social context. Specific for this type of field research is the fact that the phenomena studied are of a great complexity, cannot be approached experimentally
or by sociological surveys, and conclusions, even if they allow generalisations, do
not lead to the generalisation of results.
Being one of the least standardised methods, we propose to identify the following aspects:
The Management and Assurance of Quality in Romanian Schools
51
⦁⦁ What are the needs of direct beneficiaries from the perspective of the groups
concerned?
⦁⦁ What are the resources of the school and the context in which it needs to
respond to special and support needs of children with special educational
needs (SEN)?
⦁⦁ How can it translate the pupils’ needs into policies and practices at institutional
level?
⦁⦁ What specific approaches can develop (quality planning within the institution)?
In the modern methodology of quality, the model proposed primarily aims at
collecting information in order to make an inventory of needs as they are seen by
all the groups concerned (‘beneficiary’s voice’ method) that is being done in our
case through focus group. The focus group is a method that can be used in both
quantitative and in qualitative studies, by using as a basic technique the nondirective interview once with the observation method. It can be included in the
field of group interviews, which are led by a moderator and discussions focus on
a well-defined topic.
The focus group has the role of helping to identify the special needs and the
support needs for pupils with SEN from the sample of schools. Focus groups
were organised with interest groups from the school – children with special needs,
pupils with very good results, itinerating teachers and those working with children with special needs, parents of pupils with special needs, volunteers. Participants to focus group were selected from the schools in the sample on the criterion
of competence in the field. Groups of 7–9 participants were developed.
The drafting of the questions was focussed on the identification of institutional resources (positive aspects), on identifying the negative aspects (unsatisfied
needs, areas of improvement), on the ideal design of the service. Another aspect
concerned was the engagement in case of group of interest of which we exclude
the SEN children who were specifically interviewed about their curricular preferences. The questions gave a semi-structured format to the interview.
Data were immediately transcribed by a moderator assistant, and if the idea
was not too concise, the participant was asked if the concise expression was
appropriate to the idea expressed. Identifying resources is an extremely significant milestone in solving problems faced by the school. In the absence of its own
financial resources, the school seeks within the community the resources it needs.
Communities may be more or less receptive to the needs of the school, as well as
their resources may vary. Three aspects are of interest in drafting the Matrix of
interest groups – interest shown to SEN children and education, capacity (the
resources they have), such as the extent to which they can be involved up to coaccountability in covering the needs expressed by school and SEN children.
The proposed measurement scale is from 0 to 3, where 0 means at all, 1 means
a little bit, 2 represents the average and 3 represents a lot.
⦁⦁ Analysis of programmatic documents of the management team if the school
wishes to show them. Generally, there have been restraints from schools in
showing the documents drawn up- either the Institutional Development Plan.
52
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache et al.
Inclusive schools had no specific strategic goals for increasing the quality in
education of the child with special needs.
⦁⦁ Participative and direct observations have played a role of significant feedback
for information achieved through the other methods and techniques stated.
Although the participative observation is a qualitative specific method involving direct engagement (participation) of the researcher to the activity of the
target group, there have been observed the principles underlying it, namely:
neutrality, group integration and post-factum data verification.
Research Results
As a result of applying the focus group as a technique for achieving the method
the beneficiary’s voice, we detail in Table 1 and Table 2 the support needs of pupils
with SEN in order of their identification in certain schools. A nominal scale is
thus achieved as the first form of measuring the variable ‘need for support’.
In order to facilitate the further processing, each identified need is assigned a
number in chronological order of the identification. I mention that we have kept
the terms used by the interest groups investigated in the idea of not affecting in
any way the data collected, but also because thus I have been able to establish a
common language for all participants.
Within each unit under investigation, the needs identified were expressed as
alternative variables, with a dichotomous feature, being noted with the numerical
code 1 in case of the presence or the numerical code 0, in case of the absence of
the variable.
In total 34 focus groups were made: 10 focus groups with pupils with SEN, 5
focus groups with pupils without SEN (5 in mainstream schools and 1 in the special school with volunteers), 10 focus groups with teachers working with children
with SEN and 9 focus groups with parents of children with SEN (6 of them were
made together with the teachers).
In total participated 238 persons (47 pupils with SEN, 70 pupils without SEN
of which 6 volunteers, 63 teachers and 58 parents of children with SEN).
The 64 special needs and support needs identified are connected into specific
clusters by the affinity matrix method. The clusters obtained are in our case nominal variables. For this reason, in their analysis, we are interested in the frequency
with which certain needs are found in the studied cases, such as their grouping
mode, as we illustrated (Table 2).
The cluster Inclusive school environment/diversity culture register between 6 and
17 needs related to this subject. (It has a large amplitude.) Needs 9 (culture of
diversity), 12 (availability of school for inclusion) and 50 (material incentives and
recognition for teachers) are the central elements. Addressing diversity approach
is seen as a solution for the development of a more inclusive environment, and
the motivation/motivation of the teachers is absolutely necessary. The cluster
Improvements at the curricular level has the central elements: 1 (focussing learning
on the interests of students with SEN), 4 (inadequate programme for the potential of children with SEN), 11 (life-related curriculum), 31 (affective support from
teachers), 32 (reducing the number of pupils in the classes with SEN), 44 (to come
Community resources involvement
in the school development
Modern educational technologies (43) in
compensation and learning
Development of an inclusive environment
Curriculum development directions
13 15 30 32 34 43 44 46 47 48 55 56 60 61 62
13 15 18 19 24 30 31 32 36 34 36 43 44 46 48 49 52 55
61 62
13 15 18 30 31 32 35 43 44 48 51 56 60 61 62
13 15 30 31 32 34 36 43 46 48 52 55 56 60 61 62
10 14 16 29 33 34 39 40 50 51 53
1 11
1 11
56 60
1 11
1 11
2
14 16 29 34 39 40 50 51 53
10 12 14 16 29 33 39 40 50 51 53 64
2
10 12 14 16 29 34 38 50 51 64
2
51 53
28 37 40 42 57 59
8 18
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
26 42 40 42 57
37 42 45 53 57 59
25 26 42 57 59
25 26 42 57 59
26 42 57 59
43 51
8 22
5
14 16 19 26 29 34 46 64
2 10
5
2 10
8
13 15 19 30 31 32 34 35 36 43 44 46 48 52 55 60 61 62
1 11
Support Needs of Pupils from Special Schools
Clusters of Support Needs of Pupils with SEN from Special Schools.
Clusters of Support Needs
Table 1.
The Management and Assurance of Quality in Romanian Schools
53
(Continued )
22 23 31 50
37 38 40
17 21
8 35
Development of inclusive school
22 23 50 64
21 22 23 50
1 17
1 21
21 22 23 50
1 17
Teachers’ motivation improvement
41 45 58 63
27 28
37 40 63
41 45 58 63
27 28
23 50
41 45 58 63
27 28
8 35
45 58
28 41
1 21
41 45 63
27 28
Support Needs of Pupils from Special Schools
Changing needs necessary for the good
development of the school
Increase in teachers’ performance
Development of the partnership
with parents
Clusters of Support Needs
Table 1.
54
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache et al.
9 12 14
5
11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 31 32 44 49 60
3
4 11 13
3
3
1
1
1
1
6
29 48 55 60
19 34 46 47
10 13 14 20
5 10 16
5 10 16
2
2
50
40 50
17 21 23 38
17 21 23 38
19 34 38 40 46
16 55 60
10 13 14 15
Interventions in the extra-curricular area
Increase in teacher’s involvement
36
13 15 18 22 24 30 31 32 35 36 38 43 44 49 52 60
13 22 24 30 31 32 35 38 43 44 48 49 55 60
15 24 31 32 36 38 43 44 48 49 55 60
2 10 19 34
4 11
4 11
4
11 21 23 30 31 32 36 43 44 49 51 52 60
23 27 29 33 37 39 40 41 45 50 51 53 63
6
3
1
4
9 12 17 21
28 29 33 39 40 41 45 50 51 53 63
16 29 33 39 40 50 51
17 25 26 33 34 38 50
34 50
9 12 14 27
9 12
5
2
9 12
5
2
Personal development of student with SEN
Improvements on curricular level
Inclusive school environment/diversity culture
Support Needs of Pupils from Special Schools
Clusters of Support Needs of Pupils with SEN from Mainstream School.
Clusters of Support Needs
Table 2.
The Management and Assurance of Quality in Romanian Schools
55
(Continued )
System incompatibilities
School openness to the community
resources (57)
27 28 41 63
Partnership with the family
7
7
7
6
6
6
24
24
8 20 37
7
8 20
8 25
8 25
8 20 25
7
27 28 41 63
3 30 35 37
Increase in the specialised staff involvement
Clusters of Support Needs
Table 2.
25 26 42 50 57
26 42 57
26 42 57
42 50
26 37 42 50 57 63
38 40
Support Needs of Pupils from Special Schools
56
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache et al.
The Management and Assurance of Quality in Romanian Schools
57
with pleasure at school), 49 (out-of-class group support due to very large gaps)
and 60 (inter- and transdisciplinary approach).
Two mainstream schools considered that there is a need for the cluster Personal development of the child with SEN which includes needs: 2 (increasing the
self-confidence of the child with SEN), 10 (valorisation of students with SEN),
19 (removing emotional blockages of children with SEN), 34 (helping relationships between students) and 36 (working on projects in classes). The other schools
placed these needs in clusters such as: Inclusive school environment/diversity culture (2, 34), Interventions in the extracurricular area (10, 34), while 36 frequently
meets in the Improvements at the curricular level. Two schools felt the need to
create a specific cluster for Increasing the involvement of teachers. The central elements are 17 (teachers’ concern for SEN issues), 21 (free courses by training for
teachers in SEN issues), 23 (development of support materials for students with
SEN), 38 (support teams in inclusive schools) and, again, motivational element 50
(material incentives and recognition for teachers).
The Cluster The partnership with the family is specified only in two schools and
has identical values for both: 27 (training programmes for parents of children
with SEN), 28 (workshops with parents of children without SEN), 41 (counselling of the family of children with SEN) and 63 (informing parents about the
rights of the child and the opportunities for development).
It is an interesting group of needs within the cluster Interventions in the extracurricular area (for which four schools have been chosen), in which the only common need is 10 valorisation of students with SEN). This diversity of approach is
reflected by the school’s choice of working methods within this area (involving
students without SEN – 14, vocational workshops – 15, clubs to include students
with SEN – 16, afterschool with specialised support – 20, opportunities of socialisation in school – 29 and relations of help between students – 34). Within the
group Involving the community in solving the problems of the school, all the schools
had as common needs: 7 (granting a hot meal), 8 (allocation of supplies and
teaching materials), 42 (involvement of the community for the activities related
to the school, here referring to solving the socio-economic problems of the child)
and 20 (afterschool with specialised support).
We illustrate for comparison in Table 3 the clusters identified in the inclusive school and in the special school. We notice that beyond some nuances the
approach of the needs of support has many similarities, being focussed on the
curriculum, on the partnership with the community and the family. Also in both
institutions, there is a need to develop a more inclusive school environment and
the human resources. Another common element is the need for the collaboration
between inclusive school and special school.
Regarding the identification of the resources through the achievement of the
stakeholders’ matrices, there have resulted:
The resources of the inclusive school are hierarchical: the parents
of children with SEN, pupils without SEN, teachers from primary
education, special school, Local Council, teachers from gymnasium education, parents of children without SEN and sponsors
of the school.
58
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache et al.
Table 3. Clusters from Mainstream School versus Special School.
Inclusive School
Special School
Curriculum improvements
Curriculum development directions
Inclusive school environment/
culture of diversity
Development of an inclusive
environment
Interventions in the
extracurricular area
Personal development of the
child with SEN
Increase in teachers’ involvement
Motivating teachers
Increase in the role of the specialised
staff
Increase in the performance of the
teaching staff
Partnership with the family
Developing partnership
with parents
School openness to community
resources (57)
Involvement of community resources in
school development
Modern Educational Technologies (43)
in compensation and learning
Changing elements necessary for the
good development of the school
Inclusive school
System incompatibilities
The resources of the special school are hierarchical: pupils without
SEN from normal schools in the community (partners within
the framework of the National Strategy Community Action),
teachers, school sponsors, the Local Council, inclusive schools
that receive psycho-pedagogical support, parents of children with
special needs.
The school has concluded about the importance of the partnerships NGOs for
communities that do not have enough resources to cover the needs and have an
average involvement/co-accountability.
As a continuation of the approach of processing and interpreting these data,
we will transpose two patterns on the solutions tree/decision-making tree as it was
developed by the inclusive/special school as a result of transforming the problems
identified through the beneficiary’s voice into solutions using the resources identified in the community. We mention that in each case schools identified different
modalities to act (as Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate).
The Management and Assurance of Quality in Romanian Schools
Fig. 1.
Decision Tree Example for Special School.
Fig. 2.
Decision Tree Example for Mainstream School.
59
60
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache et al.
Conclusions
We conclude by specifying that the quality methodology used has ensured the
achievement of the first essential step in strategic management – planning – ­basing
it on identifying the special and support needs of beneficiaries at institutional
level given the context of community resources (integrated management quality).
The study of the education quality requires recognition (and assumption, we
add) of the complex and disputable nature of cultural, economic, political and
even historical implications that (co) exerts over this reality (Tikly, 2011, p. 1).
From this perspective, school does not have only the role to teach the child writing, reading and other knowledge, but to develop his autonomy and to form his
personality. Sometimes, however, this space is becoming more favourable to discrimination and inequality, raising serious barriers in the becoming of its beneficiaries when they show vulnerability. That is why school must have the resources
necessary to eliminate the economic, social, cultural inequities in order to provide
equal opportunities in learning and development. Education, as well as disability
are strongly contextualised in the social map of the community. Quality in education is defined by the educational policies that meet school practices in the specific
context of a community.
Quality as an expression of a policy must become intrinsic to education giving
new connotations to the system processuality. It influences school processes as
they are developed at both strategic and at educational practices level. At school
institution level is redefined, must be assumed and supported by all strategic
interest groups involved (institutional and personal liability). Schools have their
own ways of responding to challenges raised by the special needs of the pupils
according to the resources they have. The analysis of each case presented reveals
the importance of the community context and the way how schools choose to use
the (un)identified resources of the community.
Given the socio-economic and cultural Romanian current context, there must
become a common approach, with an agenda open to all stakeholders. That is
why we consider that school bears responsibility for motivation and involvement
until co-accountancy of stakeholders. Beyond the decisions implications, coaccountancy brings in discussion also the importance of assuming a transversal
impact of individual actions and/or collective, being an explanatory concept necessary to understand development and implementation of quality policies in education. At the same time, co-accountancy is a proof that the school itself respects
its beneficiaries, being receptive to their needs and expectations.
Today the hierarchy is no longer a suitable framework for human development
within the school, the school organisation must be dynamic, centred on human
value (pupil, parent, teacher, volunteers, sponsors, etc.). If we want a society
based on progress, we have to give this chance to school. Legally, administratively,
socially and economically restrained, overloaded with tasks and endless bureaucratic demands, systematically denigrated in the media, seems that it has no
chance to rebirth. There are good schools in Romania today where performance
is provided with considerable sacrifices from teachers and, often, from parents.
The central element of the educational intervention is the pupil. But he belongs to
The Management and Assurance of Quality in Romanian Schools
61
a family and, in extenso, to a community, being a vector of them. Specialists draw
attention to the need for an interdisciplinary approach and a mixed methodology
for assessing the quality of education in the case of disadvantaged groups.
References
Alexander, R. (2008). Education for all, The quality imperative and the problem of pedagogy.
Research Monograph No. 20. London: The Consortium for Educational Access,
Transitions and Equity, Institute of Education, University of London.
Antonesei, L. (Coordinator). (2009). Ghid pentru cercetarea educaţiei. Iaşi: Polirom.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion, developing learning and participation
in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE).
Borland, K. W. (2001). Special issue: Balancing qualitative and quantitative information for
effective decision support. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(112), 5–13.
Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education. Quality
Assurance in Education, 5(1), 22–31.
Chester, E. F., Jr, Rotherham, A. J., & Hokanson, C. R., Jr. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking special education for a new century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
and the Progressive Policy Institute.
Chină, R. (2015). Managementul calităţii în învăţământul preuniversitar – Referenţiale, modele, tehnici, instrumente. Bucureşti: Editura Universitară.
Cristea, S. (2013). Managementul şcolii, între organizare şi… dezorganizare. Retrieved
from http://www.tribunainvatamantului.ro/managementul-scoliiEuropean Commission. (2009). Impact assessment guidelines. Brussels: EuropeAid
Cooperation Office.
Gauthier, A. (2013). Educating evolutionary co-leadership to embody a radically new
development paradigm. World Futures Journal, 69(1), 20–28.
Goe, L., Holdheide, L, & Miller, T. (2013). A practical guide to designing comprehensive
teacher evaluation systems. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality.
Iosifescu, C. Ş., Dogaru, M., Dragomir, M., Novak, C. (2012). Manualul de evaluare internă
a calităţii educaţiei. Technical Report, Agenţia Română de Asigurare a Calităţii în
Învăţământul Preuniversitar, Bucuresti.
Iversen, J. S. (2006). Futures thinking methodologies and options for education în think scenarios, rethink education. Center for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD
Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264023642-8-en.
Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(9),
36–41.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2013). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses
complexity. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://ssir.org/articles/
entry/embracing_emergence_how_collective_impact_addresses_complexity
Kellaghan, Th., & Greaney, V. (2001). Using assessment to improve the quality of education.
Paris: UNESCO.
Lewin, M. (1979). Understanding psychological research. New York, NY: Wiley.
Losinski, M., Maag, J. W., Katsiyannis, A., & Ennis, R. P. (2014). Examining the effects
and quality of interventions based on the assessment of contextual variables:
A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 80, 407–413.
National Report on the Quality Level of Education Services Registered through the
Standards in force and the one integrated through the new standards. (2015). Tracus
Arte, Bucuresti.
62
Loredana-Adriana Tudorache et al.
Papong, E. (2013). Brian Holmes’ problem approach. Its highlights and unique features.
IOSR Journal of Research &Method in Education, 2(5), 66–69.
Popovici, D. V. (2007). Orientări teoretice şi practice în educaţia integrată. Arad: Editura
Universităţii Aurel Vlaicu.
Rix, J., Sheehy, K., Fletcher-Campbell, F., Crisp, M., & Harper, A. (2013). Continuum of
education provision for children with special educational needs: Review of international
policies and practices. NCSE Research Reports No. 13, National Council for Special
Education Report.
Salvia, J., & Isseldyke, J. (2013). Assessment in special and inclusive education (12th ed.).
Belmont: Wadsworth Cencage Learning.
Simola, H., & Hakala, K. (2001). School professionals talk about educational change—
Interviews with Finnish school level actors on educational governance and socialinclusion/exclusion. In S. Lindblad & T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Listening to education actors on
governance and social integration and exclusion (pp. 103–132). Uppsala: University
of Uppsala.
Sørup, R., & Munch Thorsen, K. (2010). From knowledge production to sustainable practice –
Presentation of tools for internal quality assurance. Educational Evaluation, The
Danish Evaluation Institute, Denmark.
Stan, E.(2004). Pedagogie postmodernă. Iași: Institutul European.
Tikly, L. (2011). Towards a framework for researching the quality of education in lowincome countries. Comparative Education, 47(1), 1–23.
Vlăsceanu, L., Grunberg, L., & Pârlea, D. (2007). Quality assurance and accreditation:
A glossary of basic terms and definitions. Bucureşti: UNESCO.
Chapter 2.4
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for
Educational Quality Assurance in Turkey
Nükhet Çıkrıkçı, H. Eren Suna and Yurdagül Günal
Abstract
In this chapter, Turkish educational system and institutional quality assessment initiatives of education are explained. And also, the relationship between educational quality assurance (QA) in Turkey and issues of effective
schooling is summarised in terms of Turkish literature.
Education is widely accepted as a lifelong process. The school is an institution established in order to provide qualified education which contains
complex and more abstract knowledge and ideas as well as literacy and simple numerical skills to the students. Each country has basically established
education systems and educational institutions to ensure social integration,
continuity and stability, and to sustain the social and cultural heritage of a
society. Education in Turkey is one of the state’s basic functions according
to the constitution and performed under the supervision and control of the
state with the declaration of the Republic of Turkey. Ministry of National
Education is responsible for the implementation of all education activities
centrally managed in the Republic of Turkey. Higher Education Council
(YÖK) is responsible for the management and thus the quality processes of
the higher education institutions in Turkey. Two major attempts in this perspective are YÖK, which assesses the institutions with standards which are
coherent with international accreditation institutions, and Higher Education Quality Council (YÖKAK), an independent and specific council which
is established by YÖK. YÖK and YÖKAK are governmental-based qualityassessment institutions. Association for Evaluation and Accreditation of
Teacher Colleges’ Educational Programs (EPDAD) is also an independent
institution for quality assessment of education faculties which focusses on
teacher training and education. The purpose of EPDAD is to strengthen
the student learning in formal training and to ensure the quality standards
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 63–85
Copyright © 2020 by Nükhet Çıkrıkçı, H. Eren Suna and Yurdagül Günal. Published under
Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201007
64
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
for candidate teachers. Any undergraduate programme which meets the
standards of EPDAD is accredited for three years. Standards of EPDAD
are detailed in this chapter.
Keywords: Turkish educational system; effective school; QA in education;
educational accountability; quality standards; educational accreditation
1. Pedagogical Features of the National Education System
of the Republic of Turkey
Education is one of the oldest occupations of humanity. Education is a multifaceted and difficult to define concept that is associated with many disciplines.
Although there is not a single definition of education concept which is accepted
in general, it is accepted that education is the process of deliberately creating
desired changes in the individual’s behaviour through his own life (Ertürk, 1988).
In another definition, education is the process of acquiring knowledge, skills,
habits and attitudes to the individual. Education includes all social processes that
prepare people for cultural life (Gutek, 2001). Education is widely accepted as a
lifelong process. Each country has basically established education systems and
educational institutions to ensure social integration, continuity and stability, and
to sustain the social and cultural heritage of a society. Compulsory education is a
social institution and a service area in almost every country and is a public service
provided by the state. Today, education is seen as one of the main factors that
make a society socially political, economically developed and improved country
(Şişman, 2013). Education in Turkey is one of the state’s basic functions according
to the constitution and performed under the supervision and control of the state
with the declaration of the republic of Turkey. As in other countries, the education system and school levels in Turkey are regulated according to relevant laws.
The Turkish education system has been regulated in accordance with the ‘Basic
Law on National Education No. 1739’ along with the other laws. This law covers
the basic rules and principles related to Turkish national education, the general
structure of the education system, the teaching profession, school buildings and
facilities, educational tools and equipment and the duties and responsibilities of
the state in the field of education within system integrity (MoNE, 2018a).
Within the framework of this basic law, 14 principles which form the basis of Turkish National Education have been determined. These principles are described below.
Principle of generality and equality: Educational institutions are open to all
people regardless of language, race and gender. No person, family, group or class
may be granted privileges in education.
Principle of individual and society needs: National education service is organised according to the needs and abilities of Turkish citizens and the needs of
Turkish society.
Principle of orientation: Individuals are raised during their education by being
directed to various programmes or schools in accordance with their interest, intelligence and abilities.
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
65
Principle of right to education: Every Turkish citizen has right to primary education. Citizens benefit from the educational institutions following the primary
education institutions according to their interest, intelligence and abilities.
Principle of equal opportunity: Equal opportunities are provided to all men and
women in education. In order to ensure that successful students who are deprived
of financial resources receive education up to the highest levels, necessary assistance is provided through free boarding, scholarship, credits and other means.
Principle of continuity: It is essential that the individuals continue their general and
vocational education throughout life. In addition to the education of young people,
it is also an educational task to take the necessary measures to ensure the continuous
learning of adults in order to help them to adapt to life and jobs in a positive way.
Atatürk’s revolutions and principles and Atatürk nationalism: In the preparation
and implementation of the curriculum for all degrees and types of our educational system and in all kinds of educational activities, Atatürk’s revolutions and
principles and Atatürk nationalism, which have been expressed in the constitution, are taken as the basis.
Principle of democracy education: In order to realise and maintain a strong
and stable, free and democratic society order; the democracy awareness that citizens should have, the knowledge, understanding and behaviours related to state
governance, the sense of responsibility and respect for moral values should be
provided to the students in all kinds of educational activities.
Principle of secularism: Secularism is essential in Turkish national education.
Principle of scientific: Course programmes of all degrees and types, education
methods, course tools and materials are developed continuously according to scientific and technological principles and innovations, environmental and country needs.
Principle of planning: The development of national education is planned and
realised in accordance with the objectives of economic, social and cultural development, taking into account the relations between education, manpower and
employment and giving importance to vocational and technical education which
will provide necessary technological development in industrialisation and modernisation in agriculture.
Principle of co-education: It is essential that girls and boys have co-education
in schools.
Principle of cooperation between school and family: Cooperation between school
and family is provided to contribute to the realisation of the goals of educational
institutions. Parents’ associations are established in schools for this purpose.
Principle of education everywhere: The aims of national education are tried
to be realised not only in public and private educational institutions, but also at
home, in the environment, in the workplace, everywhere and at every opportunity.
2. General Overview on Turkish Education System
Ministry of National Education (MoNE) is responsible for the implementation of
all education activities centrally managed in the Republic of Turkey. The national
education system consists of two main parts: formal education and non-formal
education. On the other hand, non-formal education includes all educational
activities organised in or outside formal education (Töremen, 2014).
66
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
2.1. Formal Education
Formal education consists of pre-school education, primary education, secondary education and higher education institutions.
In Turkey, the compulsory education, covering primary and secondary education,
had been applied continuously for eight years from 1997 to 2012. Together with the
amendments made in 2012–2013 on the Laws nos. 222 and 1739 in accordance with
the ‘Law no 6287 on Amending Primary Education Law no 222 and Several Laws’
the eight-year compulsory education was increased to 12 years and was arranged
as 4+4+4 and formulated to be composed of three different steps. First step was
arranged as four-year primary school (1–4), the second step as four-year secondary
school (5–8) and third step as four-year high school (9–12). The information on these
steps are summarised below (MoNE, 2012; Odabaş, 2014; TÜEB, 2019).
Pre-school education: Includes the education of children who have not reached
compulsory primary school age. Attendance to this level of education is optional
in Turkey.
Primary education institutions: It consists of four-year compulsory primary
schools and four-year compulsory secondary schools that allow choice between
different programmes and imam hatip secondary (common high school curriculum with selective religious courses) schools. The compulsory primary school age
includes children aged 6–13 years. This age begins at the end of September of the
year when the child completes five years of age and ends at the end of the academic year in which the student completes 13 and enters 14. The aims and duties
of primary education are arranged in accordance with the general aims and basic
principles of national education.
Secondary education: Includes all general, vocational and technical education
institutions which are based on primary education and provide at least four years
of compulsory, formal or non-formal education. The aims and duties of secondary education are organised in accordance with the general aims and basic principles of National Education.
Distant education secondary school: It is the institution that provides the opportunity to complete secondary education through distance education method for
the citizens who have completed primary school but could not attend secondary
school for any reason. As the compulsory primary school age includes children
aged 5 years (66 months) to 13 years, the distant secondary school includes children aged 14 years as of the date of enrolment.
General secondary education: It is the education process that prepares the students for higher education, for life and business areas in line with their interests,
preferences and abilities as well as providing students with general culture with at
least four years of compulsory education based on primary education. General
Secondary Education Institutions are: Anatolian High Schools, Social Sciences
High Schools, Science High Schools.
Vocational and technical secondary education: It is the education process that
prepares students for higher education, profession, life and labour market in line
with their interests, preferences and abilities as well as providing students with
general culture and vocational skills with at least four years of compulsory education based on primary education. Vocational and Technical Secondary Education
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
67
Institutions are: Vocational and Technical Anatolian High Schools, Vocational
Training Centres, Fine Arts High Schools, Sports High Schools, and Anatolian
Imam Hatip High Schools.
Distant education high school: It provides service to students who cannot attend
the formal education institutions that provide face-to-face education, who are in
the formal education age and who want to enrol in distant education high school
while attending high school. At the distant high school, courses are given by passing and credit system. In order to enrol in secondary education institutions, it is
necessary to have completed secondary or imam-hatip secondary school and have
not completed the age of 18 at the start of the academic year (EACEA, National
Policies Platform, 2019; MoNE, 2018)
2.2. Non-formal Education
Non-formal education encompasses all educational activities organised alongside
or outside formal education. The special purpose of non-formal education is to
ensure that, in accordance with the general aims and basic principles of national
education, citizens who have never been in or have left the formal education system continue their education in or out of formal education (MoNE, 2018). Nonformal education consists of two main parts: general and vocational – technical.
These sections are prepared in a manner to support each other.
3. Main Pedagogical Approaches in Turkey
Education is generally the process of changing or creating the desired behaviour
through the individual’s own life. The change in individual through his/her own
life is learning. Whether education is purposefully conducted in schools (formal
education) or randomly in the environment, in which the individual lives (informal education) involve only the desired behavioural changes, or else admisible
learning. The purpose of educator as an engineer of behaviour is to provide valid
learning in education and to minimise undesirable behaviours and results.
Planning, sustaining and conducting external activities to support learning
towards specific goals are called teaching. The task of the teacher as the leader of the
teaching is selecting, organising, arranging and supervising these external events in
accordance with the learning objectives and learning processes (Senemoğlu, 2005).
There are two major pedagogical approaches which are currently in use in
Turkish national educational system (NES): traditional teacher-centred and constructivist learning approaches.
3.1. Traditional Teacher-centred Approaches
In this approach, the teacher has the active role in class. The teacher transfers
information, the student listens, takes notes and is in a receiving position. Information is transmitted to a large number of people at the same time. The amount
of information, which is provided in a short time, is comparatively more. It is
used in teaching approach through presentation and gaining learnings at knowledge level. It makes good use of time. It is easy to apply and it is economic.
68
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
Direct teaching, which is a teacher-centred teaching approach, means sequential
lining of the content to be taught, full participation of students, giving of corrective feedback by the teacher, arranging the clues, applying and withdrawing the
clues (Güzel, 1998; Rosenshine, 1982).
It requires working with more teacher controlled and constructive
­environments with students at a certain level of skill or above with regard to the
content to be taught (Dağseven, 2001).
3.2. Constructivist Learning Approaches
As the constructivism is accepted as a learning approach (Demirel, 2000), it can
be seen as philosophical point of view rather than a teaching method (Savery &
Duffy, 1995, p. 35). Thus far 2005–2006 academic year, the main pedagogical
approach in Turkey was the traditional teacher-centred model. As of this date,
constructivist learning is the current official approach of Turkish NES. To conform the educational paradigm change of twenty-first century constructivist
learning approach adopted to curriculum in 2005–2006 academic year.
Constructivist learning in general speaking is based on the fact that peoples’
own behaviours are active constructors of knowledge and meaning, not passive, as much as they are goal oriented (Cobb, 1994, p. 17; Perkins, 1999, p.
355). G. Brooks and Brooks (1993) suggest that teachers who adopt constructivist learning approach will exhibit the following attitudes and behaviours in
teaching:
⦁⦁ They support the ideas developed by their students.
⦁⦁ They attach importance to the tasks and studies they assign to students to
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
stimulate their high-level thinking skills such as classification, analysis, prediction and creativity.
They change the content of the course and the teaching strategies used according to the expectations of the students.
They make efforts to find out students’ ideas and understanding of the concepts before they state their understanding of the various concepts.
They encourage students to conduct research by asking open-ended and meaningful questions to each other.
They often make changes in teaching strategies to improve students’ natural
curiosity.
In the periods following 2005–2006 academic year when the teaching programmes in Turkey were arranged and put into implementation according to
the constructivist approach, several research were conducted in schools with
the teachers. The common finding of these studies is that classroom teachers do
not perceive themselves sufficient to apply constructivist learning approach in
the classroom (Gömleksiz, 2005, 2007; Gözütok, Akgün, & Karacaoğlu, 2005;
Korkmaz, 2006; Özdemir, 2005; Özpolat, Sezer, İşgör & Sezer, 2007). Despite this
result, classroom teachers believe that they have sufficient level of knowledge and
classroom management to apply constructivist learning approach.
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
69
However, the effects of traditional teacher-centred model are still progressing
and apparent. Several studies found (Akpınar & Gezer, 2010; Korkmaz, 2006;
Özdemir, 2005; Teyfur & Teyfur, 2012) that traditional teacher-centred model is
still valid and in practice.
4. Initiatives for Quality Assurance in Turkish
Education System
All processes related to quality of education offered to students in public or private educational institutions in Turkey are performed directly under the authority
of MoNE as in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. MoNE is responsible for self-assessment of institutions
and to conduct external assessment processes in order to monitor the quality of
education at these levels. The monitoring of the self-assessments made by the
educational institutions and the realisation and reporting of external quality
assessments are carried out by the boards established through the provincial and
district administrations of MoNE.
The criteria taken into consideration in the process of evaluating the quality
of educational institutions and the quality of the assessment process is very structured in Turkey (OECD, 2013). The criteria to be used in evaluating quality are
determined centrally in Turkey and self-assessment and external assessment procedures of schools are performed in accordance with these criteria and the results
are reported. The local authorities of MoNE do not have the right to change the
main criteria, however, they can share their opinions about assessments through
additional criteria. Therefore, all educational institutions are evaluated within the
scope of standard criteria determined by MoNE for their own levels.
The institutional self-assessment is carried out every year in Turkey (OECD,
2013), where the self-assessment conducted by the school is highly structured as
well. The results obtained in external assessment are not considered as a merit in
self-assessment of the educational institutions. A significant difference compared
to the OECD countries in terms of self and external quality assessments is the lack
of any merit related to financial source managements of the school administrations as all sources of public schools in Turkey are met by the government. The criteria taken into account in the assessment of quality have been collected by OECD
(2016) under the headings namely: ‘outputs related to students, teachers’ qualifications, implementation of the curriculum, safety measures in the school, and
facilities provided to students’. According to OECD (2009), Turkey is one of the
countries where the quality assessment of the schools influences the in-class teaching processes of the teachers at utmost level. Other elements assessed by OECD
(2016) are external quality assessment in schools, self-assessment and national test
results. The extent to which these factors are relevant in determining the quality of schools has been examined. The results (OECD, 2016) show that the effect
of external assessment is high, the self-assessment is medium and national test
results are high in determining the school’s performance. It has been determined
that the external assessment results have a high effect, the self-assessment results
have a medium effect and national test results have a low effect in determining the
70
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
effectiveness of school management. A comprehensive quality assessment study
at the basic education level has been implemented by the Ministry of National
Education under the name of ‘Preschool Education and Primary Education Institutions Standards System’ as of 2010–2011 academic year (MoNE, 2015). In the
process of establishing this system, the features which should be evaluated as quality criteria in primary and secondary education institutions were evaluated and
during this assessment process the international literature was taken into consideration besides the opinions of school administrators and teachers.
Within the scope of the study, the criteria were determined at two levels as
standards and sub-standards. Within the scope of the System of Standards of
Preschool Education and Primary Education Institutions, the educational institutions at primary and secondary level have been monitored within the framework of quality criteria consisting of 9 standards and 36 sub-standards. These
standards are stated under the following subheadings.
4.1. Education Management
1. Demonstrating a management that supports the professional development of staff, provides engagement of stakeholders and improves children’s
achievement.
2. Ensuring unconditional access and regular attendance of all children to school
for admission and enrollment.
4.2. Learning and Teaching Processes
1. Supporting the development of all children with classroom practices.
2. Supporting the development of all children and their orientation towards
upper education level, profession and life through in-school practices.
3. Supporting the development of education and the integration of the school
into society by cooperating with the environment.
4.3. Support Services (Safety, Health, Nutrition and Cleaning)
1. Providing a safe and appropriate physical environment in school.
2. Providing a healthy and safe psychosocial environment.
3. Providing supportive health and nutrition services appropriate to the needs
of children.
4. Providing cleaning services in the school to ensure a healthy environment.
All school administrations at primary and secondary level are conducting selfassessment to determine their own situation in terms of 36 sub-standards under
the nine standards mentioned above. The results of the self-assessment obtained
as a result of this study are reported and sent to schools and external assessment
committees established by the MoNE serve to evaluate the relevant criteria in the
external assessment process. In addition to the nine standards, data on the following implicit standards are collected through questions posed to schools:
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
71
1. Democratic school climate.
2. Guidance and counselling services.
3. Gender sensitivity.
Within the scope of the obtained data, evaluations can be made on the extent
to which schools have a democratic climate, the effectiveness of guidance and psychological counselling services and whether gender-sensitive processes are followed.
5. Quality Assessment in Vocational and Technical Education
Quality assessment studies were also conducted for vocational and technical
secondary education institutions, which have an important share in all secondary education in Turkey (MoNE, 2018b). As of 2018, the results of these quality
assessment studies have been shared with the public by the MoNE General Directorate of Vocational and Technical Education (MTEGM) through analysis reports.
Vocational and technical secondary education is considered as a type of education,
which partly differs from academic secondary education in terms of intensity of
on-the-job training and internship practices. Students in vocational and technical
secondary education institutions continue their education in various occupational
fields in line with their academic achievement and interests. Vocational and technical secondary schools, including vocational and technical Anatolian high schools,
multi-programme Anatolian high schools and vocational training centres, are
evaluated within the framework of the following 6 standards and 65 sub-standards
(MoNE, 2018b; Özer, 2018, 2019; Özer ve Suna, 2019):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Education environment and infrastructure.
Student achievement, attendance and discipline status.
Guidance studies.
Project and school-sector cooperation studies.
Social activities.
Management and organisation.
Secondary education institutions, which are periodically evaluated within the
framework of the stated standards, are first asked to make their self-evaluations
within the framework of these standards and then external assessment is carried
out with the boards established by MTEGM. In each year, the criteria for the
evaluation are considered again, and necessary revisions are made.
6. Quality Assessment in Higher Education
The question of how higher education institutions should be evaluated in terms
of quality and the structure of this quality review process is still being debated.
The debate on quality and characteristic in higher education has increased
significantly in the last 20 years in Western countries (Jelena, 2010; Tan & Simpson, 2008) and within this framework, it is aimed to provide more and transparent information about the educational processes to the students in the target
72
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
group of higher education institutions and the institutions responsible for quality.
However, due to its structure, the autonomous structure of higher education and
the diversity of services provided make it difficult to establish an international
standard for quality assessment.
Although different ways and methods are used to assess the quality of education
in higher education in different countries, the quality assessment process at this level
of education has two common objectives, namely accountability and improvement
(Hamalainen & Jakku-Sihvonen, 2000). Institutions can provide the relevant information clearly about the services they provide and have the opportunity to improve
their services through quality assessments. Another important factor in increasing
interest in higher education quality assessment is the efforts of higher education
institutions in internationalisation (Özer, Gür, & Küçükcan, 2011). In Turkey, the
programmes such as Bologna and Socrates which provides significant criteria in the
quality assessment of higher education institutions aim to create a common higher
education culture (Schwarz & Westerheijden, 2007; Özer et al., 2011)
Higher Education Council (YÖK) is responsible for the management and thus
the quality processes of the higher education institutions in Turkey. YÖK has the
right to evaluate the processes of higher education institutions in terms of the
services they provide within the scope of its responsibility. This situation puts the
universities in Turkey to a position different from the universities making the quality assessment a part of their institutional process and making cooperation with
the competent authorities for external assessment in terms of quality. The fact
that higher education institutions are interdependent to YÖK in terms of administration leads to a highly centralised approach and makes YÖK a determining
institution on all higher education institutions in terms of quality assessment. The
most basic tool used by YÖK for the quality assessment of higher education institutions is that the opening of associate and undergraduate programmes is subject
to its own approval. The criteria observed by YÖK in the opening of associate
degree programmes are classified as position and sectoral relations, infrastructure,
programme and teaching staff. When these criteria are taken into consideration,
it is important that vocational schools of higher education (MYOs) are located
in areas close to industrial zones and have close contact with private sector representatives and include the sector in the education processes. The quality of the
workshop and laboratory setting needed for qualified education in MYOs, the
need for employment in terms of the proposed programme and the evaluation
of the potential of graduates to participate in the labour force and the presence
of sufficient teaching staff in the relevant programme are considered as quality indicators. The three criteria, which are seen as indicators of proficiency and
quality in the opening of undergraduate, graduate and doctorate programmes
are determined as programme knowledge, academic infrastructure and physical
infrastructure. Accordingly, YÖK evaluates the applications of the universities
requests for opening undergraduate, graduate and doctorate programmes under
their roof by considering the course content of the programmes to be opened,
the compatibility of this content with similar examples abroad, and the achievements and titles that the graduates will receive if they graduate from the related
programme. In addition, YÖK’s evaluation criteria include the presence of at least
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
73
three faculty members who are specialised in the relevant programme and entails
that the programme has the adequate facilities in terms of the opportunities like
physical space, library, social plants and laboratory, etc. (Özer et al., 2011).
The framework of the internal quality assessment processes of the universities
is determined by the Regulation on Academic Assessment and Quality Improvement in Higher Education Institutions. The regulation was prepared by YÖK in
2005 in line with the European Quality Assurance (QA) Standards and P
­ rinciples
in order to improve the quality of education, training and research activities in
higher education institutions (YÖK, 2005). Following the publication of the
Regulation, the Higher Education Academic Assessment and Quality Improvement Commission (YÖKAK), whose members consist of various universities
and various fields, was established (YÖK, 2005). The commission formed was
charged with the regulation, improvement and coordination of the quality assessment processes of higher education institutions. One of the important tasks of
this board is to determine the procedures and principles for independent institutions and organisations to make quality assessment. Recently, YÖKAK has joint
the prestigious international foundations which focus on quality assurances, such
as International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education
(INQAAHE), and Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Higher
education institutions can also be subject to external assessment by accreditation
institutions or associations approved by YÖDEK (Association for Evaluation
and Accreditation of Teacher Colleges’ Educational Programs, EPDAD; MYK;
TÜRKAK; etc.) and certified according to the assessment results.
7. Results from Empirical Studies on School Effectiveness
and Teacher Characteristics in Turkey
The school, which is described as a special environment, is a social institution
established in order to provide the students with complex and more abstract
knowledge and ideas as well as literacy and simple numerical skills. In addition to the definition of about school, today’s expectations from schools have
become different (Bursalioğlu, 2005). In today’s society, which is described as the
information age, the school has to review its informative function. The school
should undertake the easiest, fastest, most useful and effective way of teaching
(Terzi, 2003). In this context, the main function of the school should not be only
teaching, but to develop learning capacity of students (Özden, 1998). The aim
of the schools is to provide all students with experiences that enable them to
achieve educational goals (Schlechty, 2005). In this respect, the ultimate goal of
the school is student learning. The existence of schools is based on this service.
Effective school can be described as an organisation which every student can be a
part of and learn, focusses on equity and quality, use their sources in an equal way,
presents a safe and promoting environment to students and teachers, transparent and
accountable for all stakeholders, and always motivates to learn and develop (Günal,
2014). Reconstructing and reorganisation of schools accelerated with support of
findings of effective school studies. Reconstructing of school includes redefining of
organisational scheme of school and relationships in school. The restructuring of
74
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
schools involves redefining the organizational structure of the school and the relationships in the school. Some of the issues addressed within this framework are;
strengthening school-family cooperation, strengthening teachers and parents, creating more sensitive criteria for accountability (Bryk, 2010; Şişman, 2013). International studies which focus on academic achievement and literacy are important
information- and data sources for educational accountability. These studies are performed to describe current condition in education and assess the students’ academic
achievement and literacy levels in various countries and education systems. Within
this scope, programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) by OECD,
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) by International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) by IEA present valuable and unique
information to assess education systems and their components in terms of accountable policies (Özer, 2020). However, measures of educational accountability are not
limited with the mentioned studies. The Teaching and Learning International Survey
(MoNE, 2010) by OECD is developed to assess the educational policies of countries
to construct effective schools and applied first time in 2008 with the participation of
23 countries. Following TALIS studies were performed in 2013 and 2018, and Turkey
participated in the 2018 application among 39 different countries. TALIS 2008 results
show that frequency of structured, student-centred and enriched in-class activities is
decreased as the class-size increases in Turkey (MoNE, 2010). Teachers also expressed
that they are mostly assessed by school administers. Additionally, they stated that
assessment results do not lead any improvement in salaries or career opportunities
and feedback (MoNE, 2010). One of the emphasised findings is that teachers feel
stressful and unproductive when they teach in crowded classes. Additionally, teachers
think that in-service trainings are unproductive and unsatisfactory for current needs.
When the results of TALIS 2018 are analyzed in terms of teaching and learning,
teachers in Turkey tend to provide more order and discipline in class according to the
OECD average.In Turkey, teachers spend 27 % of their teaching time for classroom
design and administrative affairs. Another important finding is that the 75,8 % of the
teachers who are assigned to the profession for the first time have reported that they
joined compliance activities at school. The rate is known to be above of the OECD
average (58.1%.) (Tedmem, 2019).
The OECD also offers various solutions and projects to improve the education systems of the countries participating in these examinations. These include
school development, making schools effective, creating a more transparent and
accountable management approach and improving the quality of education for
all (Günal, 2014).
In the PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS applications an unique data is obtained
through the student, parent and administrator surveys related students’ socioeconomic, cultural and school structures. The parental involvement to education
and their close interest in the education of the student have a direct effect on the
academic outputs of students. In other words, the development of the student
in the school is related to the parents’ educational involvement. (Çelenk, 2003;
Davis-Kean, 2005; Gelbal, 2008; Gümüşeli, 2004; Gülleroğlu, Bilican Demir,
& Demirtaşlı, 2014 Güvendir-Acar, 2014; OECD, 2010; Özabaci & Acat, 2005)
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
75
At the same time, it has been shown that the physical characteristics of the school,
the opportunities offered to the students in the classes with less population
(25–30), and the features like laboratory have an effect on student achievement
(Anıl, 2009; Eğitim Reformu Girişimi (ERG), 2012; Gürsakal, 2009; OECD,
2008, 2009, 2011; Özer & Anıl, 2011; ­Tedmem, 2014; Yıldırım, 2012).
In the effective school studies concentrating on what teachers, principals and
students can do and what they expect from each other and studying the effects
on school on student learning, the factors such as school environment, class environment and instructional effectiveness also come to the forefront in addition
to the student and family characteristics (Teodorović, 2011). In these studies, it
was revealed that school administrators and teachers were the main stakeholders
responsible for student achievement, in other words, student learning (Abelmann,
Elmore, Even, Kenyon, & Marshall, 1999; Englert, Fries, Glenn, & Douglas,
2007; Gong, Blank, & Monse, 2002; Heim, 1995; Kantos, 2010; Kantos & Balcı,
2011; Kelly & Leavy, 2013).
Effective schools have significant characteristics in teacher, management, school
culture, student and parent dimensions. Teachers, who are considered as the main
sources of effective schools, are considered as the first education workers in history
(Abdurrezzak, 2015). One of the most important educational tasks of administrators and teachers is to improve the educational process. Effective school has a good
structure to improve educational effectiveness, and there is a system of assessment
and rewarding that leads students to success (Uğurlu & Demir 2016). In effective
schools, administrators, teachers, students and parents are expected to have various characteristics. In this context, the teacher’s main characteristics are as follows:
being a leader, having adequate professional knowledge, having personality traits
that make learning easier, loving job, being open to continuous development in professional terms, finding new methods and techniques, being willing to apply them,
being aware of the needs of the students, caring about the holistic development of
the students not only with their academic development, having the ability to continuously monitor and guide students’ learning (Akbal, 2008; Baştepe, 2009; Can,
2004; Celep, 2007; Gökçe, 2002; Şişman, 2013; Tarhan, 2008; Yılmaz, 2006).
In the studies performed in Turkey about the qualities of effective teachers
and the qualities of the teachers working in effective schools, the teachers mainly
underlined the characteristics of loving their jobs, following the innovations in
education and being aware of their duties in terms of the qualities and duties
of an effective teacher. In addition, it was determined that teachers in effective
schools were being free to choose the best and most useful for themselves and
their students, concentrating on providing basic skills to students and using direct
teaching methods and teachers were highly motivated (Ertürk & Memişoğlu,
2018; Şişman, 2013; Uğurlu & Demir 2016). Another important finding obtained
in the related researches is about the organisational commitment levels of teachers. Teachers’ organisational commitment levels directly affect the effective school
qualities. According to this finding, as the teachers’ commitment to their managers, colleagues and other employees, that is to say all the elements forming the
school organisation in the institution they work increases, the ability of that
school to demonstrate effective school qualities also increases. There is a direct
76
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
relationship between teachers’ organisational commitment levels and effective
school qualities (Akçay, 2018). In the study conducted by Günal (2014), teachers
stated that the instructional leadership was the most effective school characteristic among the effective school qualities, while the ‘Safe and Regular Environment’
was the least effective one. In the study conducted by Ertürk and Memişoğlu
(2018), teachers emphasised that the concept of effectiveness were defined as
teaching power, cooperating, being successful, reaching the goal, giving students positive behaviour, influencing individuals, making projects, developing the
school, self-improvement, being innovative and being a leader.
Effective schools are the institutions where student achievement is important. In effective schools, the cooperation of teachers with all stakeholders is
very important in creating an effective learning environment for students by
eliminating barriers (Şişman, 2013). In effective schools, teachers should set
high standards for their students and have high expectations in terms of student
achievement, so the teachers also should apply the high standards which they set
for their students for themselves (Lezotte, 1999). The professional development
of teachers in effective schools also increases their effectiveness in the classroom.
In the United Kingdom, a three-factor model has been developed in the studies
of teacher effectiveness. These are professional characteristics, learning skills and
classroom climate. In these studies, especially the role of teacher in creating ‘a
perfect classroom climate’ is underlined (Sammons & Bakkum, 2011).
Some examples selected from researches made on school effectiveness in Turkey
are explained below.
Arslan, Satıcı & Kuru (2006) aimed to determine the effectiveness levels of
public and private primary schools according to teachers’ perceptions. According to the opinions of these teachers working in six primary and public schools;
it is found that private primary schools in the district are more effective in terms
of school inputs, school climate, provided conditions and learning–teaching
process. Ayık and Ada (2009) examined the relationship between school culture
and school effectiveness and collected data from teachers in public schools. The
results of the study showed that there is a significant, positive and strong relationship between school climate and school effectiveness and the researches expressed
that the measures improving the school climate would have an accelerating effect
on the school effectiveness.
Kayıkçı and Sayın (2010) examined the variables that affect the school satisfaction of students in their study on secondary school students in south-cost
region of Turkey. According to the results, it was found that the satisfaction of
the students towards their schools was moderate. Teachers’ attending the class on
time, classroom populations, easy transport to school, professional competency
of teachers and the attitudes of teachers towards the students were taken as the
satisfaction criteria in the study. Other findings indicate that students in private
schools have higher levels of satisfaction than students in public schools, and that
students in schools (school size is between 1,500 and 2,000) have higher levels of
satisfaction than more crowded schools.
Gökmen (2011) examined the relationship between teachers’ organisational
citizenship behaviours and school effectiveness in primary schools. The findings
of the study showed that there is a strong relationship between school effectiveness
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
77
and their voluntary roles and efforts other than the standards defined in line with
the duties of the teachers.
Helvacı and Aydoğan (2011) aimed to determine the views of teachers about
the qualities of effective school and school principal. According to the teachers,
effective school was grouped under four themes: education process, school–
environment relationship, school climate and school–family relationship while
the opinions about the effective school principal were grouped under two themes:
leadership characteristics and task responsibility.
Kalaycı and Özdemir (2013) aimed to examine the relationship between the
quality of schools where the students receive their education and their school
commitments. For this purpose, the data obtained from 410 high school students.
According to result of this study, if the quality of schools increases, students
show more commitment to their schools.
Günal and Demirtaşlı (2016) examined the impact of effective school variables on student success by taking the opinions of secondary school students in
terms of effective school variables and the opinions of teachers and administrators in terms of school accountability. As a result of the research, it was seen
that instructional leadership was the factor that both students and teachers and
administrators thought as the most effective.
Şenel and Buluç (2016) examined the relationship between perceived school
climate and school effectiveness. In this study, they founded that there is a positive, moderate and significant relationship between the school climate and school
effectives measured based on perceptions of teachers.
Negis-Işık and Gümüş (2017) aimed to examine the relationship between
administrators’ perception of self-efficiency and school effectiveness. The results
obtained by the researchers showed that as school administrators’ perceptions of
self-efficiency increased, their perceptions of school effectiveness also increased.
Yildirim, Akan, & Yalçın (2017) examined the relationship between teachers’ job
satisfaction and school effectiveness. The results showed that there is a significant,
moderate and positive relationship between school effectiveness and job satisfaction.
Results of several studies in Turkey show that effective schooling is mostly
depend on positive teacher–student communication, positive school climate, educational and instructional leadership of principals. These results are similar with
global literature on the characteristics of effective schools.
8. Teacher Training and Initiatives for Educational
QA in Turkey
8.1. Teacher Training in Turkey
Education, particularly teacher education, has been of importance in Turkey since
the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Teaching, as a profession, and teacher
education maintain importance in all countries and societies. Intensity and variety of skills which are gained by students lead to changes in education process of
teacher candidates (Gürşimşek, 1998). After 170 years of Darulmuallimin, which
is the first institution focus on teacher education, qualified teacher training and
education issue cannot be solved in Turkey properly (Akyüz, 2009; Bilir, 2011).
78
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
Quantative indicators such as graduation ratio of students, academic
achievement levels and assessment of learning experiences are need for investigation of quality of educational institutions (Cavanaugh, 2002). Additionally,
qualitative indicators for learning methods, materials, learning process, content
and options for students have importance in this process (Göksoy, 2014). Therefore, numerous attempts are made to strengthen the standards and accreditation
of teacher training and education (Şişman, 2013). Two major attempts in this perspective are YÖK, assess the institutions with standards which are coherent with
international accreditation institutions, and Higher Education Quality Council (YÖKAK). YÖK and YÖKAK are governmental-based quality-assessment
institutions. EPDAD is also an independent institution for quality assessment of
education faculties which focus on teacher training and education. Quality assessment and assurance processes of these institutions are summarised as follows.
8.2. Initiatives for Educational QA
There are numerous attempts ensure the educational quality from diverse stakeholders in Turkey. In this manner, 30,371 numbered regulations are in service since
25 March 2018, as the first regulation which is structured and focussed on quality of
competencies within a national perspective. This regulation is coherent with defined
standards in European Proficiency Framework and defines the quality standards
which any diploma, certificate or vocational competence certificate given to candidates in Turkey. Within this scope, draft of QA Regulation is prepared by Turkish
Vocational Qualifications Authority (MYK) and it is finalised with the opinions of
many other stakeholders. Mentioned regulation is approved by TYC Coordination
Council, in which MoNE, YÖK and MYK are represented at high level (Eurydice,
2006). QA standards which are included in TYC are as follows:
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
⦁⦁
Competency form is fulfilled and approved.
Valid and reliable measurement and evaluation process is applied.
Certification processes are progressed in a transparent and objective way.
Processes for competencies are taken under review in two ways: self-assessment
and external assessment.
Staff of external assessment is received for consideration periodically.
Strengthening and supporting activities are performed within the scope of selfassessment and external assessment.
Stakeholders’ participation is motivated to processes of competencies.
Processes of competencies are performed via transparent, measureable purposes, guides and standards.
Accurate and sufficient sources are presented for all processes.
Feedback mechanisms are developed and performed.
Stakeholders are able to reach to outputs of processes via online platform.
YÖK is responsible for conducting of this QA system. YÖK, which was established in 1982, is also responsible for the university system in Turkey. Among other
functions, YÖK determines the requirements for the promotion of academic staff
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
79
and the standards for university degrees. For faculties and graduate schools of
education, YÖK also defines in some detail the structure of teacher education
programmes leading to qualified teacher status. The length of each programme,
the number of credits, the titles of courses and the content of the courses which
constitute a teacher education programme, plus the qualification the programme
leads to, are all laid down by the YÖK.
In this manner, all higher education institutions, which are also including education faculties that are responsible for teacher training and education, are taken
under review via external assessment procedures. Institutional e­xternal assessment is a programme which aims to evaluate the higher education instruction
and management systems of higher education institutions within institutional
external assessment standards. Higher education institutions are obliged to be
included in an external assessment programme in five-year period.
As an addition to institutional external assessment programme, higher education institutions also prepare institutional self-assessment reports, annually. All
higher education institutions have their own publicly available five-year strategic
plans published with clear measurable objectives and policies including the main
issues outlined in the European Standards and Guidelines for QA in Higher Education as well as the financial planning for resource all. When higher education
institutions are specified, assessment experts are selected from ‘assessor pool’ and
charged. Selected assessment experts visit higher education institutions two times
as pre-visit and field-visit. After these visits by assessment experts institutional
feedback report is prepared and declared to the public by YÖKAK (2018).
In this context, based on institutional evaluation, includes annual internal assessments and post-assessment studies carried out by universities and external evaluation
in five-year periods. Additionally, MoNE performs the institutional external quality
assessment projects on vocational and technical education at high school level.
For external assessment, several independent associations (EPDAD, MYK,
TÜRKAK, etc.) has been established in Turkey. These independent external QA
agencies evaluate many engineering programmes, teacher colleges, health and architecture programmes in several universities via pre-specified criteria. One of these
independent agencies is EPDAD (https://epdad.org) and its purpose is to strengthen
the student learning in formal training and ensuring the quality standards for candidate teachers. EPDAD is also authorised to accreditation for teacher colleges
in terms of independent evaluation by evidence-based performance criteria. Any
undergraduate programme which meets the standards of EPDAD is accrediated for
three years. Teacher training and education standards of EPDAD are as follows:
8.3. Field of Education
1. Programme, application and assessment of instruction
Beginning Standards
1.1.1. Tracking the undergraduate programme which is integrated with Turkish
Higher Education Competency Framework and MoNE teacher competencies.
80
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
1.1.2. Showing consistency between learning outcomes, content, instruction process and assessment of programmes.
1.1.3. High quality instructional programmes with effective teacher education
and training activities.
Process Standards
1.2.1. Showing consistency between instructional programmes and activities and
applications.
1.2.2. Availability of students to observe effective instructional and class management skills in faculty and practice schools.
1.2.3. Availability of students to perform effective instructional and class management skills in real school environments and receive feedback.
1.2.4. Availability of students to be assessed in a productive and supportive way
for their professional development.
Output Standards
1.3.1. Teacher candidates can attain the general and field-spesific competency
levels.
In summary, mentioned standards are structured as coherent with both
national and international standards for teacher education and training. In Turkey, governmental-based or independent QA institutions structure and keep their
standards within the scope of QA Regulations (KGY). With fully and accurate
implementation of KGY, quality of competencies and processes for QA in education will reach its top level in both national and international levels.
References
Abdurrezzak, S. (2015). Etkili okul ve okul liderliğine ilişkin öğretmen algılarının incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri
Enstitüsü.
Abelmann, C., Elmore, R., Even, J., Kenyon, S., & Marshall, J. (1999). When accountability
knocks, will anyone answer? CPRE Research Report Series, RR42. Retrieved from
http://www.grade.org.pe/gtee-preal/docs/rr42.pdf. Accessed on April 18, 2019.
Akbal, N. (2008). Etkili okulun oluşmasında okul yöneticilerinin etkin iletişim becerileri
(Büyükçekmece örneği). Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Beykent Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Akçay, G. Ü. (2018). Etkili okul özelliklerinin dönüşümsel liderlik ve öğretmen bağliliğiyla
ilişkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Akpinar, B., & Gezer, B. (2010). Learner-centered new educational paradigms and their
reflections on the period of learning and teaching. Sur/Diyarbakır: Dicle Üniversitesi
Ziya Gökalp.
Akyüz, Y. (2009). Türkiye’de öğretmen yetiştirmenin 160. yılında Darülmuallimin’in ilk
yılların toplu ve yeni bir bakış. Ankara Üniversitesi OTAM Dergisi, Sayı: 20.
Anıl, D. (2009). Uluslararası öğrenci başarılarını değerlendirme programı (PISA)’nda
Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin fen bilimleri başarılarını etkileyen faktörler. Eğitim ve
Bilim, 34(152).
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
81
Arslan, H., Satıcı, A., & Kuru, M. (2006). Devlet ve özel ilköğretim okullarının etkililiğinin
araştırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 32(142), 15–25.
Ayik, A., & Ada, Ş. (2009). İlköğretim okullarında oluşturulan okul kültürü ile okulların
etkililiği arasındaki ilişki. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8, 429–446.
Baştepe, I. (2009). Etkili okulun eğitim-öğretim süreci ve ortamı boyutlarının nitelikleri.
Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(29), 29.076–29.083.
Bilir, A. (2011). The historical evolution of teacher training and employment politicies in
Turkey. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 44(2),
223–246.
Brooks, G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 23–30.
Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003172171009100705?
journalCode=pdka. Accessed on May 15, 2019.
Bursalioğlu, Z. (2005). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış.13.basım. Ankara: Pegem A
Yayıncılık.
Can, N. (2004). Öğretmenlerin geliştirilmesi ve etkili öğretmen davranışları. Erciyes
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16, 103–120.
Cavanaugh, D. (2002, June 13). Interview with Lea Hubbard. Retrieved From: https://www.
taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780203943656. Accessed on May 12 2019.
Çelenk, S. (2003). Okul başarısının ön koşulu: Okul aile dayanışması. İlköğretim-Online,
2(2), 28–34.
Celep, C. (2007). Meslek Olarak Öğretmenlik. C.Celep (Ed) (2007). Eğitim Bilimine Giriş.
(s.45-55). Anı Yayıncılık. Ankara.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivis mand sociocultural perspectives on
mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13–20.
Dağseven, D. (2011). Comparison of direct instruction and problem solving approach
teaching social skills to children with mental retardition. Kuram ve Uygulamada
Eğitim Bilimleri-Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(3), 1414–1420.
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child
achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment.
Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294–304.
Demirel, Ö. (2000). Eğitimde program geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem A Yayınevi.
Eğitim Reformu Girişimi (ERG). (2012). Eğitim izleme raporu 2012. Retrieved from http://
erg.sabanciuniv.edu/. Accessed on May 05, 2019.
Englert, K., Fries D., Martin Glenn, M., & Dougles, B. (2007). Accountability systems:
A comparative analysis of superintendent, principal and teacher perceptions.
International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 2(4). Retrieved from http/
www.ijepl.org. Accessed on May 05, 2019.
Ertük, R., & Memişoğlu, S. P. (2018). Öğretmenlerin etkili okula yönelik görüşleri.
International Journal of Social Science, 68, 55–76.
Ertürk, S. (1988). Son makalesi. Türkiye’de eğitim felsefesi sorunu. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3, 11–16. Retrieved from http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.
tr/19883 SELAHATT%C4%B0N%20ERT%C3%9CRK.pdf. Accessed on April 10,
2018.
Eurydice. (2006). Avrupa’da öğretmenlik eğitiminde kalite güvencesi. Retrieved from
http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/eurydice/kitaplar
Gelbal, S. (2008). Sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyo-ekonomik özelliklerinin Türkçe
başarısı üzerinde etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(150).
Gökçe, E. (2002). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin görüşlerine göre öğretmenlerin etkililiği.
Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1–2), 111–119.
Gökmen, A. (2011). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin örgütsel vatandaşlik davranişlari ve bu
davranişlarin okul etkililiği üzerindeki etkisine ilişkin Algıları. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Denizli: Pamukkale Üniversitesi.
82
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
Göksoy, S. (2014). To what extent should schools be autonomous? Educational Research
and Reviews, 9(1), 24–33.
Gömleksiz, M. N. (2005). Yeni ilköğretim programinin uygulamadaki etkililiğinin
değerlendirilmesi. Kuramdan ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 339–384.
Gömleksiz, M. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (Jigsaw II) method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of Fırat University,
Turkey). European Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 613–625.
Gong, B., Blank, R. K, & Monse, J. G. (2002). Designing school accountability system:
Towards a framework and process. Washington D.C.: Council of Chief State School
Officer.
Gözütok, F. D., Akgün, Ö. E., & Karacaoğlu, Ö. C. (2005). İlköğretim programlarının
öğretmen yeterlilikleri açısından değerlendirilmesi. Eğitimde Yansımalar: VIII
Yeni İlköğretim Programlarını Değerlendirme Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı içinde
(s. 17–40). Ankara: Sim Matbaası.
Gülleroğlu, D., Bilican, S., & Demirtaşli, N. (2014). Türk öğrencilerinin PISA 2003-20062009 dönemlerindeki okuma becerilerini yordayan sosyo-ekonomik ve kültürel
değişkenlerin araştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 47(2), 201–222.
Gümüşeli, A. İ. (2004). Ailenin katılım ve desteğinin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. Özel Okullar
Birliği Bülteni, 2(6), 14–17.
Günal, Y. (2014). Etkili okul değişkenlerinin öğrenci başarisi ile ilişkisi ve okul hesap
verebilirliği. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara
Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Günal, Y., & Demirtaşli, N. (2016). A pathway to educational accountability: The relationship between effective school characteristics and student achievement. Universal
Journal of Educational Research, 4(9), 2049–2054.
Gürsakal, S. (2009). PISA 2009 öğrenci başarı düzeylerini etkileyen faktörlerin
değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi
Dergisi, 1(17), 441–452.
Gürşimşek, I. (1998). Öğretmen eğitiminde yeni yaklaşımlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Dergisi, 14, 25–28.
Güvendir-Acar, M. (2014). Öğrenci başarılarının belirlenmesi sınavında öğrenci ve okul
özelliklerinin Türkçe başarısı ile ilişkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(172), 163–180.
Güzel, R. (1998). Alt özel sınıflardaki öğrencilerin sesli okudukları öyküyü anlama becerilerini
kazanmalarında doğrudan öğretim yöntemiyle sunulan bireyselleştirilmiş okuduğunu
anlama materyalinin etkililiği. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi
Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Gutek, G., (2001). Eğitimde felsefi ve ideolojik yaklaşımlar (Çeviren: Nesrin Kale). Ankara:
Ütopya Yayınevi.
Hamalainen, K., & Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2000). More quality to the quality policy of education. Helsinki: National Board of Education.
Heim, M. (1995). Accountability in education: A primer for school leaders. HSLA monograph. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.
worldcat.org/search?q=au%3AHawaii.+Department+of+Education.&qt=hot_
author. Accessed on February 12, 2018.
Helvaci, M. A., & Aydoğan, İ. (2011). Etkili okul ve etkili okul müdürüne ilişkin öğretmen
görüşleri. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 41–60.
Jelena, L. (2010). Determinants of service quality in higher education. Interdisciplinary
Management Research, 6, 631–647.
Kalayci, H., & Özdemir, M. (2013). Lise öğrencilerinin okul yaşaminin niteliğine ilişkin
algilarinin okul bağliliklari üzerine etkisi. GEFAD/GUJGEF, 33(2), 293–315.
Kantos Ertan, Z., & Balcı, A. (2011). İlköğretim okulu yönetici ve öğretmenlerinin
görüşlerine göre kamu ve özel ilköğretim okulları için bir hesap verebilirlik modeli.
Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 10(20), 107–138.
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
83
Kantos, Ertan, Z. (2010). İlköğretim okulu yönetici ve öğretmenlerinin görüşlerine göre kamu
ve özel ilköğretim okulları için bir hesap verebilirlik modeli. (Yayımlanmamış doktora
tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Kayıkçı, K., & Sayın, Ö. (2010). Ortaöğretim kurumlarında öğrenim gören öğrencilerin
okuldan memnuniyet düzeyleri. Milli Eğitim, 187, 207–224.
Kelly, A. E., & Leavy, A. (2013). The design space of student learning: Who is accountable
and accountable for what? Irish Educational Studies. Online Baskı. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ries20. Accessed on February 20, 2018.
Korkmaz, İ. (2006). Yeni ilköğretim programının öğretmenler tarafından değerlendirilmesi.
I. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, 2, 249–260.
Lezotte, L. W. (1999). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Effective
Schools Products, Ltd., Okemos, MI.
MoNE. (2015). Handbook of preschool education and primary education institutions standards system. Ankara: MoNE Publishing. Retrieved from https://tegm.meb.gov.tr/
meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_04/09112933_kurumstandartlarklavuzkitap.pdf
MoNE (2018a). Monitoring and assessment report No:96. Ankara. MoNE Publishing.
Retrieved From http://ogm.meb.gov.tr/ogm_izleme_ve_degerlendirme_raporu_
2018.pdf. Accessed on May 02, 2019.
MoNE. (2018b). Outlook of vocational and technical education in Turkey. Education,
Analysis and Assessment Series, No: 1. Ankara: MoNE Publishing. Retrieved from
https://mtegm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_11/12134429_No1_Turkiyede_
Mesleki_ve_Teknik_Egitimin_Gorunumu.pdf
National Policies Platform [EACEA] (2019). Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/
national-policies/eurydice/content/organisation-education-system-and-its-structure-103_tr. Accessed on May 18, 2019.
Negis-Işik, A., & Gümüş, E. (2017). Yönetici öz-yeterligi ve okul etkililiği arasindaki
ilişkinin incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 419–434.
Odabaş, B. (2014). Türk eğitim sisteminde yeni kanun (4+4+4) değişikliği üzerine
düşünceler. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. Cilt, 43(2), 103–124.
OECD. (2008). Education at a glance 2008. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/
skills-beyond-school/41284038.pdf. Accessed on October 08, 2018.
OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from
TALIS – executive summary. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.
oecd.org/berlin/43024880.pdf. Accessed on September 12, 2018.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming social background – Equity in learning
opportunities and outcomes (Vol. II). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10. 1787/9789264091504-en. Accessed on January 02, 2018.
OECD. (2011). How are schools held accountable? Education at a glance. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48631428.pdf. Accessed on
September 12, 2018.
OECD. (2013). Education policy outlook: Turkey. Paris: OECD Education Policy Series.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/EDUCATION%20POLICY%20
OUTLOOK%20TURKEY_EN.pdf
OECD. (2016). School governance, assessment and accountability. In PISA 2015 Results
(Vol. II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/EDUCATION%20POLICY%20
OUTLOOK%20TURKEY_EN.pdf. Accessed on September 12, 2018.
Özabaci, N., & Acat, M. B. (2005). Sosyo-ekonomik çevreye göre ilköğretim öğrencilerinin
başarısızlık nedenleri. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1),
145–169.
Özdemir, M.S. (2005). İlköğretim okullarındaki öğretmenlerin yeni ilköğretim programına
(I-V. Sınıflar) ilişkin görüşleri. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi. Bildiri kitabı
içinde (s.573-581). Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli
84
Nükhet Çikrikçi et al.
Özden, Y. (1998). Yüksek eğitimde dönüşüm. Pegem Yayınları: Ankara.
Özer, M., Gür, B. S., & Küçükcan, T. (2011). Quality assurance: Strategic choices for higher
education in Turkey. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 1(2), 59–65.
Özer, M. (2018). The 2023 Education Vision and new goals in vocational and technical
education. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 8(3), 425–435.
Özer, M. (2019). Background of problems in vocational education and training and its road
map to solution inTurkey’s Education Vision 2023. Journal of Higher Education and
Science, 9(1), 1–11.
Özer, M., & Suna, H. E. (2019). Future of vocational and technical education in Turkey:
Solid steps taken afterEducation Vision 2023. Journal of Education and Humanities,
10(20), 165–192.
Özer, M. (2020). What PISA tells us about performance of education systems. Bartın
University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(2), 217–228. of Education, 9(2), 217–228.
Özer, Y., & Anil, D. (2011). Öğrencilerin fen ve matematik başarilarini etkileyen faktörlerin yapisal eşitlik modeli ile incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 41, 313–324.
Özpolat, A., Sezer, F., İşgör, İ., & Ve Sezer, M. (2007). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin yeni
ilköğretim programlarina ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi,
174, 206–212.
Perkins, D. N. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(2),
354–371.
Rosenshine, B., (1982). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Retrieved From: http://
www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198604_rosenshine.pdf. Accessed on
June 05, 2020.
Sammons, P. M., & Bakkum, L. (2011). Effective schools, equity and teacher effectiveness:
A review of the literature. Profesorado Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado, 15(3), 9–26.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and
its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31–38.
Schlechty, P. C. (2005). Creating great schools: Six critical systems at the heart of educational innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2007). Preface. In S. Schwarz & D. F. Westerheijden
(Eds.), Accreditation and evaluation in the European higher education area (pp. ix–xii).
Berlin: Springer.
Şenel, T., & Buluç, B. (2016). İlkokullarda okul iklimi ile okul etkililiği arasindaki ilişki.
TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 9(4), 1–12.
Senemoğlu, N. (2005). Gelişim öğrenme ve öğretim (9. baskı). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
Şişman, M. (2013). Eğitimde mükemmellik arayışı: Etkili okullar (2. Baskı). Ankara:
Pegem A Yayıncılık.
The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). (2010). Uluslararası öğretme ve
öğrenme araştırması, Türkiye ulusal raporu.
Tan, W., & Simpson, K. (2008). Overseas educational experience of Chinese students an
evaluation of service quality experience in New Zealand. Journal of Research in
International Education, 7(1), 93–112.
Tarhan, S. (2008). İlköğretim okullarındaki öğretmenlerin etkili okul algıları. Yayımlanmamış
yüksek lisans tezi, Beykent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Teodorović, J. (2011). Classroom and school factors related to student achievement: What
works for students? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 215–236.
Terzi, A. R. (2003). Bilgi toplumunda eğitim ve okul. Retrieved from journals.manas.edu.
kg/mjsr/oldarchives/Vol03_Issue05_2003/275.pdf. Accessed on May 12, 2019.
Teyfur, M., & &Teyfur, E. (2012). Investigation of teachers and school administrators’
views regarding the constructivist curricula (İzmir city sample). Adnan Menderes
University Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 66–81.
Pedagogical Approaches and Initiatives for Educational Quality Assurance
85
Töremen, F. (2014). Türk eğitim sisteminin temel ilkeleri ve genel yapisi. Ankara: Pegem
Yayıncılık.
Türk Eğitim Derneği (TEDMEM). (2014). PISA 2012: Türkiye üzerine değerlendirme ve
öneriler. Retrieved from http://www.tedmem.org/haberler/2013/12/05/pisa_2012_
sonuclarinda_turkiye.html. Accessed on February 04, 2018.
Türk Eğitim Derneği (TEDMEM). (2019). TALIS 2018 sonuçları ve Türkiye üzerinde
değerlendirmeler. Retrieved from https://tedmem.org/yayin/talis-2018-sonuclariturkiye-uzerine-degerlendirmeler. Accessed on June 01, 2020.
Türkiye Anne, Çocuk ve Ergen Sağlığı Enstitüsü (TÜEB). (2019). Türk eğitim sistemi,
eğitim yaş aralıkları ve zorunlu eğitimin tarihsel gelişimi. Retrieved from https://
www.tuseb.gov.tr/enstitu/tacese/yuklemeler/tacese_2018_turkegitimsistemi_egitimyasaraliklari_zorunluegitimintarihcesi.pdf. Accessed on May 08, 2019.
Uğurlu, C. T., & Demir, A. (2016). Etkili okullar için kim ne yapmalı? Mersin Üniversitesi Dergisi,
Cilt,12,Sayı:1. Retrieved from http://dergipark.org.tr/mersinefd/issue/17399/181878
Yildirim, İ., Akan, D., & Yalçin, S. (2017). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin iş doyumu ve okul etkililiği
algilari arasindaki ilişki. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 69–81.
Yıldırım, Ö. (2012). Okuduğunu anlama başarısıyla ilişkili faktörlerin aşamalı doğrusal modellemeyle belirlenmesi (PISA 2009 Hollanda, Kore ve Türkiye Karşılaştırması).
Yılmaz, V. (2006). İlköğretim okullarının etkili okul özelliklerini sahip olma düzeyleri.
(Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü. Bolu.
YÖK. (2005). Regulations of academic assessment and quality development in higher
education institutions. Retrieved from http://www.yodek.org.tr/yodek/files/e64f6efb106e056da767a698f8434090.pdf. Accessed on August 1, 2019.
YÖKAK. (2018). Retrieved from https://yokak.gov.tr/degerlendirme-sureci/kurumsaldegerlendirme-programi-nedir https://yokak.gov.tr/Common/Docs/Site_degerlendirme_
prog_doc/kurumsal%20d%C4%B1%C5%9F%20de%C4%9Ferlendirme%20
%C3%B6l%C3%A7%C3%BCtleri.pdf. Accessed on August 1, 2019.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 2.5
Congruence Between Pedagogical and
Assessment Approaches: A Case of
One Large Province in South Africa
Bongani D. Bantwini
Abstract
This chapter discusses whether or not there is congruence between the
assessment and pedagogical approaches used when teaching natural science
and technology education in South Africa. According to the South African
Department of Basic Education’s Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement, student assessment is integral to the teaching and learning
process. This chapter draws from a research project undertaken in a large
province in South Africa. The main participants were grade 4 teachers who
taught natural science and technology education, which is science education.
Data collection was through semi-structured interviews conducted as well as
classroom observations. Guiding the chapter were the following questions: (1)
What are teachers’ common understanding and rationale for assessment? (2)
What were the common assessment approaches in the observed classrooms
and their alignment with pedagogical approaches used by the teachers? (3)
How did teachers determine the assessment method that resonated with the
used pedagogical approaches for their lessons? The analysis of data followed
the iterative approach as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994). This
chapter reveals the lack of congruency between pedagogical and assessment
approaches used in teaching, showing a clear lack of wholistic thinking
about both teaching and learning process. What further emerged was that
assessment was mainly utilised for compliance purposes and not to quality
assure the teaching and learning of the students. Thus, the author argues
that there is a need for congruence between pedagogical approaches and
assessment methods in order to benefit teaching and learning processes. The
author cautions that the danger of tick-box compliance without considering
the lifelong implications on the students as programme beneficiaries. The
author views the tendency to please authorities as nullifying the whole purpose
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 87–99
Copyright © 2020 by Bongani D. Bantwini. Published under Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201008
88
Bongani D. Bantwini
of teaching and learning, which should benefit students by developing them
to critical thinkers, problem solvers and productive future citizens of the
country.
Keywords: Assessment approaches; pedagogical approaches; quality
assurance; compliance; assessment and teaching policy; South Africa
Introduction
Globally, there has been an evident continuous effort by many governments and
education stakeholders to ensure better education outcomes through a myriad of
reforms and educational changes. In Care and Vista (2017) view, there is no doubt
about where education is going, however there is great deal of uncertainty concerning how to get there, and importantly, how to measure progress along the way.
Advancing a similar argument, Levin (2012, p. 11) mentions that one of the challenges for education systems around the world, regardless of their current situations,
includes bringing more students than ever before to higher levels of achievement
than ever before, on a broader range of skills and attributes than ever before, with
less inequity in outcomes than ever before. Levin (2012) argues that improvement in
a large and complex system requires an unrelenting focus on a few things at a time.
In this chapter, I discuss whether or not there is congruence between pedagogical approaches and assessment methods used by some teachers when teaching natural science and technology (science education) in some primary schools in South
Africa. According to the South African Department of Basic Education’s (DBE)
Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) (2011), student assessment
is integral to the teaching and learning process. The CAPS describes assessment
as involving four steps that include generating and collecting evidence of achievement; evaluating this evidence; recording the findings and using this information
to understand and thereby assist the learner’s development in order to improve
the process of learning and teaching. Furthermore, it views its (assessment)
primary purpose as to support and encourage learners and assess their holistic
development (p. 66). Thus, it stands to argue that there is an intertwined relationship between assessment and teaching. Additionally, the Teaching and Learning
Research Programme (2006) are also of the view that learning and teaching methods, the curriculum and assessment, are all highly influential in the formation of
student attitudes towards science, as is the quality of the teaching that they experience. James and Pollard (2006) also argue that teaching and learning are what
ultimately makes a difference in the mind of the learner. Hence, Brookhart (2011)
suggests that teachers should be able to articulate clear learning intentions that are
congruent with both the content and depth of thinking implied by standards and
curriculum goals and do this in such a way that they are attainable and assessable.
In his study, Bantwini (2017) found that teaching and learning of natural science
in the observed classrooms are hardly aligned with the South Africa DBE (2011)
CAPS, which vehemently argues that assessment is an integral part of teaching
Congruence Between Pedagogical and Assessment Approaches
89
and learning. In their study, Kanjee and Mthembu (2015) indicate that teachers
demonstrated very low levels of assessment literacy and that approximately half
of the teachers were performing below basic level while the other half at the basic
level. Indisputably, the teaching and learning process without full knowledge and
understanding of assessment process is likely to render student learning and their
education incomplete. The CAPS (DBE, 2011) emphasises that cognitive demands
of assessment used should be appropriate to the age and developmental level of
the learners in the grade. Furthermore, the CAPS document stresses that assessments in Natural Sciences and Technology must cater for a range of cognitive levels
and abilities of learners within this context. Hence, Bantwini (2017) contends that
effective assessment should be carefully, thoughtfully and intentionally planned in
order to achieve its goals. In his argument, Bantwini contends that that does not
mean teachers should not pose spontaneous questions to learners, but the lesson
assessment process should not be entirely based on unplanned questions, in order
to ensure congruence between the applied pedagogical and assessment approaches.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2014), one
of the grave challenges is to equip all teachers with the skills and tools they need
to provide effective learning opportunities for their students. Teachers, as Care and
Vista (2017) assert, need to pursue dynamic pedagogies and model twenty-first
century skills and that assessments will need to reflect the nature of the skills, and
also, in the process, reflect those skills themselves.
To engage with the main question, this chapter focusses on: (1) the teachers’
common understanding and rationale for assessment; (2) the common assessment approaches in the observed classrooms and their alignment with pedagogical
approaches used by the teachers; and (3) how teachers determine the assessment
method that resonated with the used pedagogical approaches in their lessons? The
DBE CAPS (DBE, 2011, p. 65) document states that assessment should be mapped
out against the content, which is the concepts and skills, and the specific aims of the
subject to ensure that all the subject content is covered, the full range of major skills
is included and that a variety of different forms of assessment are used. I view this
crucial considering one of the concerns raised by the OECD (2014) in their report,
that the skills that students need to contribute effectively to society are in constant
change, but our education systems are not keeping up with the fast pace of the world
around us. They argue that most teachers are not developing the practices and skills
necessary to meet the diverse needs of today’s learners (OECD, 2014, p. 3).
Theoretical Framework
The chapter is premised on the notion that student assessment is integral to the
teaching and learning process (DBE, 2011) and therefore employs a systems theory
framework as a lens to shape the discussion. Senge (2006, p. 7) views a conceptual
framework as a body of knowledge and tools that have been developed over the
past fifty years, to make the full patterns clearer, and to help us see how to change
them effectively. Systems theory owes its origins to the study of ecology, through
which scientists have discovered that complex webs of life exist throughout nature
90
Bongani D. Bantwini
(Whitehead, Boschee, & Decker, 2012). Systems thinking, as Senge (2006, pp.
68–69) argues, is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static
snapshots. Naicker and Mestry (2016) are of the view that if the interrelationships
between the elements of a system are weak, it is unlikely that a system will succeed.
Hence, there is a need for congruence between pedagogical approaches and assessment methods in order to benefit teaching and learning process.
Senge (2006, p. 124) believes that the art of systems thinking lies in seeing
through the detail complexity to the underlying structures generating change.
Hence, Care and Vista (2017) argue that to optimise the potential of assessment, conventional perceptions about its use need to change, and the assessment
tools themselves need to be designed to generate usable data for and relevant to
all children. They note that this requires designing assessments that capture all
children’s capabilities within the range of what is being taught, which requires
going beyond simply determining whether a correct or incorrect answer has been
achieved. Cautioning, Subreenduth (2013) states that even the best social justice
intentions, when misaligned with the national practice, limit or diminish possibilities for social justice and equitable treatment. However, as Arnold and Wade
(2015) believe, with the use a skill set called systems thinking, one can hope to
better understand the deep roots of these complex behaviours in order to better
predict them and, ultimately, adjust their outcomes. In their observation, Lewis
and Petterson (2009) state that the impacts of investments in education in developing and transition countries are typically measured by inputs and outputs.
Thus, Arnold and Wade (2015) state, with the exponential growth of systems
in our world comes a growing need for systems thinkers to tackle these complex
problems and hence is viewed as an ideal conceptual framework for this chapter.
Methodology
The chapter draws from a data generated from a large research project undertaken
in the Eastern Cape (EC) province in South Africa. The EC province is one of the
largest provinces in South Africa, clouded by a number of educational challenges
ranging from: poor student pass rate at matriculation level, poor infrastructure
in many rural based schools, and shortages of teachers in critical learning areas
and more. The province comprises 12 school districts however, only seven participated in the study based on their willingness to be involved in the research project.
Based on the DBE (2013, p. 13) policy on the organisation, roles and responsibilities of education districts, a district office, headed by a District Director, is
the management sub-unit of a Provincial Education Department, responsible for
the Basic Education institutions in its district. From each district, two circuits
were identified to participate in the research project. A circuit office (DBE, 2013,
p. 28) is a field of the district office headed by the Circuit Manager and the closest
point of contact between education institutions and the Provincial Department
of Education. The project focussed on teaching and learning of natural science
and technology education in grade 4. However, for this chapter, the primary participants are grade 4 natural science and technology education teachers.
Congruence Between Pedagogical and Assessment Approaches
91
The reported study used a mixed-method research design, intended to obtain
rich informative data in addressing the major research question, while offsetting
the weakness inherent in using a single approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018;
Mertens, 2010). Various research instruments were used to gather the necessary
data including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and classroom observations. However, this chapter only draws from the qualitative data generated
through the classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with both the
teachers and the subject advisors. All the observed lessons, which totalled 25 and
the 45 conducted interviews, were audio recorded with the permission of the participants. The audio recorded during the teaching intended to ensure an accurate
understanding of how each lesson was delivered by the teachers. A constructive
interpretive approach was used to inspect the various data sets. The interpretive
research focusses on identifying, documenting and ‘knowing’ through interpretation so as to document and interpret as fully as possible the totality of what
is being studied, peoples’ viewpoints, or frames of reference (Leininger, 1985).
Furthermore, the data analysis of the classroom observation data as well as the
interviews were informed by the iterative approach as initially suggested by Miles
and Huberman (1984). Miles and Huberman view qualitative analysis as a continuous, iterative process that comprises data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing and verification.
Congruence Between Pedagogical and Assessment
Approaches
This section presents findings that emerged from both the classroom observations
and interviews with both the teachers and district officials, known as the subject
advisors. They include the teachers’ common understanding of assessment and
rationale for learner assessment, the common assessment approaches that prevailed in classrooms and their alignment with pedagogical approaches used by the
teachers, as well as how teachers determined the assessment method/s congruous
with the employed pedagogical approach/es in their lessons.
Teachers’ Common Understanding and Rationale for Assessment
Assessment, as Wiliam (2011) mentions, is perhaps the central process in effective instruction. It is, as William argues, only through assessment that we can
find out whether a particular sequence of instructional activities has resulted in
the intended learning outcomes. The South African CAPS for Natural Science
and Technology Education (DBE, 2011, p 65) describe ‘assessment as a continuous planned process of identifying, gathering, interpreting and diagnosing, information about the performance of learners’. Thus, all the interviewed teachers
were asked about their understanding or definition of assessment as well as their
rationale for assessing learners, be it prior, during or after the lesson.
Based on the analysis of data many teachers seemed to be struggling to define
assessment, with some even carelessly stating that ‘Yhoo no I don’t know how
to define it’. Instead of defining assessment, some would explain why they assess
92
Bongani D. Bantwini
their learners. Nevertheless, common from their understanding or definition of
assessment was that it was just a way of testing learners’ understanding on a particular topic that was taught:
[…] Assessment is the way of testing the learners’ knowledge, or
their acquisition, how much can they acquire in what you have
done or how much have they acquired in what you have done …
[…] assessment is the yardstick of checking how effective my
teaching was and also to check the understanding of the learners
in that particular lesson.
[…] ha ha ha (teacher laughing), this is difficult, it is a, I don’t
know man. It’s like, I’d say assessment is a tool that is used to see
what the learners know.
The analysis of teachers’ view indicates that though some teachers initially
laughed and viewed the question as difficult, later a commonly articulated view
was that assessment is a tool for measuring what learners have gained from a
particular lesson. However, despite the teachers’ good understanding of assessment, what further emerged from the findings was that, what assessment is, was
never given that much attention and therefore conducted with blind spot vision
of its role in the learner development process. From both interviews and observations of the taught lessons, teachers mostly believed that assessment was something that they should do after every lesson in their classrooms. Undoubtedly, this
notion was not wrong, however, questionable was the treatment of assessment as
something to be done for compliancy purposes.
In terms of the rationale for assessment, all the teachers were engaged in order
to gain their views on the matter. Prinsloo and Harvey (2016) believe that assessment has various purposes, a belief that is also aligned with the DBE CAPS
(DBE, 2011). The CAPS (DBE, 2011) document stresses that:
all forms of assessment involve generating and collecting evidence
of achievement; evaluating this evidence and using this information to understand and thereby assist the learner’s development
and the teaching process. (p. 65)
The South African CAPS insists that school-based assessment (including practical tasks and class tests), checking for correctness, and providing constructive
feedback should be done regularly. Needless to say, teachers seemed to have a
common idea or understanding as to why they assess their learners, which was
to check learners’ understanding after each and every lesson. In their responses,
some said that:
[…] I assess because I want to know if they understand what I taught
them. You want to see the outcomes of what you have done …
Congruence Between Pedagogical and Assessment Approaches
93
To check their understanding. Then it means if the majority fails,
they did not get you, then you have to … and you must check
yourself so that you can change your strategy, maybe you were too
broad for them.
Assessment is something that has to be there, because how would
you know that they have mastered what you have taught them if you
do not assess, if you do not check them? There is no way to know.
Also, the CAPS document helps when it comes to assessment, it
guides you …
A deeper analysis of these and other teachers’ responses indicate that their common view as to why they assess learners was mostly due to the quest to ascertain
whether learners understood the presented lesson or not. In spite of this view,
analysis of classroom observation did not clearly indicate whether the results of
the assessment meant that the teacher will re-teach the lesson should they find
that the majority of the student failed it. So, the analysis of the above quotes as well
as the classroom observations show that most of the teachers were undertaking the
assessment of learning and hardly for learning. Their interest was to measure how
much did the learners learn from the lesson and not for learning. What was not
clear from their understanding was that assessment is a continuous planned process of interpreting and diagnosing information about the performance of learners
and therefore, assessment for learning was also crucial. Assessment for learning,
as Chianese (2012) indicates, emerges from the idea that learning is an active process, not a transfer of ideas. Prinsloo and Harvey (2016) assert that assessment for
learning aims to inform teachers about the learning process so that their teaching
and learning activities can be adjusted more immediately. These authors are of the
view that this kind of assessment is continuous in nature and involves the whole
population of learners so that teachers can understand how, when and if learners
apply their gained knowledge. The teachers’ responses regarding their rationale for
assessment seems to indicate that they were mainly concerned about the knowledge gained or acquired by learners from their lesson, without also checking the
student’s accumulative growth resulting from their other previous lessons.
In trying to corroborate teachers’ views about assessment with classroom
observations, the findings reveal that some teachers appeared not to realise that
assessment was a process of gathering information from multiple and diverse sources
in order to develop a deep understanding of what students know, understand and can
do with their knowledge as a result of their educational experiences (DBE, 2011).
They seemed to treat assessment as a once off isolated event from the other lessons that have been taught; there was a lack of indication that they viewed it as
an ongoing activity that should informs the wholistic learning development of
students and not necessarily on that particular lesson but in a period of time.
Further emerging from the teachers was that assessment is a must and a
requirement from their Department of Education. Such a response from some
teachers was usually accompanied by the critique of the required assessment to
be undertaken by the teachers:
94
Bongani D. Bantwini
[…] personally, I assess not to see, not to see what they know
because what I have learnt is that you don’t always see it when you
assess it, hence I say, in most cases I do it, in honestly speaking as
I said sometimes I can assess the learner and he/she fails. But when
I seat and engage with the learner, they’re actually know the work.
Do you understand, but since it is compulsory, I’d say …?
[Referring to assessment] – as I said, I don’t … it as an effective
tool, I feel like, it’s something that eh,eh, it limits the learners, even
the teacher. It limits us to, that this learner knows this and does
not know that. It’s like a limiting tool, in a way.
From the above quotes, both teachers clearly had intriguing views about
assessment, that sometimes learners do fail when assessed not necessarily because
they did not understand what was taught and that assessment can limit both the
teacher and learners. Further of interest was that these teachers viewed assessment as an activity to show compliance that one was teaching the learners.
When all the interviewed teachers were further asked if when do they assess
their learners, most of them mentioned that assessment mainly took place after
the lesson in their classrooms. None of the teachers said that they conduct
learner assessment prior to teaching the lesson, during and after until they were
further probed. This further probing was the results of the classroom observations, where a number of them would start a lesson by asking questions, some
pertaining to the previous lesson while some directly linked to the new topic to
learn. The fact that their responses to the interview question contradicted what
was observed in their classrooms raises some questions. Does that mean the prior
lesson assessment was undertaken not necessary for learner intended growth?
Common Assessment Approaches and their Alignment to the
Pedagogical Approaches
With the rapid local and global reforms and changes in education and the quest
to attain better outcomes, assessment as an element of education has also greatly
evolved. There are now various approaches/methods that teachers use in their
classrooms. Nonetheless, what informs their identification of an assessment
method to use with a particular pedagogical approach is a crucial question to ponder. The interviewed teachers were asked about the common assessment methods
or approaches or strategies that prevailed in their classrooms when assessing their
learners. In this case, all of the teachers mentioned that they mostly use oral questions at the beginning of the lesson, during and after lesson delivery. Despite what
they said, analysis of data from the classroom observations corroborates Bantwini
(2017), that in most cases preliminary questions were raised to remind learners
about previous lessons and not to diagnose their comprehension level. The other
common assessment approaches were written classwork, homework, tests and
use of the prescribed questions from their prescribed textbook. The data analysis
of classroom observation shows that these assessment approaches were indeed
Congruence Between Pedagogical and Assessment Approaches
95
common in every observed classroom. Further of interest was that the teachers
mainly relied on informal assessment. According to the CAPS (DBE, 2011), the
purpose of Informal assessment is to continuously collect information on a learner’s achievement that can be used to improve their learning. The DBE argue that
informal assessment is a daily monitoring of learners’ progress and that it should
not be seen as separate from the learning activities taking place in the classroom.
During interviews, some of the teachers spoke about using some practical work
as part of assessment. However, during the classroom observations, almost all of
the observed classrooms hardly had any practical work done to teach the lessons.
This is not to dispute what they said but in all the classroom there was never a
practical work assessment, which the policy document insists that they (practical
tasks) should provide opportunities for learners to demonstrate several different
skills. Furthermore, very few teachers mentioned the use of investigations to assess
their learners. Many justified why investigations were not ideal in their situation,
as there was a lack of parental support for the learners and the total lack of
resources in their areas. However, some of the teachers were not in favour of doing
practical work in their classrooms as they view it as very time consuming. Some
cited the lack of resources to do practical work, large numbers of students with
small classroom environment. Clearly, the above practices are in contrast with Care
and Vista’s view, that we need assessment approaches that inform and guide children’s learning progress and stay current with the skills and content being taught.
Similarly, Chianese (2012) states that if we want to assess for learning, we need to
use tools able to support reflection, metacognitive thought and aware learning.
How Teachers Determine the Assessment Method that Matches
or Compliments the Used Pedagogical Approach in their Science
Education Lessons
Asked if how they determine the assessment method based on the chosen pedagogical approach, all of the teachers indicated that they do not know while some
claimed not to understand the question at all, despite the many times it was
repeated and rephrased.
[…] can you repeat the question. Eish, I have never thought about
it, for now my approach is only the use of written classwork as
part of assessing my learners.
[…] I am not sure if I am going to answer you correctly, say you
have the topic to do or the activity that you’re going to give the
kids. So you should, you know the way how to assess this thing.
I don’t know … when you go to the workshop with the …, the
subject advisors help us to know how to assess.
Based on these teachers’ response, it appears that they hardly considered the
suitability or congruency of the assessment approaches to their pedagogical
approaches. Also, common from the teachers’ response was that ‘I just know what
96
Bongani D. Bantwini
assessment method to use’. This claimed knowledge seemed not to stem from
nowhere as many seemed not to have thought and matched their pedagogical
approaches with the relevant assessment approach. The other common response
was that they used the prescribed textbook questions. Teachers stated that in their
teaching they mostly followed the prescribed textbook, which they viewed as simple and easy for their learners to understand.
[…] even the textbooks, it also gives you the guidance. It guides
you when you have finished doing that lesson, yes the questions
that you ask.
Also evident during interviews was that teacher hardly questioned the assessment questions from their prescribed textbook. Instead, they praised it for being
simple and easy for learners to follow and for including the many visuals that
were helpful for the students. This clearly was not wrong but, there are some benefits in teachers’ being critical of the teaching materials or prescribed textbooks as
they are eventually the classroom implementers. According to the South African
Norms and Standards for Educators (Department of Education, 2000), teachers
are expected to be interpreters and designers of learning programmes and materials. Based on the Norms and Standards document, the educator will understand
and interpret provided learning programmed, design original learning programmed,
identify the requirements for a specific context of learning and select and prepare
suitable textual and visual resources for learning. Furthermore, the educator will
also select, sequence and pace the learning in a manner sensitive to the differing
needs of the subject leaming area and learners. Hence, I view it crucial that teachers scrutinise all the materials prescribed for their classroom teaching.
Discussion and Conclusion
In Care and Vista’s (2017) view, there is general consensus that education should
aspire to prepare students to deal with the non-routine in life. Senge (2006) asserts
that today systems thinking is needed more than ever because we are becoming
overwhelmed by complexity, in this case that may include student diversity, their
diverse backgrounds, learning abilities and more. Hence, Naicker and Mestry
(2016) cautions that if the interrelationships between the elements of a system
(in this case the pedagogical and assessment) are weak, it is unlikely that a system
will succeed.
Evident from the study findings was the existence of incongruency between
pedagogical and assessment approaches used by the interviewed and observed
teachers. This was due to teachers’ lack of profound thinking about the need for
congruency of the various key components/elements (pedagogical and assessment
approaches) during their lesson planning sessions. In this case, the application of
the systems thinking therefore becomes critical for teachers in their lesson planning. The fact that all the participating teachers in the study could not account
how they identify the assessment approaches that will resonate with the selected
pedagogical approaches gives an indication about the extent to which they think
Congruence Between Pedagogical and Assessment Approaches
97
about their lessons when planning them. I argue that lesson planning should not
only focus on pedagogical approaches in isolation of assessment approaches. The
planning should consider both and make sure that there is consonance between
these and other key elements.
Further observable from the data was the lack of apparent implementation of
the country’s CAPS under the various observed classroom realities. These findings
corroborate Bantwini’s (2017) findings in which, he argued that the teaching and
learning of science in the classrooms he observed hardly aligned with the CAPS
as well as the teaching aims for natural science and technology (DBE, 2011). As
part of his findings, Bantwini argued that in most classrooms, the teacher’s questioning skills focussed on comprehension and never moved to application, analysis or synthesis as suggested by Blooms Taxonomy. It is imperative, I argue that
the school district and teachers ensure that the national CAPS is well adapted to
the various contexts but without watering down the policy. Care and Vista (2017)
state that the assessment tools that we need for the future must be designed to
provide performance information in language that describes that performance.
Further distinct from the findings was that as much as assessment plays many
vital roles in education, including an accountability purpose, there was an alternative view of it and utilisation, which was for compliance purposes. Many teachers unashamedly admitted that assessment was sometimes not necessarily used to
quality assure the teaching and learning of the students, but just to tick the box.
The key reasons for this behaviour included the desire to meet the authorities’
expectations without considering the beneficiaries in the exercise or programme.
More than anything else, assessment was seen as the requirement of the department of education. I argue against the danger of tick-box compliancy without
considering the life-long implications on the students as programme beneficiaries.
I view the tendency to want to please authorities as nullifying the whole process
of teaching and learning that should benefit students by developing them to critical thinkers, problem solvers and productive future citizens of the country.
Childress, Elmore, Grossman, and Johnson (2007) argue that public education has a history for silver-bullet solutions. The findings in this chapter have also
implications for teacher education or training at universities or education colleges
that will equip them to be able to maximise the benefits of both teaching and
conducting assessment. Care and Vista (2017) indicate that the kind of reforms
required are about recognising that having content knowledge is insufficient and
that we must also understand how it is accessed, stored, managed retrieve and
manipulated. Thus, as Kanjee and Mthembu (2015) allude, it is imperative that
teachers must acquire the requisite understanding and knowledge to use assessment evidence and be able to account for the context within which learning takes
place to effectively address the learning needs of children. Subreenduth (2013) cautions that even the best social justice intentions, when misaligned with the national
practice, limit or diminish possibilities for social justice and equitable treatment.
School districts also have a fundamental role to play by ensuring rigorous
teacher professional developments on the existing CAPS document. According to
Bantwini (2019), it is vital that teachers are provided with the necessary support and
learning opportunities they need to build and sustain their classroom practices.
98
Bongani D. Bantwini
This is crucial as Kanjee and Sayed (2013) indicate that the CAPS ­document
(DBE, 2011) provides not information outlining the specific knowledge and skills
required for teachers to enhance both their summative and formative assessment
knowledge and skills, or how these should be implemented in the classroom. Thus,
the role of authorities, supposedly, should be to strengthen teacher knowledge
that will ensure promotion and sustainability of quality basic education. Kanjee
and Mthembu (2015) believes that once teachers have changed their understanding of assessment, it may well follow that their teaching practice will also change.
I strongly believe that student’ successful learning is influenced by a myriad
of ­
factors including the alignment between the pedagogical and assessment
approaches applied during the teaching and their learning. Thus, it is imperative that there is congruence between pedagogical and assessment approaches for
benefit of student learning.
According to James and Pollard (2006), decisions about which assessment practices are most appropriate should flow from educational judgements as to preferred
learning outcomes. James argues that this forces us to engage with questions of value –
what we consider to be worthwhile and, in a sense, is beyond both theory and
method. This thinking is aligned with Senge’s (2006, p. 124) view that emphasises
the ability to see through the ‘detail complexity to the underlying structures generating change’. As Care and Vista (2017) indicate, the twenty-first century education
is about skills sets of processes; and therefore, students need to be able to adapt to
contexts, meet challenges and solve problems that are as yet unknown. Effective
assessment practice that is congruous with the pedagogical approaches is likely to
have a significant impact on student learning. Thus, I believe that our best chance
at helping them succeed is to thus ensure that there is congruence in our pedagogical approaches and assessment methods as this will support their learning about
the sets of p
­ rocesses that they will bring to bear in those situations.
References
Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach.
Procedia Computer Science, 44(1), 669–678.
Bantwini, B. D. (2017). Analysis of teaching and learning of natural science in selected
primary schools in a province in South Africa. Journal of Education, 67(1), 39–64.
Bantwini, B. D. (2019). Developing a culture of collaboration and learning among natural
science teachers as a continuous professional development approach in a province
in South Africa. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers’
Professional Development, 23(2), 213–232.
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3–12.
Care, E., & Vista, A. (2017). Education is changing. Its time assessment caught up. Retrieved
from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/education_is_changingits_time_assessment_caught_
up#bio-footer
Chianese, G. (2012). Assessment for learning: A way to improve continuously. ProcediaSocial and Behavioural Sciences, 56(1), 2927–2931.
Congruence Between Pedagogical and Assessment Approaches
99
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2007). Managing school
districts: Cases in public education leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011). National curriculum statement (NCS).
Curriculum assessment policy statement. Republic of South Africa. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/36324gen300.pdf
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2013). Policy on the organization, roles and
responsibilities of education districts. Pretoria, South Africa.
Department of Education. (2000). Norms and Standards for Educators. Republic of
South Africa. Retrieved from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/
201409/20844.pdf
James, M. & Pollard, A. (2006). Principles for teaching and learning. In Improving teaching and learning in schools. A commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research
Programme. Retrieved from www.tlrp.org. Accessed on January 19, 2014.
Kanjee, A., & Mthembu, J. (2015). Assessment literacy of foundation phase teachers: An
exploratory study. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 5(1), 142–168.
Kanjee, A., & Sayed, Y. (2013). Assessment policy in post-apartheid South Africa:
Challenges for improving education quality and learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(4), 442–469.
Leininger, M. M. (1985). Qualitative Research Methods in Nursing (p. 5). Orlando, Florida:
Grune & Stratton,
Levin, B. (2012). System-wide improvement in education. Geneva: International Bureau of
Education.
Lewis, M., & Pettersson, G. (2009). Governance in education: Raising performance.
Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTHDOFFICE/Resources/
5485726-1271361195921/Governance-in-education-master-22Dec09-GP.doc
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrated
diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. 1984. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Naicker, S. R., & Mestry, R. (2016). Leadership development: A lever for system-wide educational change. South African Journal of Education, 36(4), 1–12.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2014). A teachers’ guide to TALIS 2013: Teaching and learning international survey. Paris: TALIS.
OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264216075-en
Prinsloo, C. H & Harvey, J. C. (2016). The viability of individual oral assessments for learners: Insights gained from two intervention evaluations. Perspectives in Education,
34(4), 1–14.
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Subreenduth, S. (2013). Theorizing social justice ambiguities in an era of neoliberalism:
The case of post-apartheid South Africa. Educational Theory, 63(6), 581–599.
Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP). (2006). Science education in
schools: Issues, evidence and proposals. Retrieved from www.tlrp.org. Accessed on
March 10, 2015.
Whitehead, B. M., Boschee, F. & Decker, R.H. (2012). The principal: Leadership for a global
society. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publication.
William, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Education Evaluations, 37
(1), 3–14.
This page intentionally left blank
Part III
Special Education
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 3.1
Inclusion of Children with Special
Needs as an Opportunity to Increase
the Quality of Teaching in Israel
Bilha Paryente and Heidi Flavian
Abstract
Inclusion of children with special needs into mainstream schools reflects a
society’s view of their role as caregivers for all citizens, regardless of any understanding of the benefits that educating for inclusion might have. Although
inclusion should be conducted throughout all areas of life, frequently people
refer to it only as an academic process that teachers must be responsible for.
Thus, such inclusion provides teachers with the opportunity to lead future
generations towards the development of societies that indeed practice inclusion as a natural process. However, even if we decide to focus on the process
only from the school perspective, in practice teachers cannot conduct it efficiently without proper training. This chapter is thus designed to promote the
understanding of possible implications of the new inclusion policy in Israeli
elementary schools which will allow the development of innovative and quality teacher-training programmes, and the quality of teaching in general.
Keywords: Inclusion; special needs; teacher training; inclusion-policy;
inclusion-challenges; schools
Introduction
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, theoreticians, pedagogues and educational leaders around the world have claimed that education should be available for
all and truly represent society’s norms, ideologies and culture. Therefore, they have
developed a variety of theories and approaches in regard to how inclusion can be
practiced. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Dewey, an American theorist,
claimed that schools should prepare all pupils to be part of the society around them.
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 103–115
Copyright © 2020 by Bilha Paryente and Heidi Flavian. Published under Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201010
104
Bilha Paryente and Heidi Flavian
Accordingly, children with special needs, who are obviously part of any society,
should always be integrated in all educational programmes. At the same time,
Vygotsky, a psychologist from the Soviet Union, published his theory that child
development is based upon the social interactions, or lack thereof, with other members of society. Years later, during the 1970s, Feuerstein, a psychologist who studied in Europe and continued his work in Israel, developed the Mediated Learning
Experience (MLE) theory, according to which every child can cognitively change
and develop if proper human mediation is provided. He also claimed that in order
to allow proper mediation and efficient cognitive development, all children should
learn together and no exclusion should be allowed within the educational field.
The main link of these approaches and others (Ainscow & Miles, 2008) to
the inclusion process in schools is the understanding that the first step should be
to create an environment that welcomes all learners and only then to assess and
define the special needs of each, and if necessary, develop adapted curricula.
In Israel, the first Inclusion Law and its extension (The Israeli Test special education law 1988; The Israeli inclusion law, 2002) determined the establishment of
integration and placement committees and how they should function. These committees were active inside regular schools and among the local authorities. Their
role was to decide whether children with special needs were entitled to placement
in special educational institutions (Avishar, 2010). Following the educational efficiency of the special education and inclusion laws, 30 years later (February 2018) an
amendment to the original law was passed. The decisions regarding the setting of
the child’s educational institution would be made by the parents. This was the result
of many years of studying the importance of including the family in the decisionmaking process (Test et al., 2004; Timor & Burton, 2007). Consequently, the organisation of the integration and placement committees changed as well. This change
was not only technical, but also substantive. Beyond the fact that this is a radically different point of view, it has numerous semantic, organisational, economic
and pedagogical implications. While there is no doubt about the importance of the
changes, educators must pay careful attention throughout the process (Armenta
& Beckers, 2006). Understanding that quality assurance is a process that aimed to
assess and define how to improve what we do (Goff, 2017), these new perspectives
of education offer educators the opportunities to rethink how to assure the quality teacher-training processes that will allow efficient training of teachers who are
properly equipped to provide quality education to inclusive classes in the future.
Inclusion as Legislated throughout History:
An International Perspective
Whereas inclusion as an official process in schools has been taking place over the
last 40 years, pedagogues and educational leaders had already referred to it centuries earlier. The first educational philosopher who emphasised the role of society to
provide education for all was Socrates (470–399 bc). Although Socrates did not refer
to people who might not be able to learn as others, his approach was to promote
learning among everyone by asking questions and providing all the opportunities
to search for answers (Nichols, 1987). Since the time of Socrates, many different
Inclusion of Children with Special Needs
105
educational approaches have developed, but unfortunately, in many cases education
has not been accessible to all. Awareness of the social meaning of inclusion truly
began towards the end of the nineteenth century when Dewey (1897) emphasised
the role and the responsibility of society in educating all children. Moreover, Dewey
claimed that if society did not relate to all individuals and their needs as a mandatory factor in its responsibilities, and if society did not educate all individuals to
contribute to their society, then there was no logic in developing communities at all.
Even without mentioning ‘inclusion’ specifically, in the past decade, other
researchers and theoreticians have emphasised the role of society in educating all members to become independent learners. Milestones of this educational
approach were led by Piaget, Vygotsky, Feuerstein, Gardner and others. Piaget
(1896–1980) developed and defined a learning model based on direct exposure to
and interaction with the environment. The model symbolises the process in which
direct stimuli reach an organism (learner), and the organism is expected to respond
accordingly. But, Piaget’s main contribution to the process of inclusion was his
declaration that how organisms interact with their environment lead to even more
successful adaptation in the future, and therefore success in the future relies on
society’s educational investment in itself (Harris, 1997). Parallel to the period in
which Piaget developed his theory, Vygotsky (1896–1934) developed his sociocultural theory, according to which everyone can learn with proper social intervention, focussing on the perspective of human beings as objects who are changed
more by cultural processes than by natural ones (Kozulin, 1999). The claim that
society should ensure that all children learn and develop their thinking skills was
strengthened by Feuerstein (1921–2014). Feuerstein (2001) strongly believed that
all humans can change cognitively as a result of the mediation they receive from
other humans in their environment. This led him to develop the theory of the MLE
and subsequently his theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability. One of the latest researchers is Gardner (b. 1943) who also claimed that all learners should be
educated together, taking into account the strength of their various intelligences.
As presented above, for many years, educational leaders, philosophers and
psychologists treated inclusion of all learners as their core belief in society’s
responsibility. Nevertheless, training teachers to teach different learners who may
have different needs is a relatively new process that frequently changes according
to the inclusion laws in different countries.
Teacher Training in Israel
Throughout the past three decades, teacher training in Israel has undergone many
changes. Teacher-trainees study for four years to complete their B.Ed., an ­academic
degree that qualifies them in a certain discipline along with the authorisation to
teach in kindergarten or school. Although the requirements from teachers in the
field change over time, it is also necessary to retain a stable pedagogical basis for
all programmes. Moreover, practicing new approaches according to the needs of
the pupils is not always simple in Israel, due to ongoing differences between the
two main bodies responsible for teacher-training policy: the Ministry of Education and the Council for Higher Education (CHE) (Flavian & Kass, in press).
106
Bilha Paryente and Heidi Flavian
Nevertheless, despite their differences, they share the goal of improving the q
­ uality
of teaching and learning while considering their different points of view such as:
(a) the CHE prefers a teacher-training model focussing on the detailed curriculum
requirements; (b) the CHE has promoted changes in the structure of the training as a result of the academisation of Israel’s teacher-­training colleges; (c) colleges overseen by the Ministry of Education receive further supervision from the
CHE, which demands attainment of academic criteria that, in many cases, are
contrary to the immediate needs of teachers and pupils (Hoffman & Kfir, 2012;
Yogev, 2006; Zuzovsky & Donitsa-Schmidt, 2004). In addition to the above gaps,
the Israeli school system, which reflects society in Israel, is also characterised by
inter-culturalism, and teachers need to be trained accordingly. Therefore, in order
to develop efficient teacher-training processes to provide quality education for all,
the CHE defined basic guidelines for teacher training (Ariav Committee Report,
2006) which allowed future development of teacher-training programmes that
consider new laws such as the inclusion laws that are updated every few years.
Nevertheless, the CHE also defined a compulsory principle for all teacher-training programmes, referring to the necessary cooperation between the pedagogical
mentors at the colleges (lecturers expert in pedagogy), the teacher-mentors in the
schools (successful experienced teachers) and the trainee teachers to make sure the
academic teacher-training programmes prepare novice teachers as needed.
Despite the well-designed professional development teachers undergo, while
examining the variety of actions teachers need to take in order to promote efficient
inclusion of pupils with special needs, it seems that they need to choose whether
to focus on academic achievements or on other factors of inclusion. Questions
in regard to the quality of learning are asked frequently, referring mainly to the
fact that teachers in regular educational programmes are trained to teach specific
domains and not to teach pupils with special needs. Moreover, those teachers are
required to teach different pupils with different learning skills and different cognitive functions during the same lesson. Although there is no objection to the process
of inclusion and its importance, there is no doubt that the complexity of up-to-date
teacher-training processes is challenged as well. Nowadays, it is clear to all that in
order to increase the quality of learning in schools, along with providing quality
education through all areas of life, teachers need to be trained also as special educational teachers, even though they wish to be expert in one specific domain in school.
Inclusion Policy and Processes in Israel
The issue of the importance of the inclusion of children with special needs into
mainstream education received legal validation in Israel in 1988, with the legislation of the first Special Education Law (Timor & Burton, 2007). This law
proposed two streams for the inclusion of children with special needs into mainstream education: (a) full integration in which the child studies with the class
throughout the day, with full support according to needs; and (b) partial inclusion, where the child studies in a small class within a regular school and joins a
regular class for certain lessons depending on his or her abilities and functioning.
As part of this first law, the education system was allowed to develop three levels
Inclusion of Children with Special Needs
107
of inclusion according to the particular needs of the learners and the inclusion
abilities of the local education system: (1) Local inclusion, where children with
special needs studied in the same building with the other children, but beyond
that there were no real efforts to develop the ties between them. (2) Social inclusion, in which the children with special needs were integrated into certain nonacademic activities such as ceremonies and trips. (3) Functional inclusion, where
the children with special needs were integrated into academic and social activities
with the regular pupils in their school (Hillel-Lavian & Bachar-Katz, 2010).
Although it would seem that the Special Education Law and its reference to
the procedure of integration provided a suitable response to pupils with special
needs, the various bodies involved in implementing its instructions claimed that
not all the population had been properly catered for. This was because of the law’s
reference to a diverse population of pupils with and without special needs, and
also on the basis of the fact that the implications of implementing the law touched
upon social aspects beyond the formal educational process. The main criticisms
and suggested changes made by educators, parents and social policymakers related
to the difficulty of providing children with special needs and their families a sense
of full belonging in the regular schools, but also to the claim that there had been
an unequal division of the budgeting of the law for the children being included
(Margalit, 2000). The parents of children with special needs claimed that during
the inclusion in the various settings their children did not receive the necessary
support in therapeutic areas not directly related to the development of academic
skills. Several complaints claimed that the lack of professional academic and social
support damaged the inclusion pupils. The claims about the need for professional
support were actually answered by the developers of teacher-training programmes,
who understood that they had to adjust the training procedure so that, in addition
to the special education teachers, other teachers would also be given the knowledge
and basic training for teaching pupils with special needs, alongside their training
for teaching in heterogeneous classes.
When it became clear that the education system as a whole, and the teaching staff in particular, were not prepared to handle the implications of inclusion
according to the law, the inclusion procedure was thoroughly investigated and
two reports were written, proposing ways to promote inclusion: The Margalit
Report (2000), which determined that there should be ‘eligibility committees’ to
ensure the eligibility of each child to receive service suited to his or her needs.
In addition, the professional terminology was changed and the phrase ‘deviant
children’, with its negative connotations, was eliminated. It was replaced by the
term ‘children with special needs’, in order to focus on the accommodations they
needed in order to learn. This linguistic change reinforced the difference between
labelling and encouraging a policy of equal opportunity, as expressed in:
allocation of the resources needed to develop a structural infrastructure, train professionals in the relevant fields, and develop
diagnostic and therapeutic tools, all in order to bridge gaps and
ensure equality and fairness in access to, and availability of,
special education services. (The Margalit Report, 2000, p. 30
108
Bilha Paryente and Heidi Flavian
The Dorner Committee (2009) published another report following claims made
by parents of children with special needs against the Ministry of Education.
Their main claim was that although the Ministry of Education enabled inclusion
it did not encourage it, nor did it even recognise that parents and pupils with
special needs had to be able to choose the educational setting that suited them.
The committee members found that, in practice, the 2002 amendment to the
Special Education Law discriminated between children with special needs studying in specific special education settings and those studying in inclusive settings,
where the first received larger budget allocations (Marom, Bar Simantov, Karin,
& Koren, 2006; Ronen, 2001). Moreover, the lack of resources led to a situation in
which the placement of children with special needs in inclusive settings was damaged. The committee members recommended formulating a new law that would
confirm the status of children in special education, according to the European
model, in which a parent is entitled to choose whether the child will be included
in a mainstream institution or will enter a special education setting. According
to the recommendation, the parents would appear before one central committee
and announce their choice, and where for the first time the committee would hear
from the child himself or herself, subject to their ability of self-expression. In
addition, every child with special needs would be given a ‘personal budget allocation’ to accompany them throughout their schooling even if they moved from one
framework to another. Another recommendation was to change the definition
of the pupil according to level of functioning. For each level of functioning, a
minimum budget would be determined, so that no pupil ended up without any
budget allocation. From this we can understand that following the Inclusion Law,
insights emerged about the need to make several moves such as: formulating a
policy of inclusion, giving local interpretations to be based on the local cultural
perspectives, considering class activities and the worldview and creed of those
dealing with the various aspects of implementing the change.
In practice, since the first law and until the current legislation in 2018 (Knesset
announcement, 2018), there have been many discussions regarding the implications of including pupils with special needs into mainstream education, while
examining the implications for all the learners and those involved in teaching.
The conclusions of the evaluation of the quality of the inclusion led to updated
legislation entitled the Inclusion Law, in order to emphasise the reciprocal processes among all the pupils, teaching staff and parents. As a result, the lawmakers
focussed on formulating secondary laws addressing ways to plan differential learning for the included pupils alongside defining the academic outcomes expected of
them during their schooling. Their input was based on diverse viewpoints that
included those of policymakers, principals, inspectors, psychologists, counsellors
and mainly the teachers who worked regularly with the included pupils. Another
contribution of the Dorner Committee (2009) was the understanding of the
advantages of cooperation with parents of children with special needs, understanding that promoted the determination of their right to choose the type of
educational setting for their child, once provided with information about appropriate alternatives. Furthermore, committee members made sure that the new legislation would be transparent in its processes of determining the budget allocated
Inclusion of Children with Special Needs
109
to each included child, which would be decided upon according to their level of
functioning in different areas. Beyond all the above, the contribution of the new
legislation stressed the original principles of inclusion, in that the eligibility committees should do to everything they could to find an inclusive educational setting
for all children with special needs, and only if it was proven that there was no suitable setting, to direct the child to a special education setting.
There is no doubt that implementation of the Inclusion Law requires a different organisational and professional setup both in schools and in the Ministry
of Education, mainly: management of eligibility committees by representatives
of the Ministry of Education, budgetary planning according to the needs of the
included pupils and cooperation with the parents. However, the most significant
impact is the need to adapt the training of the teaching staff to be able to successfully integrate the pupils with special needs in to all areas of school life while
promoting the learning of all the other pupils. As a result, the very essence of
the role of subject teachers and homeroom teachers has changed, and involves
their influence on the success of social inclusion alongside academic inclusion.
This expansion of the teachers’ roles is by no means a simple process; it requires
different training in order for the inclusion process to be meaningful and indeed
lead to social change in the future. The roles of special education teachers have
also changed following this law, and the teachers who used to focus only on pupils
with special needs are becoming coordinators for the inclusion programme who
counsel the other teachers in their schools. Hence, the academic teacher-training
institutions added through all teacher-training programmes courses that will provide proper knowledge and practice in regard to children with special needs and
inclusion processes. These changes include mainly the following issues: familiarity with the social and legal processes that led to the laws of special education
and inclusion since 1988; issues in special education including the study of the
main characteristics of common disorders, imparting teaching skills and learning
strategies in integrated classes and training for teamwork in a multidisciplinary
educational staff.
The abovementioned training processes also embody the guidelines defined by
the Ministry of Education (2019), according to which, homeroom teachers must
embrace all the pupils with special needs, and be a role-model for the commitment
to the growth and success of all pupils, as individuals and as a group. From this
commitment derived the desired nature of the relationship between them, the pupils
and the families: one that is warm, concerned and caring based on familiarity with
their world, respect and mutual trust. The homeroom teacher is the integrator of
the work of all the staff with the pupil for scholastic, emotional, behavioural and
social aspects. The homeroom teacher is also the liaison between the pupils, their
parents and the school staff. In addition, the Ministry of Education has stated that
homeroom teachers must be very familiar with the pupils and their needs; maintain
personal discourse with all pupils about their learning process as well as emotional,
social and familial aspects; gather, organise and document data about the pupils’
functioning in the various subjects of study and about the support and help they
receive in their studies at school or in a private setting. In addition, they must identify
and map out strengths and weaknesses in scholastic, behavioural, emotional, social
110
Bilha Paryente and Heidi Flavian
and familial aspects of all pupils in their class, while paying particular ­attention to
pupils with differential needs and construct their work plans accordingly.
The updated legislation regarding inclusion of pupils with special needs in the
educational setup and the expectations of the teachers’ new roles are not at all
simple. But they constitute a significant basis for renewed thinking about the role
of the educational setting and ways to improve its quality. To this end, the advantages and challenges that the inclusion process offers all educators and caregivers
must be studied in depth.
Challenges and Opportunities through Inclusion
Although inclusion processes are promoted dynamically in most countries
around the world, the legal procedures are conducted more slowly than the
implementations conducted spontaneously by educators. Moreover, the practical actions educators initiate and develop on a daily basis are actually the drivers which motivate legislators to pass a variety of inclusion laws (Silver, 2015).
Another perspective of inclusion that is not mentioned relates to the fact that
the number of students in each class remains the same, no matter the number
of students with special needs being integrated. It is, therefore, important for
parents and educators to continue the inclusion processes without waiting for
the official legal procedures in their countries. However, they need to be aware of
the fact that these are challenging and in many cases, they will face a variety of
dilemmas. Yet, their belief in the contribution of inclusion for all participants,
and the benefits that inclusion offers to increase the quality of education encourages them to continue their actions.
The first and most important step educators need to take at the outset is to
discuss the advantages and the challenges teachers, parents and learners may need
to face during the inclusion process. The main topics we believe educators should
recognise and plan quality educational processes for accordingly pertain to teachers, parents and all pupils. Following are presented the criteria we choose to focus
on for educators preparing inclusion processes alongside with planning quality
educational processes.
Advantages and Challenges for Teachers during Inclusion Processes
1. One of the main goal teachers have is to influence as many children as they
can through a variety of learning processes. Inclusion is one of the best ways
to reach that goal. But, teachers will constantly need to learn new teaching
strategies that will allow everybody to learn.
2. Following the above, influencing learners’ future and collecting relevant information in regard to their progress obliges teachers to learn about each of their
pupils and know their strengths and weaknesses in all school-related areas.
3. Learning new ways of teaching and adopting the method of differential teaching allows teachers to become more professional and more appreciated by
society; nevertheless, this means that teachers must invest more in their teaching preparation and continue learning to use updated strategies.
Inclusion of Children with Special Needs
111
4. Inclusion is a wonderful opportunity for all teachers who wish to be called
educators as they deal with more than just teaching knowledge. This is their
opportunity to cooperate with different people in school to influence what
society will look like in the future. But, learning teamwork is a process that
needs to be studied and practiced daily.
5. While considering the field of international assessments, teachers may claim
that inclusion of pupils with special needs may hold back others, and the
schools’ result on international assessments will be lower. As a result, schools
and teachers will be ranked lower than they should. The answer to this claim
is mentioned above – teachers’ need to learn new ways of teaching and assessing differentially, which will allow them to relate to all students according
to their needs. Nevertheless, educational leaders should rethink whether the
results of international assessments are the best core criteria for assessing the
quality of education.
Advantages and Challenges for Pupils during Inclusion Processes
1. From the sociological perspective, the inclusion of pupils with special needs
allows proper preparation for the real future where different people with different needs live and work together. Pupils in school learn how to include their
peers with special needs in all type of activities, while the pupils with special
needs can show their abilities to contribute to their society as well. From a
different perspective, in some cases pupils will need to compromise in order to
conduct those inclusion processes while they study and play with others who
have special needs.
2. As mentioned earlier, Gardner (2011) claims that teaching should be conducted according to the multiple intelligences approach. Accordingly, teachers need to teach the same topic through different processes. Although this
approach seems to be ideal, and for most of the pupils this is an advantage,
for some of them learning through a process that is not their best skill or best
functioning intelligence may be a huge challenge.
Advantages and Challenges for Parents during Inclusion Processes
1. From the sociological perspective, just as for ordinary pupils, the inclusion of
pupils with special needs provide a support for parents while preparing their
children for the real future where different people with different needs live and
work together.
2. Following the above, parents who wish to develop better social skills among
their children while they participate in inclusion processes develop this area as
well. For example, learning to wait your turn while playing and compromising
are two of the main social skills they may learn.
3. In most schools, and according to the inclusion laws, parents need to be part of
the schools’ activities. Taking an active part in your child’s development is very
important and should be mentioned as an advantage, although some parents
will claim that this is very challenging because of their own job demands.
112
Bilha Paryente and Heidi Flavian
Understanding the above main advantages and challenges in inclusion for everyone involved allows educators to better plan learning and other activities in
schools, in order to increase the quality of education in all areas.
Raising the Quality of Teacher Training
While no one can predict what the future will be like, educators must prepare themselves and their pupils for it (Pedagogy Department of the Ministry of Education,
Israel, 2019). Whereas educators practice inclusion of pupils with special needs on
a daily basis, they know they are mainly investing for a better future for all.
In our opinion, teacher training must adjust to the legal and social trends that
arise in the world in general and in Israel in particular. Student teachers must be
trained specifically according to the following principles and thereby provide a
response to the general social trends and the challenges of inclusion in the spirit
of future-oriented pedagogy (Pedagogy Department of Ministry of Education,
Israel, 2019):
1. Interdisciplinary teaching: Tomorrow’s teachers must know how to generate
interdisciplinary teaching. This is in order to explore challenges, bring up
ideas, find solutions to problems, manage projects and create products. They
must be trained to teach multidisciplinary fields such as: global awareness,
economic, commercial and entrepreneurial literacy, civic literacy, health literacy and environmental literacy. In addition, the implementation of interdisciplinary teaching will enable the inclusion of children with various special
needs in an inquiry and learning group in which each member contributes
something of their own to the topics studied and explored.
2. Focussing on training teachers to develop talents and skills: Training should
focus on training teachers who can nurture their pupils’ emotional skills and
as well as traits such as self-confidence, intrinsic motivation and the ability to
cope with failures. They should also nurture cognitive and metacognitive skills
such as managing independent learning, critical thinking, initiative, willingness to take risks, commitment and responsibility, and likewise, practical skills
such as digital literacy, gathering, retrieval, evaluation, use and management
of information. In a heterogeneous and inclusive class, work on cultivating
skills in the above areas is evidently desirable and is even more possible. Hence
it is essential to train future teachers for this role.
3. Personally adapted teaching: Tomorrow’s teachers must be trained to teach
according to a personalised curriculum adapted to the characteristics, abilities
and wishes of each pupil. This is required in light of the heterogeneity of the
classes, which will only diversify even further as more children with different
special needs are included.
4. Training in and encouraging the use of collaborative teaching, which enables a
heterogeneous group to give a voice to different learners and their talents in a
differential and integrative manner.
5. Teaching through games: Future teachers must be trained in teaching through
games that require practice and effort to promote social skills, understand
Inclusion of Children with Special Needs
113
complex social dilemmas and increase the motivation to engage in higherorder thinking. This will contribute a great deal to the inclusion of different
pupils in a heterogeneous class.
6. Involving mind and body in teaching: Future teachers must be trained in integrating learning through movement. The development of research bodies in the
fields of neuro-pedagogy (Flavian, 2019) offers an opportunity to include movement in learning, which might be relevant for all learners in an inclusive class.
7. Encouraging individual mentoring: to ensure optimal inclusion of all pupils,
future teachers must be trained in mentoring diverse types of pupils. To this
end, teacher educators must work with them on the skills of conducting individual conversations that are constructive and encourage growth and that
relate to all aspects of school life including: learning, social ties, emotional
issues, questions of identity, etc.
It will not be possible to lead meaningful inclusion processes in heterogeneous classes in the coming years without taking into account the new directions
of teaching and learning needed to train the current generation of educators so
that they will manage to lead the challenges of the twenty-first century in the
education system.
Summary
This chapter analyses the implications of Israel’s Law of Inclusion for the quality
and relevance of contemporary teacher training. While theoretical treatment of
the significance of inclusion began in the past and was expressed in the approach
of Socrates, Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky and Feuerstein, the process must be updated
to match contemporary culture. In addition, this chapter also reviewed the development of inclusion policies in Israel and the formal legislation on the inclusion
of children with special needs in the education system. It also presents the integration between the theoretical approach and the legislation that led to the development of teacher-training programmes in Israel. All of this was in order to focus on
the implications of the Inclusion Law for the changing role of educators in Israel.
Today, Israel’s education system perceives the inclusion of pupils with special
needs as a clearly understood process, but we must consider how these changes
will affect teacher training in order to promote quality teaching for all learners.
We must seek opportunities to improve the quality of teaching and learning as
a result of the inclusion of pupils with special needs, and develop training programmes to that promote these principles.
From the information presented above, we offer a number of concrete suggestions that we believe can be incorporated into the training, together with all the
policymakers in the Israeli education system:
1. The scope of the goals of education must be expanded beyond the sphere of
intellectual and scholastic development. Alongside these goals we must place
emotional and social growth as this will closely align with the Inclusion Law.
It will require teacher education leaders to engage in training that instructs
114
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Bilha Paryente and Heidi Flavian
trainees how to help pupils develop emotionally and socially, whatever
academic discipline they intend to teach, be it science, math or civics.
All trainee teachers must be taught teaching and learning strategies as they are
taught to trainees in special education. In light of the Inclusion Law, teachers
must know how to activate teaching-learning strategies for all their pupils in
all subjects.
Trainee teachers must be taught about different models of inclusion. They
must know, both in theory and in practice, a range of ways to activated inclusion programmes for children with special needs. We should not assume that
the inclusion is conducted by each teacher independently without appropriate
prior training. This is a complex task that requires guidance and practice.
Trainee teachers must learn professional methods of emotional regulation for
children in general and for children with special needs in particular. This is
very important given the inclusion of many children who, among other things,
need emotional regulation. Future teachers must be taught ways to efficiently
help such children, as this is an integral part of their inclusion in the school
system.
Teacher educators must work with the trainees to expand their repertoire of
assessment methods; not only alternative assessment of academic achievement, but also methods of assessment of emotional and social achievements,
in alignment with the expansion of the goals of education.
In addition to working on the normal involvement of parents, future teachers must learn how to work with parents of children with special needs. They
should attend workshops to increase understanding of what it is to be the
parent of a child with special needs and of the implications this has for the
teacher’s constructive growth work with these parents.
References
Ainscow, M., & Miles, S. (2008). Making education for all inclusive: Where next? Prospects,
38, 15–34.
Ariav Committee Report. (2006). The committee for the formulation of guidelines for teacher
training in institutions of higher education in Israel. Jerusalem: CHE. Retrieved from
https://academia-kita.macam.ac.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ariav.pdf
Armenta, T., & Beckers, G. (2006). The IEP: How to meet its demands and avoid its pitfalls.
Principal Leadership, 6(9), 22–27.
Avishar, G. (2010). Inclusion and accessibility: Curriculum planning for pupils with disabilities. Tel-Aviv: Mofet Institute (Hebrew).
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogy creed. School Journal, 54, 77–80.
Feuerstein, R. (2001). Mediated learning experience in teaching and counseling. Jerusalem:
ICELP Publications.
Flavian, H. (2019). Mediation and thinking development in schools: Theories and practices
for educators. London: Emerald Publishing.
Flavian, H., & Kass, E. (2000). Educational counselors as leaders in developing personal
and communal resilience. In B. J. Irby, L. Searby, J. N. Boswell, F. Kochan, &
R. Garza (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of mentoring: paradigms, practices, programs, and possibilities. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Inclusion of Children with Special Needs
115
Goff, L. (2017). University administrators’ conceptions of quality and approaches to
quality assurance. Higher Education, 74, 179–195. doi:10.1007/s10734-016-0042-8
Harris, P. (1997). Piaget in Paris: From “autism” to logic. Human Development, 40(2),
109–123.
Hillel-Lavian, R., & Bachar-Katz, I. (2010). Autistic children’s life reflection. Journal of
Issues in Special Education & Inclusion, 25(1), 43–58.
Hoffman, A., & Kfir, D. (2012). Who designs teacher training? In R. Klavir & L. Kozminsky
(Eds.), Structuring a professional identity – Training and professional development
processes of teachers in Israel (pp. 13–25). Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute.
KnesetAnnouncement.(2018).Retrievedfromhttps://main.knesset.gov.il/News/PressReleases/
Pages/press10.07.18.aspx
Kozulin, A. (1999). Vygotsky’s psychology. A biography of ideas. New York, NY: Harvard
University Press.
Margalit, M. (2000). Issues in special education research within international perspectives. Special Issue: Research in International Special Education; Exceptionality, 8(4),
299–304.
Marom, M., Bar Simantov, K., Karin, A., & Koren, P. (2006). Inclusion of children with
special needs in schools. Tel Aviv: Ramot Publication.
Nichols, M. P. (1987). Socrates and the political community: An ancient debate. New York,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Pedagogy Department of the Ministry of Education, Israel. (2019). Future-oriented pedagogy II: Trends, principles, implications and practice.
Ronen, H. (2001). Inclusion of children with special needs in regular school systems. Issues
in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 16(1), 71–79 (Hebrew).
Silver, H. (2015). The context of social inclusion. DESA Working Paper No. 144. ST/
ESA/2015/DWP/144. Department of Economics and Social Affairs, NewYork, NY.
Test, D. W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W. M. (2004). Pupil
involvement in individualized education program meeting. Exceptional Children,
70(4), 391–412.
The Dorner Committee. (2009). Retrieved from http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/
Units/Dovrut/special/dochdorner.htm
The Israeli Inclusion Law. (2002). Retrieved from https://www.nevo.co.il/Law_word/law14/
LAW-1876.pdf (Hebrew).
The Margalit Report. (2000). Retrieved from http://meyda.education.gov.il/files/shefi/liikoheylemida/margalit1.pdf
The Ministry of Education.(2019). Retrieved from https://edu.gov.il/owlheb/Pages/default.
aspx
The Israeli Test special education law. (1988). Retrieved from https://www.dinimveod.co.il/
hashavimcmsfiles/Pdf/sh1256.pdf (Hebrew).
Timor, T., & Burton, N. (2007). Physical inclusion yet curriculum exclusion? School staff
perceptions of the curriculum for pupils with learning disabilities in mainstream secondary schools in Tel Aviv, Israel. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education: Wright
State University, 2(1).
Yogev, R. (2006). The Dovrat report and the teachers: For whom does the bell toll? In
D. Inbar (Ed.), Anticipating an educational revolution? (pp. 177–184). Jerusalem: Van
Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad Press.
Zuzovsky, R., & Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (2004). Attracting and developing effective teachers
and encouraging them to remain in the Israeli education system. Background report
submitted to the OECD. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 3.2
Inclusion, Diversity and Quality
in the Mexican Educational Context:
Perceptions of Teachers in the State of
Sonora (Mexico)
Manuela Guillén Lúgigo, Blanca Valenzuela and
Reyna Campa Álvarez
Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to present some evidence of an empirical
exploration carried out with 178 primary school teachers from the State
of Sonora, México,1 about their perceptions regarding diversity and educational inclusion. A mixed-cut methodology was used that considered the
application of a scale questionnaire and focus groups. The results allow to
appreciate, in general, a tendency to incorporate diversity in the appreciation
and valuation schemes. However, there are also appreciations that make an
important set of deficiencies to face diversity in schools evident.
Keywords: Educational inclusion; diversity; teachers; primary education;
attitudes; teaching practice
1
The State of Sonora is located to the Northwest of the Mexican Republic, being
a border state with the states of Arizona and New Mexico of the United States. Its
territorial extension is 184,934 km2. It has a rugged orography, given its dry desert
climate. Its political division is of 72 municipalities, with predominantly agricultural
and mining productive activities, although it also has poles of industrial development
among which stands out the city of Hermosillo, capital of the state, which houses the
automobile assembly industry Ford Motor Company.
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 117–126
Copyright © 2020 by Manuela Guillén Lúgigo, Blanca Valenzuela and Reyna Campa Álvarez.
Published under Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201011
118
Manuela Guillén Lúgigo et al.
Introduction
Diversity is a constant feature in the current and complex social scenario, which
is revealed in the new social configurations of the network society. Factors such
as gender, ethnicity, class, skill differences, culture and symbolic references (identity), as well as others, are currently elements of uniqueness that have a strong
impact on educational environments. In these days, the educational treatment of
diversity becomes a challenge for quality education under equal conditions.
The purpose of this chapter is to present and discuss some recent results of
an international investigation, in which we participated with European and Latin
American colleagues, entitled ‘Educational treatment of diversity in inclusive
environments’. We will present, discuss and reflect on the data referring to the
perceptions of primary school teachers about the educational treatment of diversity in Mexico, obtained from elementary school teachers in the state of Sonora,
in Mexico, through a mixed method research. We will present the interpretations
of qualitative data obtained from focus groups.
The inclusion of children and young people in the education system is a complex issue that has been a focus of interest for several researchers in recent decades. This challenge has generated different research oriented to the exploration
of the material, didactic and teaching skills conditions that schools must meet to
attend to diversity. Therefore, educational inclusion constitutes an innovative and
inexcusable vision of education based on diversity, which implies the acceptance
and appreciation of differences and the recognition of all children as subjects full
of rights (Casanova, 2011). This recognition of diversity entails the commitment
to offer education for all and equal opportunities.
It is argued that basic education is a milestone in the life of the subjects, which
represents the child’s transition to public territory and constitutes a unique and unrepeatable experience of meeting other adults and children. The attendance and inclusion of children at the basic level will make them possess multiple knowledge and
own experiences and where the pedagogical relationship that is established, will be
of vital importance for the construction of new school and life learning (Sarlé, 2010).
On the other hand, it is important to consider that educational inclusion emphasises school and learning. It involves not only the institution but also the community with which it is linked. Teaching strategies must effectively favour learning.
The curriculum is taken as a flexible and dynamic tool, from which, you can and
must make the necessary changes for each child in particular, considered in the
context in which (s)he develops so (s)he can really learn. Therefore, the task of
this inclusive school is to detect and reduce barriers for learning and participation
(Secretaria de Educación Pública (SEP), 2009). Hence, the role of teachers is fundamental, since they are the ones that influence, in an important way, the success
or failure of the process of educational inclusion, by virtue of which their visions
(positive or negative), will be reflected in their educational practice (Quijano, 2008).
Echeita (2008) defines the teaching practice, as the daily activities that teachers
perform within the educational centres and also considers that these practices not
only point to the pedagogical activities, but also to the way in which the teachers
interact with each other and with the students, as well as all the actions that allow
a school to organise and structure itself to function properly (Echeita, 2008).
Inclusion, Diversity and Quality in the Mexican Educational Context
119
Conceptual Framework
In the perspective of Botías, Higueras, and Sánchez (2012), the challenge facing education with the inclusive approach is to optimise the quality of the child,
from a functional and ecological perspective. In their vision, the role of schools
is to offer the tools according to their particular characteristics, so that each and
every one of the students feels welcomed, confident and convinced that they will
achieve their goals (Botías et al, 2012). On his part, Sánchez (2005) opts for the
idea that inclusive education can only be carried out if classroom strategies and
practices that are different from those traditionally used are introduced. This
fact depends largely on attitude, knowledge, competence (and competencies) of
teachers when innovating and creating learning contexts that meet the needs and
potential of the student body (Sánchez, 2005).
In relation to the concept of diversity, there are different interpretative perspectives. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin term diversitas-atis. According to the
Diccionario de la Lengua Española (2010) diversity means: variety, similarity, difference; but in a second meaning it says: abundance, contest of several different
things (Buendía, 1990). The term diversity considers the differences of students in
educational processes, in terms of race, gender, social class, skills, mother tongue,
belonging to a cultural group or sexual orientation (Murillo & Hernández, 2011 in
Gómez, 2012). On the other hand, Gómez (2011) defines diversity as everything that
derives from an individual characteristic of the human being, whether it is of social,
biological or psychological root; and that, in addition, each characteristic must be
attended individually, provided that it does not fall into exclusion or inequality.
Parrilla (2006) alludes to the notion of diversity in school referring to the participation of any person in the school institution regardless of their social, cultural, biological, intellectual, affective, etc. characteristics. On their part, Salazar,
Tinajero, and Valenzuela (2013) maintain that teachers are one of the most relevant educational actors in educational centres and that they have the responsibility
to develop a series of strategies with their students in an interaction, most of them
group time or individually if necessary, so that a set of goals can be reached and
respond to the needs presented by the students. On the other hand, García (2003)
stays with the inclusive approach holding the idea of the teacher as a professional
for educational or social inclusion, with conceptual and practical clarity regarding
attitudes, based on the principles of diversity and inclusion; in the knowledge of
the development of people with specific educational needs associated with disability, the environment or with particular skills and aptitudes. He also points out that
a professional with knowledge of reality in different areas (family, school, labour
and community sectors) is required, with skills to apply various socio-educational
or psycho-pedagogical intervention strategies; with skills to design, adapt and
evaluate the programmes or strategies to be implemented and a development of
the educational function using both individual and collective techniques.
Research Design and Participants
A non-experimental mixed-type research design is used that includes the survey
and the focus groups as research techniques. A non-probabilistic sample was used
120
Manuela Guillén Lúgigo et al.
in which a subgroup of the total population of 178 teachers from the state of
Sonora was considered, under the following selection criteria:
⦁⦁ teachers of Primary Education of the public sector of four municipalities of
the state of Sonora and
⦁⦁ primary schools with support of services and centres for special education and
inclusive education.
General Objective
To identify the evaluations of primary education teachers about educational
inclusion in elementary schools in the state of Sonora.
Specific Objectives
1. Know the evaluations of primary education teachers towards educational
inclusion.
2. Identify the attitudes of teachers towards the type of diversity that should be
included in the classroom.
3. Identify the evaluations on the exercise of primary education teachers teaching practice within the regular classroom.
Methodology
As it has already been indicated above, a mixed research model was used that considered two phases: quantitative and qualitative. During the first of these phases,
the Questionnaire-Scale on the educational integration and inclusion of people
with special and diverse educational needs was applied (Gento, 2008) and during
the second phase focal groups were held with teachers of various grades of primary school in the different localities of the state of Sonora (Mexico) that were
considered in the research.
A scale instrument was used to identify the integration and inclusion of people with special and diverse educational needs (Gento, 2008), and focus groups
were conducted with teachers selected from a structural sample that considered
educational centre, educational level, sex and age. Both the application of the
instrument corresponding to the scale questionnaire and the focus groups were
carried out in the municipalities of Guaymas, Empalme, Hermosillo, Álamos and
Ures, in the state of Sonora. The quantitative data were systematised through
the SPSS program, version 21.0 and the information obtained through the focus
group technique was systematised through the Atlasti program, version 5.5.
Results
The results obtained suggest a favourable trend in terms of attitudes and valuations towards different types of diversity, whether these are motor, auditory,
visual, intellectual, behavioural and socio-familiar, as long as they present themselves in mild and medium degrees (Graph 1).
Inclusion, Diversity and Quality in the Mexican Educational Context
121
Graph 1. Attitudes of Teachers According to the Type of Diversity and Degree.
Source: Original creation based on information obtained from Questionnaire-Scale.
In the regular, special educational centre, and in some cases in
both, I think they should stay in special schools but also the case
of each child should be analysed very well because some could be
in regular and others in special according to their needs, ‘Depending on the gravity of the problem and the type, if it is academic,
behavioural, psychological, physical, etc.’.
All the different capacities must be included, if we are promoting equality then we should not make a difference, we as teachers
should be trained to treat them.
Fig. 2 shows a diagram drawn from the opinions of the teachers, in which it
can be seen that the educational inclusion of students with attributes that put
them in a position to distinguish themselves by different diversities (motor, auditory, intellectual, visual, behavioural and socio-familiar) will depend on the diagnosis the student has and the degree of severity. Some of the appreciations in this
regard are shown below:
Any type of diversity must be included so that they are not rejected
or segregated, by the same boys from a school, ‘One has to be realistic, there are children who, due to the severity of the syndrome,
are not allowed to be included in the educational establishment.
That is why the diagnosis is very important’.
one would have to see upgraded facilities, adapted educational programs, trained personnel for these people, an entire infrastructure,
an investment that is needed to serve these people from preschool
to undergraduate level. ‘For the benefits it brings to a school community that works under the inclusive approach, that respects
differences and that sees diversity as a strength and not as a barrier. We need information, training, teaching skills development
122
Manuela Guillén Lúgigo et al.
Educational
inclusion
Trained teachers
Student diagnosis
Attention centre:
regular, special or both
Multidisciplinary
team
Educational treatment
Infraestructure of
educational centre
Inclusive teaching
practice
Organisation and planning
in the educational centre
Favourable attitudes
by society in general
Inclusive culture
Fig. 2. Educational Inclusion of Diversity. Source: Original creation based on
information obtained from focus groups.
to provide adequate follow-up to specific needs, but the openness
and attitude of the teaching staff is very important for the result
to be meaningful for students and families’.
On the other hand, it is recognised that the teaching staff does not have the
necessary training to address diversity in the classroom and also refers to the need
for trained teachers to meet special educational needs and a multidisciplinary
team (specialists, support teachers, doctors, etc.)
We do not have the knowledge of how to attend to certain types of
children, as is the case with the blind, it is very difficult for them to
integrate into regular schools, firstly because we do not know the
communication system with this type of children, as well as those
who have some physical disability (wheelchair) because the schools
do not have the proper infrastructure. But on the other hand, by
integrating them socially to a normal group can help them in their
self-esteem. ‘As long as all the requirements are met for him. Such
as training and teacher updating courses, infrastructure, etc.’
Finally, the professors show that educational centres require an adequate educational treatment that includes elements related to infrastructure, organisation
and planning, an inclusive teaching practice and attitudes typical of an inclusive
culture:
Based on the results obtained so far, it can be stated that there is a significant
relationship between attitudes and teaching practice. Moreover, it can also be said
that teachers, despite not having training in attention to diversity and not receiving constant training, have made great efforts in the field of educational inclusion
and these favourable attitudes have allowed the development of inclusive practices, primarily to create in the classroom that climate and culture of diversity,
Inclusion, Diversity and Quality in the Mexican Educational Context
123
framed in the equality of law and the promotion of values. Nonetheless, there is
still much work to be done to advance in the study of teacher–student interaction,
so that the inclusion process is the most optimal and of quality for all.
A relevant finding in the study is the pendulum that shifts between the recognition of the importance of inclusion, in contexts of diversity, and the simultaneous
recognition of the need for training for the educational treatment of diversity in
the inclusion context.
On the other hand, it was found that curricular adaptations, diagnoses and
assessments are made in a framework of collaborative work among students,
activities that are promoted by teachers, concerned with the improvement of
teaching practice and learning.
Conclusions
Inclusive education is particularly relevant, not only seen as a right to education
and learning throughout life (Casanova, 2017), but also as a way to consolidate
democratic and just societies that provide everyone opportunities their full potential (Sobrero, 2018). Therefore, inclusive education involves a global change in the
education system, which affects all students with a twofold objective: to achieve
success for all, without exception, in school and fight any cause or reason for
exclusion, segregation or discrimination (Muntaner, Rosello, & Begoña, 2016).
Achieving inclusive schools that address diversity in the regular classroom
is an aspiration of the Educational System of Mexico. The Ministry of Public
Education (SEP) (2014), following the guideline of educational reform is seen
from one of its objectives to ensure equity and quality education for all children,
recommending the reorganisation of schools, resources, processes and actions to
be taken to promote and encourage inclusive education. Among those changes
teaching staff is considered one of the main actors to carry out inclusion. Likewise, the SEP, along the lines of education reform, includes among one of its
objectives to ensure equity and quality education for all children, recommending
the reorganisation of schools.
Inclusive education involves teaching system that takes the human diversity
of any kind: disability, special educational needs, socio-emotional problems, poverty, gender, ethnicity, migration, among others. According to the research we
have done, it seems that there is openness in schools for admission of students and
an inclusive philosophy, considering educational reforms in favour of inclusion as
a general framework. However ineffective if we take into account issues that have
been observed, such as the lack of adjustments in educational programmes, lack
of advocacy and lack of organisation by school teachers and managers.
Hence it is necessary that educational inclusion policies are turned into concrete programmes and actions to potentiate the capabilities of students currently
face problems arising from limited resources and teaching materials. It also
requires a reduction in the number of students in the classroom; this in order to
provide better service, quality and comprehensive. It is important to note that the
observations made in regular schools that have been considered in our research
are not implemented substantial changes in terms of reducing groups having up
124
Manuela Guillén Lúgigo et al.
to 35 students in a classroom and a teacher in front of the group, no training in
attention to diversity.
One of the relevant findings is that teachers of primary schools, who participated in this research, mention that they have the support of USAER (Regular Education Unit Support), but the only specialist comes once a week or in
some cases once a month. This situation represents a challenge for teachers.
Another challenge faced by teachers in teaching inclusive practice is the situation of having no initial training and appropriate for the attention of diversity,
creating in them ignorance and insecurity in the care they can provide students
with training.
Nevertheless, it seems important to notice that at this time it is premature to
establish conclusive statements derived from the empirical approach conducted,
given the initial stage of the research that we wanted to present here. Yet, we consider it worthwhile to make the following considerations:
⦁⦁ That although we have detected, in general, a favourable attitude on the part
of the explored population, towards the integration and inclusion of students
with special needs, this is situated on the declaratory level.
⦁⦁ That according to the evidence shown by the data obtained, it can be said that
there is a general inclination to accept diversity in educational environments,
but that this does not imply a tendency towards inclusion.
⦁⦁ That the particular situation in our locality demands a modification of the
school environment, in order to generate the ideal conditions that allow for the
integration and inclusion of students with diverse special needs.
The conclusions derived from the investigation, the following challenges can
be considered:
⦁⦁ The increase of economic investment in material resources (facilities adapted
to the needs of students, materials, equipment and furniture).
⦁⦁ The expansion and diversification of human resources (support teachers, spe-
cialists, multidisciplinary team);
⦁⦁ The improvement of the organisation and planning in educational institutions
(modification of approaches and contents, development of programmes for
the attention of each type of diversity, decrease of students in the classroom).
⦁⦁ With regard to educational and pedagogical aspects, initial training in teachers, training and permanent updates is essential and necessary for the improvement of educational innovation where research can be involved as a necessary
competence in inclusive teaching practice.
The aforementioned allows to affirm that the primary schools of Hermosillo,
Sonora (Mexico) are in a challenge of moving towards an inclusive school, since
the effective participation of all the members of the educational community is not
yet achieved. Therefore, a school improvement model is necessary where planning
is carried out collaboratively, understanding the reality and perspectives of all the
actors involved.
Inclusion, Diversity and Quality in the Mexican Educational Context
125
Finally, we will say that the vision of educational institutions demands a
t­ ransformative openness and flexibility, the classroom being a scenario of exchange
and social interactions, where participation, collaboration, harmony and commitment of the educational actors involved is fundamental for the educational quality.
Based on the above, it is also important to point out the importance of incorporating in this research a line of study that involves students and parents, to
know their opinions and suggestions regarding inclusive education, being the
education and training of students a challenge to an increasingly diverse society
with challenges for the entire educational community.
References
Botías, F., Higueras, A., & Sánchez, J. (2012). Necesidades educativas especiales.
Planteamientos prácticos. España: Wolters Kluwer.
Buendía, E. (1990). Evaluación y atención a la diversidad. In H. Salmerón Pérez (coord.),
Evaluación educativa. Teoría, metodología y aplicaciones en áreas de conocimiento.
Granada: Grupo Editorial Universitario.
Casanova, M. (2011). Educación inclusiva: Un modelo de futuro (Edit). España: Wolters
Kluwers.
Casanova, M. (2017). Educación inclusiva en las aulas. Madrid: La Muralla.
Diccionario de la Lengua Española (2010). Definición Diversidad. España: Real Academia
Española. Retrieved from https://dle.rae.es/diversidad
Echeita, J. (2008). Inclusión y exclusión educativa “Voz y quebranto”. Revista Electrónica
Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 6(2), 9–18.
García, E. (2003). La formación de profesionales para la educación inclusiva. Montevideo.
Retrieved from http//:www.oei.es/docentes/articulos/formacion_profesionales_
educacion_inclusiva_teske.pdf. Accessed on September 2012.
Gómez, I. (2011). Dirección escolar y atención a la diversidad: rutas para el Desarrollo de
una escuela para todos. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Huelava. Retrieved from
http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/handle/10272/5435
Gómez, I. (2012). Una dirección escolar para la inclusión escolar. Revista Perspectiva
Educacional, 51(2), 21–45.
Gento, S. (2008). Investigación sobre tratamiento educativo de la diversidad en entornos
inclusivos. Madrid, España. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.
Muntaner, J., Roselló, M., & Begoña, M. (2016). Buenas prácticas en educación inclusiva.
Educatio Siglo XXI, 34(1), 31–50. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/j/252521
Murillo, F. & Hernández, R. (2011). Una dirección escolar para la inclusión. Revista de
Organización y Gestión Educativa, 1, 17–21.
Parrilla, Á. (2006). Conceptualizaciones de la diversidad y diversidad de respuestas educativas. In J. Zardel, E. Adame & A. Ortiz (Comps.), Sujeto, educación especial e integración: Investigación, prácticas y propuestas curriculares (Vol. V, Parte I). México:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).
Quijano, G. (2008). La inclusión: Un reto para el sistema educativo Costarricense. Revista
Educación, 32(1), 139–155. Retrieved from http://www.latindex.ucr.ac.cr/edu32-1/
edu032-1-08.pdf. Accessed on October 2012.
Salazar, R., Tinajero, R., & Valenzuela, B. (2013). Capítulo 15. Percepción del profesorado universitario del área de la salud sobre sus principales problemas en la práctica docente en el aula. In B. Valenzuela, F. Riberiro, M. Domínguez & M. Guillén
(Eds.), Modelos y prácticas para la mejora del proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje universitario (pp. 175–192). México: Pearson.
126
Manuela Guillén Lúgigo et al.
Sarlé, P. (2010). Hacer visible la inclusión en el Nivel Inicial. Inclusión Educativa: El Desafío
de enseñar y aprender diversidad. Dirección de Educación Inicial: Consejo General de
Educación. Gobierno entre Ríos. Retrieved from www.entrerios.gov.ar/.../1InclusiónEducativa-Eldesafíode-enseñar-y-aprender. Accessed on September 2012.
Sánchez, I. (2005). Compreender, agir, mudar, incluir. Da investigação-acção àeducação
inclusiva. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 5, 127–142.
Secretaria de Educación Pública (SEP). (2009). Antología de gestión escolar.
Retrieved from http://www.sep.gob.mx/work/models/sep1/Resource/126652/1/
ANTOLOGIAGESTION.pdf. Accessed on September 2012.
Secretaria de Educación Pública (SEP). (2014). La ruta de mejora escolar, un Sistema de
Gestión para nuestra Escuela. Educación Primaria. México: SEP. Retrieved from
http://siie.tamaulipas.gob.mx/sistemas/docs/ConsejosEscolares/2014-2015/GFI_
Primaria.pdf
Sobrero, V. (2018). Hacia una docencia inclusiva en la Educación Superior: La investigación sobre la propia práctica docente como herramienta de transformación.
Revista Chilena de Pediatría, 89(1), 7–9. doi:10.4067/S037041062018000100007
Part IV
Higher Education and Adult Education
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 4.1
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in
Thai Higher Education Institutions
Buratin Khampirat, Narupollawat Hastindra Na Ayudhaya and
Phanommas Bamrungsin
Abstract
Nowadays, the higher education institutions (HEIs) of Thailand are affiliated by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and
­Innovation and other relevant Ministries which connects the state-of-­theart ­technology/facilities to all academic programmes at HEIs. Thailand
has been successful in the growth in access to higher education across the
country, but there are many specific requirements to improve the accountability of higher education system in the nation across many decades. This
paper provides an introduction of holistic information about Thailand’s
higher education system. It then describes an overall picture of developing
and managing the quality assurance (QA) of Thai higher education. It also
points to the details of criteria, processes, and systems which were adopted
into the model of QA such as higher education standards, accreditation
process of curriculum, Thailand Qualifications Framework, as well as provides the linkage between national education act, policy and standards,
QA, feedback for continuous improvement as the key component of QA
in the educational system. Finally, the paper presents the challenges and
opportunities in the rapid change of the twenty-first century and globalisation as the main points and crucial factors requiring Thai HEIs to continue
improving their quality effectively.
Keywords: Quality assessment; internal quality assurance; external quality
assessment; Thai higher education institution; education standards; Thai
qualification framework; academic quality
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 129–153
Copyright © 2020 by Buratin Khampirat, Narupollawat Hastindra Na Ayudhaya and
Phanommas Bamrungsin. Published under Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201013
130
Buratin Khampirat et al.
1. Introduction
In Thailand, the foundation of a quality assessment system subject to the law
for educational institution was laid only in the 1999s after the Education Act
1999 (the first National Education Act) and Amendments 2002 (second National
Education Act) was announced as the ‘educational standards and quality assurance (QA)’ at all levels of education (ONESQA, 2015). In this regard, various
initiatives and projects related to the Thai QA strategy have been implemented
by the nation and institutions in order to improve the assessment and establish
capacities of HEI system to raise and continue improving educational standard
and qualities in the provision of education for sustainable development, such as
learners’ qualities and competencies, quality of the curriculum and pedagogical
practices/outcomes, leadership, and assessment etc. (OEC, 2017).
Thailand firstly focussed on the reform of higher education and discussed QA
at the end of 1980s when Ministry of University Affairs (MUA) prepared the first
15 years of Higher Education Plan covering 1990–2004 (Kirtikara, 2001), then,
in 1996, MUA provided a QA policy statement that encouraged all Thai universities to implement QA into their institutions (ONESQA, 2015). This was because
HIEs in Thailand had faced many difficulties and challenges, such as increasing
equity, improving educational outcomes, social commitments, and competing for
financial resources from public and private sectors. In order to cope with these
pressures and challenges, the Royal Thai Government, therefore, reformed education of 1999, with the goal to raise the standard and quality of pedagogy, effectiveness and accountabilities of all education institutions. At the same period,
Office of National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) was
established to conduct the external QA (EQA) process for Thai education bodies.
After the education reform, the higher education in Thailand has developed a
lot over the past 20 years, especially the more improvement of the assessed programme and pedagogical approaches. The Thai quality assessment system reflects
the impact of national education development that changes the role of HEIs,
which has led to pay more attention to learners, learning approach, research output at the global level and growth of both national and international collaboration in HEIs in comparison to the past. These actions reflect the intention to
improve and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of HEIs in the nation while
there has been a growing awareness of the impact of economic, social and technological developments on the country’s education management. Consequently,
understanding the QA system of Thailand requires a description of the structure
of Thai populations, linkage of education systems at various levels under educational policies of the Thai government.
2. National Context and Holistic Information of Thailand’s
Higher Education System
As of December 2018, Thailand had a population of 66.41 million, of which
32.56 million (49.02%) were male and 33.86 million (50.98%) were female (Fig. 1)
(DOPA, 2019). In Fig. 1, it can be implied that, in the next 10 years, a number
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
131
Fig. 1. Thai Population Structure by Gender (%) and Age Group (in Millions)
in December 2018. Source: The figure was derived from the demographic
data publicly disseminated by the Department of Provincial Administration,
Ministry of Interior (DOPA, 2019).
of older adults will increase, whereas school-age will be dramatically decreased.
Additionally, the country’s labour force participation (15–60 years) totalled
38.04 million (as of April 2019), consisting of 37.34 million employed persons
and 3.64 hundred thousand unemployed people (NSO, 2019a).
According to the education system, Thais have a variety of education opportunities at both basic and degree levels. Thai education system comprises four
levels, namely: pre-school education, primary education, secondary education,
and higher education (SEAMEO, n.d.). Since 1977, the primary and secondary
levels have been considered as basic education in Thailand using the key stages
of 6–3–3 system: the first six years are for the primary education, the next three
years are for lower secondary education and the last three years are for either
the high secondary education or vocational and technical education (lower than
bachelor degree). The first nine years in primary and lower secondary schools are
compulsory education (MOE, 2008), with the common age for starting compulsory education is at least 7 years old. In order to reduce an inequality in education and raise the standards of education, the Constitution of the Kingdom of
Thailand of 1997 and 2017, therefore, announced compulsory education in public
schools for free until grade 9, consisting of early childhood education, primary
education, and lower secondary education. Higher education at the diploma
level and graduate degrees is provided at universities, colleges, and institutions
132
Buratin Khampirat et al.
for specialised studies. Furthermore, Thailand’s constitution and education law
explicitly recognise alternative/non-traditional education (Engchun, Sungtong, &
Haruthaithanasan, 2018) such as religious schools, university-preparatory track,
private sector, international schools, and homeschooling, etc. The structure education system in Thailand and number of students in the formal school system
are demonstrated in Fig. 2 and Table 1.
In 2008, Thailand divided the HEIs according to the core mission into four
groups, namely, (a) community colleges, (b) institutions focussing on bachelor
degrees, (c) specialised institutions, and (d) institutions focussing on advanced
research and production of graduates at the graduate studies degrees, especially
the doctoral level (the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC),
2015) leading to the creation of an appropriate mechanism of QA assessment in
each particular group (OHEC, 2015).
Thailand is the country in Southeast Asia in which HEIs located throughout
the country (Kirtikara, 2001). At present, Thailand has over 240 HEIs, both public and private degree-level institutions with nearly 2 million undergraduate students under the supervision of 10 different ministries. A total of 179 institutions
are under the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research, and Innovation
(MHESI), 27 under Ministry of Public Health, 17 under Ministry of Tourism and
Sports, 8 under Ministry of Defense, and 9 specialised institutions under other
ministries (MOE, 2019). Under the supervision of the MHESI are 12 regular
public universities, 23 autonomous public universities, 38 Rajabhat Universities
Bachelor’s Degree
Lower than
Bachelor’s Degree
Diploma
Upper Secondary Education
(Grade 10 - Grade 12)
Higher
Vocational/Technical
Education
Vocational Secondary
Education
Lower Secondary Education (Grade 7 - Grade 9)
Elementary Education (Grade 1 - Grade 6)
PreElementary
Education
Pre-Primary
Kindergarten
Pre-Kindergarten
Compulsory Education
Higher
Education
Doctorate Degree
Higher Graduate Diploma
Master Degree
Graduate Diploma
Basic Education (6-3-3 system)
Graduate degree
Public Schools for Free
Approximate
Age (year)
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Fig. 2. Structure of the Education System in Thailand. Source: The figure
was derived from the publicly disseminated data in UNESCO (2006) based on
UNESCO open access policy.
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
133
Table 1. Number of Students in the Formal School System by Educational
Level, Academic Year 2013–2017.
Academic
Year
Educational Level
Primary
Education
Lower Secondary High Secondary
Education
Education
Higher
Education
2013
4,905,460
2,391,390
2,144,118
2,015,124
2014
4,870,578
2,356,200
2,088,027
1,998,150
2015
4,867,077
2,344,378
2,016,697
2,057,544
2016
4,826,770
2,314,057
1,941,524
2,002,802
2017
4,751,291
2,315,413
1,910,115
1,968,626
Source: Student data were taken from the National Statistical Office (NSO, 2019b).
(or former teacher colleges), 9 Rajamangala Universities of Technology, 20 community colleges, and 76 private universities. University education curricula for
undergraduate degrees are both systematically designed by individual department
with approval from the university council and acknowledged by the Higher Education Commission whereas the post-graduate level must be only approved by
the Higher Education Commission. As of May 2019, all main HEIs in Thailand
have been transferred from the Ministry of Education (MOE) to the supervision
of MHESI.
Even if Thailand has been successfully expanding educational opportunities,
increasing numbers and percentages of students to enter university-level education, and number of new HEIs (Benveniste, 2010; OECD, 2013) Fig. 3 indicates
that Thailand has been continuously spending higher government expenditure on
higher education in average years. In addition, Thailand has continued to invest
in research and development (R&D) over the past 20 years (2000–2019), but the
quality of education has been found in terms of ineffective learning outcome,
and skill shortage and gap which are considered as major problems existing in
all academic fields in Thailand (Khampirat & Pop, 2017; NESDB, 2016). Also,
Thailand has been facing the challenging issues existing in its political system for
many years causing the capacity of workers and standard of living of the Thai
people to become lower than the expected target and inconsistent with a knowledge-based economic and social development direction (NESDB, 2016; OECD/
UNESCO, 2016). Therefore, the response of HEIs is slower than the needs of the
labour market and national development (UNESCO, 2013). In addition, educational management and student admission patterns are also heavily criticised by
society, since its management systems have been changed a lot over the past time.
According to the educational reform frame and the need to raise the quality
of education to compete in the regional and global levels, system-wide changes
appeared in the making a concerted effort to enhance the high-quality of a faculty member’s performance, provide quality services, increase the amount or
quality of research, seek collaboration on the research project, and develop close
cooperation with the industrial clusters for improving and producing qualified
134
Buratin Khampirat et al.
120,000.0
100,000.0
80,000.0
60,000.0
40,000.0
20,000.0
0.0
200 9 201 0 2011 2 01 2 2 01 3 2 01 4 2015 2 016 2017 2018
Fig. 3. Government Expenditure on Higher Education in Thailand during
2009–2018 (Million Bath). Source: Data were taken from the National Statistical
Office (NSO, 2019b).
students through the cooperative education system (Khampirat, Pop, & Bandaranaike, 2019; Sa-Nguanmanasak & Khampirat, 2019) as well as using the institutional research mechanisms to develop organisation.
3. National Standards
3.1. National Education Standards
The current version of the National Education Standards was promulgated in
2018. It focusses on a requirement on the characteristics and quality of desirable Thai people so that all educational institutions can use as a guideline for
creating Thai people 4.0. Since Thailand is different in the context of local and
educational institutions, the learners need to be enriched as an important human
resource in developing the country in terms of economic, social, and political
dimensions in the future. Such standards, therefore, aim ‘to maintain of being
Thai and compete on the world stage’ (OEC, 2018).
National Education Standards of 2018 was designed in the form of desired
learning outcomes of education in order to create, during their studying, the
desired attributes of the learners after graduation. The following list of three outcomes list is an important indicator of basic success as a National Education
Standard for Thai higher education (OEC, 2018).
(1) Being a learner with the following desirable attributes: having lifelong learning skills to keep up with the changes of the digital age and the future world,
embracing various competencies to be a result of the learning process, ability to apply Thai wisdom, having life skills and work skills, and having good
quality of life (OEC, 2018).
(2) Being an innovator with following skills: having intellectual skills, twentyfirst century skills, digital intelligence, creative skills, cross-cultural skills,
cross-cultural integration competencies, and attribute of entrepreneurship in
order to create and develop technological or social innovations for increasing
opportunities and value for themselves and society (OEC, 2018).
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
135
(3) Being a strong citizen for sustainable natural resource and environmental
management as well as peaceful coexistence in Thai society and the global
community. They must possess the following attributes: being a patriotic,
local love, knowing the right and wrong, having a consciousness of being a
Thai citizen and a world citizen, having a volunteer spirit, having ideology
and getting involved in national development on democratic principles, equality, equity and social justice (OEC, 2018).
3.2. Higher Education Standards
According to the Higher Education Act of 2019 (As of 28 April 2019), HIEs in
Thailand have four main missions: (a) education management to produce graduates, (b) to conduct research and create innovation, (c) to provide academic services to the society, and (d) to preserve arts and culture (Government Gazette,
2019a). In order to develop and enhance Thailand’s progress in economic, social
aspect and the quality of its citizens, the mission of such HEIs must be consistent
with national strategy, master plan, country reform plan, national economic and
social development plan, national education plan, and plans of higher education in responding to the necessities and needs of the country in various aspects,
together with promoting new entrepreneurs, manpower development, and lifelong education management to the country.
In the previous (first) standard announced in 2006, there were three standards,
namely (a) the standard for the quality of graduates, (b) the standard for higher
education administration, and (c) the standard for establishing and developing a
knowledge-based and learning-based society (OHEC, 2010), and the recent Thai
higher education standards published in the announcement of the MOE on 20
July 2018 consist of five major domains in order to assure the quality of graduates at all educational levels and in all disciplines, those relating to (Government
Gazette, 2019c):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Student’s learning outcomes;
Research and innovation;
Academic service;
Art, culture and Thai identity; and
Higher education management.
These standards of higher education are related to the national education
standards of 2018 to be used as a mechanism to promote educational QA in
accordance with the principles for national educational management by supervision, monitoring, monitoring, assessment, and continuous improvement.
3.3. Thailand Qualification Framework for Higher Education
Thailand Qualification Framework (TQF) is used to standardise the quality
of education (OHEC, 2006), which was adapted from the National Qualification Framework of United Kingdom and Australia (Sinlarat, Theerapijit, &
136
Buratin Khampirat et al.
Chaodamrong, 2009). TQF for higher education is a framework that indicates
the higher education qualifications system of the country consisting of qualification levels, linkage from one qualification level to others, as well as connection
to the standard of learning outcomes of each level of qualifications as expected
increases of qualifications (OHEC, 2006).
In TQF, there are six levels based on Thai higher education system which are
level 1 – advanced diploma, level 2 – bachelor, level 3 – graduate diploma, level 4 –
master, level 5 – higher graduate diploma, and level 6 – doctor. TQF indicates five
types of learning domains and describes outcomes in each of these groupings,
namely, (1) ethical and moral development, (2) knowledge, (3) cognitive skills,
(4) interpersonal skills and responsibility, and (5) analytical and communication
skills (OHEC, 2006).
In order to achieve producing qualified graduates that meet the objectives
of each curriculum. Thailand requires each course management being reported
according to a framework of seven self-assessment documents, TQF 1 to TQF 7
(Fig. 4) (OHEC, 2019).
It can be summarised that TQF 1 and 2 are for curriculum information and
designation; TQF 3 and 5 are related to every course’s details and report of the
course management results; TQF 4 and 6 are the details of field experience specification practice and report of the management results; and TQF 7 are report
of programme management results (Maneerat, Malaivongs, & Khlaisang, 2015;
OHEC, 2019).
4. Developing and Managing the QA in Thai Higher
Education
Thailand has focussed on QA of its education for a long time, but neither it is
systematic nor thoroughly examined (Jamornmarn, 2000). In the fourth National
Economic and Social Development Plan (1977–1981), the MUA (former name,
and now has been changed to an OHEC) prepared the first 15-year Higher Education Plan (1990–2004), and Thailand began a higher education reform process
since then. Therefore, the eighth National Higher Education Plan (1997–2001)
established six main development goals by developing quality, educational standards, and academic excellence as one of the six main goals.
In 1999, to ensure improvement of educational quality and standards at all levels, Thailand promulgated the National Education Act 1999 (second amendment
in 2002) legislated to require extensive and comprehensive educational reform,
and has requested all education institutions to implement a new system of educational QA consisting of two parts, ‘internal QA (IQA) system of institutions
(self-evaluation)’ and ‘EQA system (inspection)’. In this Act, the ONESQA has
established the external quality assessment as the requirements at all levels. Later
in the year 2019, the National Education Act 2019 (Issue 4) stipulated that EQA
for HEIs is the responsibility of MHESI or other relevant ministries whereas
ONESQA is responsible for other levels of education (Government Gazette,
2019b). For IQA, it is assigned to be the responsibility of the education institution and its governing agency. For managing IQA, an IQA functional unit is to be
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
137
TOF 1:
Qualification
Standard of the
Program
- refers to the framework of qualification in which it defines a set of program
learning outcomes and provides essential course content that should exist in the
programs/fields of study.
TQF 2:
Program
Specification
- contains an overview of the program management and teaching and learning
management, the program’s intended purposes and learning outcomes for the
program as a whole and how these are met.
TQF 3:
Course
Specification
- shows how aims, content structure details, skills development guidelines, and
other skills provide students that they may need to achieve course
objectives/learning outcomes at the requisite level.
TQF 4:
Field Experience
Specification
- evidences that the activity that is part of the formal curriculum has been used to
develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities of students which can be, for
example, fieldwork, field trip, projects, collaborative education, internship, or
other forms of placement learning.
TQF 5:
Report of
Course/Subject
Management
Results
- refers to the teaching and learning report of a lecturer, including student
academic results, number of students, course management problems, course
evaluation results, an employer opinion survey, and recommendations to the
course coordinator for improvement and development.
TQF 6:
Field Experience
Report
- provides the report of management results of field experience specification
practice.
TQF 7:
Program Report
- demonstrates the report annual program management results which includes
statistics of students enrolled in the program, internal and external
environments that affect program management, course summary report,
teaching efficiency, comparison of program results with other standards,
assessment results from graduates and employers, suggestions for further
planning and development, and action plan for personnel development.
Fig. 4. TQF for Higher Education. Source: The figure was derived from the
publicly disseminated information in OHEC (2019).
carried out by each HIE as a part of continuous educational administration process. In terms of the accreditation of HEIs for its effectiveness and efficiency, it
will be assessed by trained internal assessors and reviewers accredited by OHEC,
while EQA will be conducted by the certified external assessors and reviewers
accredited by ONESQA (Rattananuntapat, 2015).
To assure that educational quality is maintained and continue improving,
QA must be linked to National Education Act, policy and standards, the second
15-year long range plan on higher education (2008–2022) as shown in Fig. 5.
138
Buratin Khampirat et al.
Fig. 5. Linkage between National Education Act, Policy and Standards, IQA
and EQA Assessment. Source: Adapted from OHEC (2015) and Government
Gazette (2019b).
According to the national policy, practices, and management to prepare students as the ready-to-work graduates in the competitive and rapid-changing
world, several main pedagogical approaches and QA mechanisms are commonly used in HIEs. Thai government used guidelines and standards of QA
as the national strategy for developing, controlling, auditing of the continuous
improvement, and supporting the development of a quality culture to achieve
the desired goals in both short-term and long-term and to compete well in
the regional and international levels (OEC, 2017). In order to enhance confidence among stakeholders and the public in the values added and standards
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
139
of the educational management process of the institution, all HEIs must show
­empirical information of assessment results to stakeholders and publics (OEC,
2017), who may accredit the quality of education according to different purposes (Al-Shehri, 2012), as well as provide concrete self-suggestions and selfguidance relating to the methods of improving the quality of teaching and
learning for better performance.
5. Internal QA
In Thailand, the Commission of Higher Education is responsible for device
standards for higher education which should be in line with the National Economic and Social Development Plan and the National Education Standard. IQA
in Thailand aims to control, audit, and assess the management of HEIs, so institutions must be aware of their authentic performances and institutional improvement (OHEC, 2015).
IQA concentrates mainly on academic issues, and HEIs must collect evidence
and information about mission fulfilment, efficiency, and effectiveness of activities and methods of managing quality within the institution by using PDCA cycle
(plan-do-check-act) which drives continuous quality improvement of the quality system. The annual report of internal quality assessment results called selfassessment reports (SAR) must be reported to the institution council, the OHEC,
relevant organisations, and release to the public within 120 days after the end of
academic year (OHEC, 2015).
As of the 2014 academic year, the Higher Education IQA Committee required
all affiliated HEIs to have an IQA system as part of the continuing development
process in three levels: the programme of studies (curriculum), faculty, and institutional levels. Each institution is free to choose its own internal educational QA
systems, which may be either the one created by the Higher Education IQA Committee or a system accepted at the international level and can be used for IQA at
all of three levels such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
University Network – Quality Criteria Assurance (AUN-QA) or Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (EdPEx) systems. In addition, it can also be a
system developed by an institution (CUPT, 2016).
5.1. Procedures for IQA at the Curriculum Level
QA management at the curriculum level emphasises the main duty of producing good quality of graduates, therefore, it should also focus on the quality of
instructors, standard of teaching–learning activities, learning resources and the
development of students’ quality. The agency for higher education QA and the
faculty must use the following principles to implement QA at the curriculum
level: (a) IQA at the curriculum level must ensure that it meets the standard of
curricular management and operation and (b) curriculum operation, revision
and teaching–learning methods in all courses and curriculums should link and
follow the TQF for Higher Education as the framework of standardised curricula (OHEC, 2015).
140
Buratin Khampirat et al.
At present, in order to comply with the rapid changes of technology a­ ffecting
socioeconomics, the curriculum must therefore be considered and ensured that
graduates from a programme have the appropriate competence for changing circumstances. Thailand uses the system of the Council of the University of Thailand QA (CUPT QA) (CUPT, 2016) for IQA at the curriculum level while CUPT
QA applied the AUN-QA together with national curriculum standards in internal
assessment focussing on the quality of educational activities with regard to the
following three dimensions: quality of input, quality of process, and quality of
output (CUPT, 2016) as documented in Fig. 6.
5.2. Procedures for IQA at Faculty and Institutional Levels
Internal educational QA at the faculty and institutional levels consists of five
components as shown in Fig. 7 which covers all the main duties of higher education and administration, and indicates desirable characteristics according to
higher education standards as well as other criteria and regulations associated
with all these duties (CUPT, 2016).
The assurance and development of educational quality at the faculty and institutional level are based on the concept required to develop the management to
achieve educational quality in each of institution context by taking into account
the needs of society and the country. QA at the faculty and institute according to
Fig. 6. Standardisation and Course Quality Development Based on AUN-QA
Criteria in the Curriculum Level of CUPT QA. Source: Adapted from AUN
(2015) and CUPT (2016).
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
141
Fig. 7. Five Components of IQA at Faculty and Institutional Levels.
Source: The figure was derived from the publicly disseminated document of
CUPT (2016).
the CUPT QA guidelines has integrated the improvement processes and performance indicators of ONESQA, AUN-QA, EdPEx and internationalisation policies of higher education (CUPT, 2016). The EdPEx is a framework for improving
the quality of management according to the guidelines of the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award (MBNQA) which Thailand has used since 2002 (OHEC,
2009). Detail of components and indicators for IQA at the faculty and institutional levels is as shown in Table 2.
However, under the CUPT QA system in addition to the AUN-QA criteria, the
institutions can also apply other internationally accepted criteria as appropriate
to the nature of the mission and organisation such as Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology (ABET), International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO),
and Thailand Quality Award (TQA) etc. (CUPT, 2016).
6. External QA
EQA in Thailand is carried out by HEIs to achieve different objectives in various institutions and receive assessments, accreditations, and audits the education quality and standards of institutions by external agencies. The assessment
focusses on the subject-group criteria and assessment strategies in various fields
of outputs and outcomes based on the intentions, rationales, and approaches of
education management at each level to assure the quality of programmes and
institutions (ONESQA, 2017).
142
Buratin Khampirat et al.
Table 2. Components and Indicators for IQA at the Faculty and Institutional
Levels of CUPT QA (CUPT, 2016).
Components
Indicators at the Faculty and Institutional Level of CUPT QA
Organisational
Profile
Organisational description
Core indicators
C.1
Admission and graduation of students (success rate)
C.2
Getting a graduate job or use in professional practice
C.3
Graduate quality
C.4
Performance results of learners
C.5
Qualifications of faculty members
Organisational situation
C.6 Academic output of full-time faculty members and
researchers
C.7
Curriculum standards supervision
C.8
Compliance with the role of university administrators
C.8.1 Compliance with the roles and duties of faculty
committee/university council
C.8.2 Compliance with roles and duties of the faculty/
Institute administrators
C.9 Administration and management outcomes of the
faculty/institute administrators
C.10 Personnel were developed
C.11 Feedback from stakeholders
C.12 Academic services to the society of faculty and
institutions
C.13 Promotion of art and culture
Selective
indicators
S.1 Financial support for research and creative works
S.2
Student mobility
S.3 Green university
Source: Data were taken from CUPT (2016).
Thailand has already completed external quality assessments by ONESQA in
the first round (2001–2005), second round (2006–2010) and third round (2011–
2015). Currently, it is in the process of conducting an external quality assessment
for the fourth round (2016–2020) (ONESQA, 2017). Following the announcement in the Royal Gazette on 1 May 2019, MHESI is responsible for EQA instead
of ONESQA from 2 May 2019 onwards. In this fourth round of EQA in the digital age, there is no decision on whether the result is ‘fall-out’ in order to become
accredited, but will confirm a certification status of the quality to achieve quality
development of educational institutions and national education (ONESQA, 2017).
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
143
The framework for EQA of the fourth cycle (2016–2020) sets the assessment
­target for
focus on evaluating the results of QA of educational institutions at
the institutional level and analysis of processes and important factors affecting the results of operations to lead to suggestions for valuable development for educational institutions. (ONESQA, 2017)
The processes of external quality assessment in the nation must be linked to
the IQA system to achieve accountability. By which the institution must achieve
the goals, standards set, and co-responsible for the outputs of the educational
management that occur. These methods must be challenging and support stimulate relevant agencies to promote and enhance the quality of educational institutions to be international (ONESQA, 2017). HEIs bear responsibility to assure
their supporters, state and society in general that they are committed to the fulfilments of their mission, use the resources honestly and responsibility and meet the
legal expectation (Chulabhorn Graduate Institute, 2016).
Educational institutions are required to prepare relevant QA documentations, annual reports, SAR, various evidence, and arrange their stakeholders
to provide information and feedback to the external assessors by interviewing which consists of their personnel (administrators, faculty members, and
supporting staffs), governing bodies, communities, students, alumni, graduate
users, and others to provide additional information as requested by the external assessment agencies (ONESQA, 2013). This evidence and information must
be submitted to the assessor before their visit to the institution by an external
assessor team who were well-trained and certified by ONESQA (2013). Upon
completion of visits to HEIs, to demonstrate accountability, the external evaluation agency will submit the assessment results report to the institution within
30 days after the visit to review and protest. Then, when the assessment report is
completed, the external assessors will report to their parent organisation or the
Ministry (before 2019, the agency responsible for the HEI EQA was ONESQA)
to certify the evaluation results.
6.1. Approach Framework and Criteria for EQA
The framework for EQA for higher education in the fourth round (2016–2020)
consists of two criteria (ONESQA, 2017):
(1) Common standards: This criterion is an assessment based on the mission and
context of the institution that address five main dimensions covering 11 components, as depicted in Table 3 and the Appendix.
(2) Challenging standards: The intention of assessing the quality of the challenge
standard is to promote the potential and excellence of educational institutions
by focussing on long-term development results to enhance the quality of institutions up to the international standards level, and to develop according to the
changing trends of the world in order to increase sustainable competitiveness.
144
Buratin Khampirat et al.
Table 3. Dimensions and Components of Common Standards for External
Quality Assessment Taken from the Publicly Disseminated Document in
ONESQA (2018).
Dimensions
Components
(1) The achievement in
(1.1) The context of educational
management in accordance
institution responds to the national
with the mission that responds
strategic plan
to economic development and (1.2) Achievement of institutional
the society of the country
administration and development
(2) Graduate quality (bachelor’s
degree, master’s degree and
doctoral degree)
(2.1) Quality of bachelor’s degree graduate
(3) Research quality
(3.1) Quality of research and creative work
(2.2) Quality of master’s degree graduate
(2.3) Quality of doctoral degree graduate
(3.2) Quality of applied research and
innovation development
(4) Results of academic services
(4.1) Results of academic services to the
public
(4.2) Results of specific academic services
(5) Results of internal quality
assurance
(5.1) Achievement of internal quality
assurance system
(5.2) Achievement of all curriculums of
educational institution
Source: Data were taken from ONESQA (2018).
Challenging quality standards consist of three levels: national/local class,
international/regional class, and world class (see Table 4 and the Appendix).
Each institution is able to select framework for assessing challenges based on
their own potential and voluntary (ONESQA, 2017).
Hence, the IQA in Thailand is responsible for monitoring the implementation
of inputs, processes, and outputs within the system of institution which are carried out effectively whereas EQA focusses on the productivities and outcomes
that its practices must be complied with national education standards and linked
to IQA as shown in Fig. 8.
In Fig. 8, the IQA operation will be an arrangement for assessment and site
visit of external assessors. After finishing the IQA process, HEIs must prepare
annual internal quality assessment reports or SAR for external quality assessment. Also, HEIs must prepare in-depth SARs which reflect realistic pictures of
the institutions in regards to all quality components at the curriculum, faculty,
and institutional levels (OHEC, 2015).
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
145
Table 4. Challenge Level and Criteria for External Quality Assessment Taken
from the Publicly Disseminated Document in ONESQA (2018).
Challenge Level
Criteria
C3: World class
The educational institution has been ranked in the world
ranking top 250, or there is staff with a world-class
academic reputation
C2: International/
regional class
Educational institution provides curriculum, learning
and teaching, and educational services that meet the
needs of spatial context, international level, and
regional (e.g. ASEAN countries), such as borderless
education, student mobility, educational management
that responds to cultural diversity (multicultural
education), and employment in the ASEAN region
C1: National/
local class
Educational institution is an organisation that is
sufficiently competent for driving the country, focus on
quality and effective productivities/outcomes, as well
as the network utilisation of mentoring universities
in R&D to create new knowledge and innovations
that affect the economy and society at the local and
national levels, such as Thailand 4.0
Source: Data were taken from ONESQA (2018).
The National Education Act
National Education Standards
Higher Education Standards
Thai Qualification Framework for Higher Education
Type and mission of each HEI
External Quality Assessment
(at least once every 5 years)
Internal Quality Assurance
Institutional
Operation
Institution’s
Assessment
Feedback
Annual SelfAssessment
Report
Site Visit
(1-3 days)
Assessment by
Internal Assessment
Committees
(once every 3 years)
Monitoring
Accreditation
Accountability
Feedback
Fig. 8.
Evaluation
Report
Continuous Quality
Improvements
QA Practices in Thai HEIs. Source: Adapted from OHEC (2015).
146
Buratin Khampirat et al.
7. Research on the Effectiveness of QA Practices in
Thai HEIs
Although the Thai government emphasises on QA, most institutes’ operations
need to be continuously developed for more effectiveness. According to the previous in-depth analysis of Rattananuntapat (2015), it revealed that many issues
need to be improved since Thai HEIs faced many problems in the implementation
of both IQA and EQA policies such as (a) staffs’ attitudes towards QA as workload burdens, (b) cooperation between the university executives and community,
(c) lack of awareness and knowledge about QA due to ineffective communication,
(d) unclear and delayed QA guidelines and measurements, (e) assessment indicator is not appropriate to the institutions’ missions, (f) disqualified QA assessors,
(g) insufficient QA staffs, time, and budgets, and (h) an abundance of paperwork,
reports, information, documents, and personal interviews required for QA audits.
Lao (2015) also explained that much of QA work is related to a lot of data preparation, documentation and report writing.
In developing the QA, it can be stated that there are many factors influencing
the effectiveness of QA (Donabedian, 1996) such as human resource management,
leadership, teamwork, motivation, and attitude (Ketkajorn, Vajarintarangoon, &
Sri-ngan, 2017). As many surveys in Thai higher education context concluded
that the involvement of personnel and supporting of administrators are the keys
for successful QA (e.g. Jarathanaworapat, Sermsuk, & Srisombut, 2018; Srisurin,
Channgam, & Rattana, 2016). Therefore, developing both IQA and EQA requires
having mutual understanding of the policy, developing organisational strategic
plan and support, effective administrative management and leadership, and clear
guidelines for more effective operation to be the best performance of HEIs’ QA
(Thanormchayathawat, Vanitsuppavong, Niemted, & Portjanatanti, 2015) since
the IQA system is considered a crucial part of the education administration process required be done to manipulate all components related to quality, including
an audit, a follow-up, and an assessment of quality and educational standards of
inputs and processes to ongoing effectiveness and external quality assessment for
further improvement of more effective learning and teaching processes and curriculums and quality development of education (Ketkajorn, Vajarintarangoon, &
Sri-ngan, 2017).
Sandmaung and Khang (2013) determined the quality indicators in order to
evaluate the quality indicators according the perspective of various stakeholders and compare the similarities and difference of the QA which was considered
whether or not it was suitable for the Thai HIE in improving the QA to meet
the standards and the expectations of all groups of the stakeholders to develop
the more appropriate and better strategic plan. The results reported that there are
some discrepancies relating to the gap and mismatch between the quality criteria
should be revised to solve any inconsistent aspects responding to the feedbacks
of the key stakeholders which would be beneficial to the effective development of
HEI QA. Similarly, Buacharoen and Buochareon (2018) mentioned that implementing QA system could be a key tool for developing the quality of the education and ensuring the standard of the educational system as well as for evaluating
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
147
work and study performance in many aspects of education resulting to the overall
success of the development of education through quality control for the better
development of human recourses which is regarded as the key human capital to
the country development.
8. Summary
Thailand has put enormous efforts over the last two decades to address some of
the pressing challenges its education system faces as the country aims to move
beyond the ‘middle-income trap’ – economic stagnation due to insufficient performance in global markets. In doing so, educational quality development also seeks
to raise the level of best practice internationally. This work continues apace as the
country is in the ASEAN Economic Community which is highly competitive both
in education, economy, science, and technology and higher education management in the country must respond to the new constitution and the next steps for
the educational quality assessment circle (OECD/UNESCO, 2016).
In the twenty-first century and globalisation era, Thai HEIs need to enhance
the effectiveness of the education quality based on research and innovation development in producing the graduates with desired quality that meet the nation and
society’s requirement and expectation to inspire the confidence of its stakeholders through competent, accountable and transparent practices (Government
Gazette, 2019a). Also, academic assessment, certification, and self-accreditation
of HEIs such as the pedagogical process, students’ feedback, graduate profile
according to stakeholders’ perception and recognition have become important
routine processes as mechanisms that must be linked to EQA process (Harvey,
2002). Therefore, it is crucial to continue developing the Thai education quality,
especially the standard for qualified graduates in accordance with the TQF and
the twenty-first century attributes (OHEC, 2015) as well as the new challenge in
assessing the outputs and outcomes of the HEIs’ operation results rather than
focussing on only the process as before.
References
Al-Shehri, A. M. (2012). Quality management and medical education in Saudi Arabia. In
K.-S. Ng (Ed.), Quality management and practices (pp. 67–86). Shanghai: InTech.
AUN. (2015). Guide to AUN-QA assessment at programme level: Version 3.0. Bangkok:
ASEAN University Network.
Benveniste, L. (2010). Towards a competitive higher education system in a global economy.
Bangkok: World Bank Group.
Buacharoen, P., & Buochareon, P. (2018). Quality assurance of Rajamangala University of
Technology Lanna. RMUTL Journal of Business Administration and Liberal Arts,
6(2), 1–10.
Chulabhorn Graduate Institute. (2016). Thailand quality assurance in higher education.
Bangkok: Chulabhorn Graduate Institute.
CUPT. (2016). Manual for the internal quality assurance CUPT QA: Academic year 2015–
2017. Bangkok: Council of University Presidents of Thailand.
148
Buratin Khampirat et al.
Donabedian, A. (1996). The effectiveness of quality assurance. International Journal for
Quality in Health Care, 8(4), 401–407. doi:10.1093/intqhc/8.4.401
DOPA. (2019). Number of Thai population by age across the country. Bangkok: Department
of Provincial Administration (DOPA).
Engchun, R., Sungtong, E., & Haruthaithanasan, T. (2018). Homeschooling in Southern
Thailand: Status and proposed guidelines for learning process management.
Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39(3), 502–508. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2017.08.003
Government Gazette. (2019a). The higher education act of 2019. Bangkok: The Secretariat
of the Cabinet (SOC).
Government Gazette. (2019b). The national education act (Issue 4) of 2019. Bangkok: The
Secretariat of the Cabinet (SOC).
Government Gazette. (2019c). The standards of higher education of 2019. Bangkok: The
Secretariat of the Cabinet (SOC).
Jarathanaworapat, A., Sermsuk, S., & Srisombut, B. (2018). Factors affecting participation of academic personnel towards quality assurance at curriculum level in
Pibulsongkram Rajabhat University. Humanities and Social Sciences Journal of
Graduate School, Pibulsongkram Rajabhat University, 12(1), 45–59.
Ketkajorn, S., Vajarintarangoon, K., & Sri-ngan, K. (2017). Factors affecting the effectiveness of educational quality assurance Journal of Buddhist Education and Research,
3(2), 48–56.
Kirtikara, K. (2001). Higher education in Thailand and the national reform roadmap.
Paper presented at the the Thai–US Education Roundtable, Bangkok,Thailand.
Harvey, L. (2002). Quality assurance in higher education: Some international trends. Paper
presented at the Higher Education Conference, Oslo, Norway.
Jamornmarn, U. (2000). Understanding of quality assurance in higher education. Bangkok:
n.p.
Khampirat, B., & Pop, C. (2017, June). Labour market needs and graduate competence:
An examination of the gap between employer expectations and new engineering
graduate performance in Thailand. In K. E. Zegwaard & M. Ford (Eds.), Refereed
proceedings of the 20th WACE world conference on cooperative and work-integrated
education: World association for cooperative education (WACE), Chiang Mai,
Thailand, 5–8 June 2017 (pp. 109–118). Hamilton, NZ: University of Waikato.
Khampirat, B., Pop, C., & Bandaranaike, S. (2019). The effectiveness of work-integrated
learning in developing student work skills: A case study of Thailand. International
Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 127–146.
Lao, R. (2015). A critical study of Thailand’s higher education reforms: The culture of borrowing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Maneerat, P., Malaivongs, K., & Khlaisang, J. (2015). The comparison of Thai qualification framework for higher education and capability maturity model integration
for service. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 225–231. doi:10.1016/
j.sbspro.2015.04.759
MOE. (2008). Towards a learning society in Thailand: An introduction to education in
Thailand. Bangkok: Bureau of International Cooperation.
MOE. (2019). List of higher education institutions in Thailand. Bangkok: Ministry of
Education.
NESDB. (2016). The twelfth national economic and social development plan (2017–2021).
Bangkok: Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board.
NSO. (2019a). The 2019 labour force survey whole kingdom. Bangkok: National Statistical
Office (NSO).
NSO. (2019b). The statistical data list. Bangkok: National Statistical Office (NSO).
OEC. (2017). Education in Thailand. Bangkok: Office of the Education Council (OEC).
OEC. (2018). National Education Standards of 2018. Bangkok: Office of the Education
Council (OEC).
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
149
OECD. (2013). Economic outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India. Paris: OECD.
OECD/UNESCO. (2016). Education in Thailand: An OECD–UNESCO perspective, reviews
of national policies for education. Paris: OECD.
OHEC. (2006). National qualifications framework for higher education in Thailand:
Implementation handbook. Bangkok, OHEC.
OHEC. (2009). The 2009–2010 education criteria for performance excellence. Bangkok:
Parbpim.
OHEC. (2010). Higher education standard and related standard criteria (6th ed.). Bangkok:
Parbpim.
OHEC. (2015). Manual for the internal quality assurance for higher education institutions
2014. Bangkok: Parbpim.
OHEC. (2019). Thai qualifications framework for higher education (TQF:HED). Bangkok:
OHEC.
ONESQA. (2013). Manual for higher educational institutions: The third-round of external quality assessment (2011–2015) (3rd ed.). Bangkok: The Office for National
Education Standards and Quality Assessment.
ONESQA. (2015). Quality assurance in Thailand: Historical background. Bangkok:
ONESQA.
ONESQA. (2017). The fourth round of quality assessment framework (2016–2020). Bangkok:
ONESQA.
ONESQA. (2018). The manual of external quality assessment for higher education institutions at the fourth-round (3rd ed.). Bangkok: The Office for National Education
Standards and Quality Assessment.
Rattananuntapat, M. (2015). Quality assurance policies in thai higher education. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved from http://d-schola
rship.pitt.edu/26482/1/Rattananuntapat_etd2015.pdf
Sandmaung, M., & Khang, D. B. (2013). Quality expectations in Thai higher education
institutions: Multiple stakeholder perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education,
21(3), 260–281.
Sa-Nguanmanasak, T., & Khampirat, B. (2019). Comparing employability skills of technical and vocational education students of Thailand and Malaysia: A case study
of international industrial work-integrated learning. Journal of Technical Education
and Training, 11(3), 94–109.
SEAMEO. (n.d.). National education system. Bangkok: SEAMEO.
Sinlarat, P., Theerapijit, S., & Chaodamrong, W. (2009). National qualifications framework for higher education in Thailand from research to practice (2nd ed.). Bangkok:
Chulalongkorn University.
Srisurin, K., Channgam, S., & Rattana, W. (2016). The factors affecting to internal quality assurance success in Faculty level of Ratchathani University. In O. Totsata
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd national academic conference and research presentation
(pp. 836–844). Nahon Ratchasima, Thailand: Siam Maltisoft.
Thanormchayathawat, B., Vanitsuppavong, P., Niemted, W., & Portjanatanti, N. (2015).
Educational quality assurance development of colleges under the jurisdiction of
Praboromarajchanok Institute, Ministry of Public Health. Journal of Yala Rajabhat
University, 10(1), 59–76.
UNESCO. (2006). The kingdom of Thailand. Geneva: UNESCO-IBE.
UNESCO. (2013). Advancing TVET for youth employability and sustainable development.
Bonn: UNESCO-UNEVOC.
150
Buratin Khampirat et al.
Appendix: Indicators for External Quality Assessment
Table A1. Dimensions, Components, and Indicators of Common Standards
for External Quality Assessment Taken and Translated from the Publicly
Disseminated Document in ONESQA (2018).
Dimensions/Components
Indicators
(1) The achievement in management in accordance with the mission that
responds to economic development and the society of the country
–– The operations reflect institution’s identities
(1.1) The context of
educational institution
under the four main missions of HEIs and meet
responds to the
to the local and national needs in both mission
national strategic plan
and spatial areas in response to the change and
direction of national development in the future
according to the national strategic plan
(1.2) Achievement
of institutional
administration and
development
–– Educational institution’s operation that reflect
institutional management achievement for use
in improving the quality of operations of educational institutions continuously
–– The institutional administration and manage-
ment has applied the philosophy of sufficiency
economy in accordance with its appropriate context and has managed based on the principles of
good governance consisting of effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, accountability, transparency, participation, decentralisation, rule of law,
equity, and consensus
(2) Graduate quality (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree and doctoral degree)
(2.1) Quality of bachelor’s
degree graduate
–– Employment rate, or continue education, or self-
employed career within one year after graduation
–– Graduates’ desirable characteristics or quality of
graduates as specified in the national standards
of the Thai Qualifications Framework for higher
education
–– Have the necessary skills according to the charac-
teristics needs of the country, such as skills that
are essential to life, Operational skills, English
communication skills etc.
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
151
Table A1. (Continued)
Dimensions/Components
Indicators
(2.2) Quality of master’s
degree graduate
–– Have knowledge and skills in the profession to
apply in the development of work using advanced
knowledge in practice and development in order
for the work/organisation to progress
–– Have English communication skills
–– Works created by graduates with master degrees
are consistent with (1) guidelines for research and
development based on the expertise of the institution or (2) research and development guidelines
to support national development or (3) research
that can be applied to external agencies / industry
sectors
(2.3) Quality of doctoral
degree graduate
–– Quality of research published at national and
international levels
–– There is a research or creative work of learners
that creates new knowledge/innovations that are
consistent with (1) research and development
(R&D) guidelines based on the expertise of Institutions or (2) R&D guidelines to support the
development of the country or (3) research work
that can be applied to external organisations/
industrial sectors
–– English communication skills
(3) Research quality
(3.1) Quality of research and–– Research and creative works involve institution’ s
creative work
context and respond to the strategies of developing the nation
–– Research/creative work funding from external
agencies at the national/international level
(3.2) Quality of
applied research
and innovation
development
–– Developing applied research and developing
innovations that are in line with the context of
educational institutions that create creativity, new
things, and inventions that meet the development
of the country
–– Registration of works from related agencies, such
as patents, copyrights, patents etc.
–– Applied research and innovation development
can be applied or get further research funding
from external agencies
152
Buratin Khampirat et al.
Table A1.
(Continued)
Dimensions/Components
Indicators
(4) Results of academic services
(4.1) Results of academic
services to the public
–– Academic services to the public that are in line
(4.2) Results of specific
academic services
–– Specific service provision as requested by the
with the context and needs of service users in
order to meet the development can support the
community to create the quality society, encourage future opportunities and challenges
agency/organisation can create value for educational institutions both in terms of in cash and
in kind
(5) Results of internal quality assurance
(5.1) Achievement of
internal quality
assurance system
–– The implementation of internal quality assurance
(IQA) creates benefits for institutional management, can be used to improve and be a part of the
organisation management
–– The results of internal quality assurance (IQA)
obtained from the agency
–– Implementing the results of the internal quality
assurance administration (IQA) as part of driving
the quality culture within educational institutions
–– Applying the results of the course quality assess(5.2) Achievement of
all curriculums of
ment to improve, develop and manage the
educational institution
curriculum
–– Quality control of
off-site educational programme management (if any) until the curriculum is approved by the professional council or
acknowledged by the agency
–– The education programme is accredited by an
international accreditation body
Source: Data were taken from ONESQA (2018).
Pedagogy and Quality Assurance in Thai
153
Table A2. Challenge Level and Indicator for External Quality Assessment
Taken and Translated from the Publicly Disseminated Document in ONESQA
(2018).
Challenge Level
Indicator
C3: World class
The outcomes of teaching and learning development with
research and innovation that positively impact on making
institution’s world-renowned by considering the ranking
results of educational institutions at the international
level or the Nobel Prize
C2: International/
regional class
(1) Proportion of foreigners such as international faculty
members, international students, exchange students –
inbound, exchange students – outbound, and
responding to the needs of the ASEAN region
(2) Providing education services to facilitate international
faculty members, international students, exchange
students – inbound, exchange students – outbound, or
being the centre of information or academic services
according to the expertise of the institution
(3) Employment of graduates in the ASEAN region
C1: National/
local class
(1) Patented innovation or research is applied in the
industrial sector according to national policy
(2) Educational institution can upgrade the network
institution to have quality in teaching and learning
that results in better learning outcomes for learners
Source: Data were taken from ONESQA (2018).
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 4.2
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in
Latvia
Ineta Luka, Andra Fernate, Rita Birzina and
Tamara Pigozne
Abstract
This chapter analyses the current situation and perceptions of quality assurance (QA) in adult education (AE) in Latvia. In the Latvian context,
QA in AE is a challenge. According to recent studies, QA should have a
formative character in order to facilitate targeted benefits for adult learners, whereas in practice AE in Latvia is more focussed on the institutional
perspective rather than the individual’s needs and wishes. This is in contrast with the humanistic approach to adult learning and andragogy principles, which emphasise learner-centred education. The aim of the chapter
is to research opportunities for improving the QA process in AE in Latvia
in order to increase personal benefits for an individual. The systematic
review of scholarly papers, monographs, scientific reports on QA in AE
conducted in Latvia in the twenty-first century indicated a contradiction
between the theoretical concepts applied to AE in Latvia and the implementation of the QA process in practice. This chapter contributes to the
overall understanding of the terminology used in AE in the country, analyses the prevailing concepts and elaborates conclusions for QA improvements based on humanistic pedagogy principles.
Keywords: Adult education; adult learning; humanistic approach; adult
learner needs; quality assurance; lifelong learning
From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 155–174
Copyright © 2020 by Ineta Luka, Andra Fernate, Rita Birzina and Tamara Pigozne.
Published under Exclusive License
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
doi:10.1108/978-1-83867-106-820201014
156
Ineta Luka et al.
Introduction
The importance of lifelong learning (LLL) in human life and national politics is
no longer a matter of discussion but a well-established fact. LLL encompasses
the process of human education (formal, non-formal and informal learning)
lifelong to acquire knowledge, develop skills and gain experience to meet one’s
personal interests and enhance professional qualifications according to labour
market needs.
Adult education (AE) is a component of LLL. Undoubtedly, AE and LLL
are complex concepts and they may have different interpretations in various contexts. The European Union (EU) addresses LLL broadly as education and training, and emphasises its process character ‘from cradle to grave’ including specific
types of education for adults as well (Kersh & Toiviainen, 2017).
In the EU, it is accepted that adults aged 25 and older participate in AE. The
threshold of 25 years is mentioned as a point of reference for AE in several EU
documents, assuming that the style and goals of human learning change at this
age. This is explained by the cognition that due to previous personal and work
experience accumulated at the age of 25 people have mastered their own individual learning styles and are aware of their personal and professional needs
(Pieaugušo izglītība, 2015).
However, based on the fact that in some EU countries, people are considered
adults from the age of 16, some scholars (Brooks & Burton, 2010) propose a
pragmatic definition of an adult learner indicating that adult is any person aged
16 or older who has dropped out of the initial education and training system.
According to the regulations of Latvia, an adult learner is a person aged 15
and older who after some interval continues ‘general or professional education
(formal, informal)’ (Basic Guidelines of Lifelong Learning Policy for 2007–2013,
2006).
According to Article 1(17) of the Education Law (1998) of the Republic of
Latvia, AE is:
a multi-dimensional educational process of persons, which,
ensures the development of the individual and his or her ability
to compete in the employment market, during the course of a lifetime of a person.
AE in Latvia has long and stable traditions and has reflected different contexts in different historical periods – (1) 1920–1940, (2) 1946–1988, (3) 1995–2013
and (4) 2014–2020 (Pata, Maslo, & Gedvilas, 2017). During the last two periods, the LLL concept of Latvia was developed and it has acquired the current
interpretation.
‘Education Development Guidelines for 2014–2020’ (Izglītības Attīstības
Pamatnostādnes 2014.-2020.gadam, 2014) stipulate the AE policy in Latvia. Their
vision is to have education available to everyone lifelong. The overarching goal
of the education development policy is quality and inclusive education for personal development, human well-being and sustainable growth of the country, in
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
157
which the main value is a human and their personal benefits (Pieaugušo izglītības
­politika Latvijā, 2015).
The Implementation Plan of AE Governance Model for 2016–2020 strives to
develop an internally recognisable AE system to implement an improved LLL
Strategy (Maslo & McGinley, 2017).
The overview of the current policy reveals that legal enactments and regulations are based on the concept of ‘AE’ rather than on the concept of ‘education
for adults’. The documents do not perceive the characteristics of adult learning
(AL) in terms of ‘formal/non-formal/informal learning’ for the sake of the adult
learner as it should be in a civilised society and they do not contribute to the
attainment of real aims and objectives of AE (Pata et al., 2017).
This chapter will focus on exploring the situation in AE in Latvia based on
humanistic pedagogy and andragogy principles. Conclusions and suggestions for
quality assurance (QA) improvements in AE in Latvia will be worked out by comparing the cognitions derived from the systematic search and review of scholarly
papers, monographs, scientific reports of researches on QA in AE in Latvia in the
twenty-first century and their application in national and country reports and
implementation in practice.
1. Theoretical Framework
1.1. Humanistic Approach to AL
AL theories emphasise using learners’ experience and independence as the essence
of andragogy (Hodgson & Kambouri, 1999) and are considered as the humanistic approach to the process of learning that is focussed on a learner and strives to
develop a personality possessing the potential of self-actualisation. Learners are
characterised as self-directed learners.
The four crucial AL assumptions are: (1) educators’ role is helping adult learners to become independent self-directed learners, (2) the most valuable resource
for learning is the adult learners’ previously gained experience, (3) adult learners are willing to learn to solve life problems and (4) adults consider learning as
a means to develop their competitiveness (Knowles, 1980). Additionally, adults
need to be certain of what they have to learn and they are mainly driven by
intrinsic motivation (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998). Favourable learning
environment is a key factor in AE, which influences the formation of mutual
relationships between an educator and a learner.
To sum up, AL is a meaningful ‘targeted process based on former knowledge
and learning experience’ (Liepa & Špona, 2012, p. 340) ensuring adult learners’
self-directed learning and it should have realistic, definite learning objectives to be
reached in the given time period.
The indicators developed therein by researchers in Latvia to measure adult
educator’s basic competencies, comprising self-evaluation of general, specific and
supportive competencies are useful (Pigozne & Usca, 2015).
This chapter will further explain the following AL indicators: (1) adult selfdirected learning, (2) AL experience, (3) AL motivation, (4) adult learner needs
158
Ineta Luka et al.
and (5) AL orientation explaining their meanings and analysing the cognitions
derived from the theory and empirical researches conducted in Latvia in the
twenty-first century.
1.2. Adult Self-Directed Learning
The term ‘self-directed learning’ stems from humanism philosophy (Herod, 2003),
whereas the concept of adult self-directed learning originates from Knowles’
andragogical model (Knowles, 1980), and it is considered a key issue in AL (Grow,
1991). Self-directed learning is a process in which students assume the initiative to
diagnose their learning needs, define learning goals, identify learning resources,
choose and implement corresponding learning strategies and evaluate the learning outcomes with or without others’ help (Knowles, 1975). Thus, self-directed
learning means that people grow and enhance their abilities based on their prior
experience which in turn becomes a significant learning resource.
In Latvia, self-directed learning is perceived as an active learning process
(Pūre, 2014) and is defined as a form of studies in which learners accept the learning process, application of the skills developed and work evaluation (Lieģeniece,
2002; Liepa & Špona, 2012).
As adult learners require certain support from the teacher, the development
of teachers’ professional competence in Latvia is implemented at the national
level according to the method of modelling pedagogical needs which supports
autonomy (Prudnikova, 2018).
Furthermore, self-directed learning is mentioned together with other AL theories suitable for language teaching/learning, such as cooperative learning theory
and pedagogies of engagement (Stepanova, 2016). It specifically refers to various
blended-learning language courses created in Latvia.
Latvian researchers, in line with humanistic pedagogy principles (Knowles,
1975), assume that in the process of self-directed learning, adult learners assume
responsibility for planning their time, knowledge application and evaluation of
their work (Lieģeniece, 2002). The basic competence of an adult person is the
ability to learn according to their needs as a precondition for life nowadays. As
emphasised by Daina Lieģeniece (2003), this cognition is strengthened by the
understanding that in the contemporary rapidly changing situation people should
be open and ready to changes, they have to learn how to do things and consequently identity development takes place in the LLL process.
1.3. AL Experience
A great number of today’s adult learners were exposed to classroom learning in
previous educational experiences that promoted pedagogical practices (McGrath,
2009). Although it used to be a well-accepted teaching/learning practice at most
formal education institutions, this form of learning is not the most suitable one
for adult learners because adults have their own life experience and knowledge
related to their work activities, family responsibilities and previous education.
It is natural that their learning has to be combined with previously acquired
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
159
knowledge, skills and experience. According to Peter Jarvis (2013), adult learners’
previous experience should be transformed into new and/or updated knowledge,
skills, attitudes, values, beliefs, emotions and senses. It means that adult experience is an essential learning resource for LLL and ‘learning always starts with
experience’ (Illeris, 2009, p. 5). This is in line with David A. Kolb’s AL theory
(Kolb, 2014), emphasising experience-based learning approach. Thus, AL is a
holistic process of adaptation to the world, in which new knowledge is being created, as the learner interacts with the environment (Tusting & Barton, 2003).
Latvian scholars working in the field of AL/AE approve of the holistic
approach to learning. Learning experience is perceived as a component of the
AE process (Liepa & Špona, 2012) in the context of open education and LLL
(Luka, 2016). Therein, it is essential to highlight two functions of adult experience: (1) the new information is based on the previous experience, and it is structured according to it as a result ensuring understanding and (2) experience may
promote or hinder knowledge acquisition and skills development (Žogla, 2001).
Therefore, it is crucial to pay special attention to organising AE considering the
learners’ previous learning and life experiences.
Furthermore, Latvian scholars also support the assumption that the learning
process in humanistic pedagogy is based on active learning which relying on the
learners’ previous experience forms the basis of new knowledge, as a result fostering personal and professional development of adult learners (Saulīte & Andersone, 2016).
Positive learning experience positively correlates with learners’ effective integration in the learning context (Timoshtchenko & Bavrina, 2008). However, in
Latvia most teachers lack appropriate learning experience (Galpotthawela &
Lubkina, 2018). Therefore, university teachers should develop mutual learning
experience in close cooperation with students of teacher education curricula, and
it is essential to develop learning outcomes oriented towards the improvement
of teaching quality and foster the development of creative learning opportunities. Constructive dialogue during the study process results in solving educational
problems and becomes an important tool in developing future teachers’ pedagogical experience (Samuseviča, 2014). Students may become professionals by
enhancing the development of their self-directed learning experience (Mezinska,
2012) and experience exchange between teachers and learners should be enhanced
by applying methods and tools that foster the learners’ emotional and intellectual
activity (Kušnere, 2018).
Recent researches conducted in Latvia emphasise the necessity for learning
experience in educating specialists considering the needs of the labour market.
For example, as the experience of adult language learning and the language
competence developed is a language learning resource (Bojare & Skrinda, 2016),
language learning stimulates openness to new learning experiences and helps to
develop relevant competences in other courses (Luka, Pigozne, & Surikova, 2015).
In order to improve AL experience and broaden opportunities, various technologies as well as reflection on digital learning experience are applied (­Rudzinska,
Pop, & Dredetianu, 2015). Learning experience should preferably be associated
with personal development tasks, since only such experience that comprises
160
Ineta Luka et al.
‘understanding, physical, mental and social skills, intellectual and emotional
activity, forms the basis for personal development’ (Žogla, 2001, p. 170).
Since, experience forms the basis for personality direction to a certain extent –
‘views, beliefs, ideals, motives of action, and value orientation’ (Žogla, 2001,
p. 170), it is essential to develop successful learning experience, which is a good
basis for creating motivation (Geidžs & Berliners, 1998).
To summarise, experience may be considered the foundation for learning,
which, in turn, is the transformation of one’s previous experience, and reflection
is the means of transforming this experience.
1.4. AL Motivation
It is characteristic to adults that they can be highly motivated, but sometimes it
is easy to get discouraged if the learning content and methods are not connected
with the problem to be solved. So, their motivation to participate in activities,
including learning, is often associated with the concept of ‘readiness to learn’,
which is in line with the fourth assumption of andragogy by Knowles (1990)
emphasising internal tension as the main motivator for participation in AL.
According to Latvian scholars, learning motivation is one of the most important learning components (Dabolins, 2018), the main factor regulating the personality activity (Indriksons, 2013), a criterion of measuring learning quality (Pigozne
& Usca, 2015) and the basis for self-development. Its implementation fosters holistic personality development (Alondere, 2014; Druvmale-Druvleja et al., 2014).
In the context of AE in Latvia, motivation has been researched in connection
with the application of technologies for developing language skills (Garkule, &
Makarevičs, 2018), adult participatory e-learning (Marzano, Lubkina, & Ochoa
Siguencia, 2016), searching opportunities for increasing motivation in the learning process, such as organising classes in external environment (Gaveika, 2016),
and self-directed learning (Kāposta, 2014).
Adults’ greatest motivation is intrinsic, for example, better quality of life,
recognition and self-confidence (Katalnikova, 2018). Learners, who have individually, voluntarily, without any additional extrinsic motivation benefitted from
computer-based learning and knowledge control system, have higher motivation than others (Prokofjeva, Zagulova, Katalnikova, & Synytsya, 2018). Exactly
intrinsic motivation drives adults to start teacher development programmes
(Zariņa, Drelinga, Iliško, & Krastiņa, 2016). However, in practice the formation
of intrinsic motivation is stipulated by external factors (Alksne, 2016).
The research conducted in Latvia concerning psychological aspects of learning
motivation emphasise that motivation comprises closely related beliefs, perceptions, values, interests and actions, and refers to those reasons based on behaviour
that are characterised by desire and will (Koha, Ivanova, & Ivanova, 2018).
In Latvia, in the age group over 50, the most important motivation for participation in AE is the opportunity to meet people which may be even considered as
a specific type of entertainment (Vintere, Čerņajeva, & Koroļova, 2014).
To summarise, motivation is related to the specific needs of an adult. Adults
are motivated to learn if they understand that learning will help to accomplish
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
161
specific tasks or deal with a real-life problem. They need to acquire new k
­ nowledge,
skills and attitudes, and this process is more effective if learning matches the reallife situation.
1.5. Adult Learner Needs
Adult learners seek answers to resolve a specific need to know (Holyoke &
­Larson, 2009). Their readiness to learn is closely related to the developmental
tasks of their social role (Knowles, 1980) and stem from developmental and reallife responsibilities (Knowles, 1984; Knowles et al., 1998).
As claimed above, adult learners need to know why they are acquiring new
knowledge before they are willing to participate (McGrath, 2009). It means that
adults tend to be ready to learn what they believe they need to know, and they
need to know its value and why they need to learn (Chan, 2010).
In Latvia, researchers in the AE field highly value adult learner needs as well.
For example, recently, equine assisted learning courses and programmes for adult
learners have become popular. Such courses are created in collaboration between
teachers and learners considering the learner’s individual needs and formulating
the course objectives and selecting the appropriate learning techniques and strategies based on adult learners’ prior experience (Gehtmane-­Hofmane, 2018).
Other researches deal with creating favourable learning environments for adult
learners and providing ubiquitous learning opportunities.
The adaptation of the learning process to individual needs may be enhanced
by providing a technology-driven feedback (Dabolins, 2018), as well as organising blended-learning. An advantage of blended-learning courses is the possibility
to adapt them to each learner’s individual learning needs (Luka, 2016), involving
and motivating learners by combining class learning with the real work environment, respecting not only the learning objectives but also the learners’ individual
personal and career interests, needs and aims (Katane, Katans, & Īriste, 2016).
According to the research, observing learner needs in course creation and execution are significant preconditions for securing adult learner’s targeted benefits.
1.6. AL Orientation
Orientation to learning is another trait of adult learners. An adult is more problem centred than subject centred in learning (Knowles, 1980). Their orientation
to learning is most often relevant to their current life situation (Knowles, 1984;
Knowles et al., 1998). Adults come to learn in order to perform a task, solve
a problem or achieve higher satisfaction in life (Knowles, 1984). Their orientation to learning is related to immediate applications rather than future uses, and
their learning is task-oriented and life-focussed (Chan, 2010). Thus, AL is highly
practical.
In Latvia, the focus of AL is on studies. Adult learners have a definite learning
aim and they apply ‘everything that has been acquired to achieve it, therefore,
theoretical knowledge of an adult during the education process must be strongly
related to actual practical activities’ (Katalnikova, 2018, p. 319). Research
162
Ineta Luka et al.
identifies teacher’s professional competences and duties, the content framework,
teachers’ professional mastery. In the centre, there is orientation towards personal
and professional growth, finding inspiration and sources of motivation that initiate new tasks and create a wish to perform them (Baranova & Kalke, 2012).
In this context methodology, motivation and teachers’ professional identity are
paramount (Medveckis, 2016).
To summarise, AL orientation is often connected with satisfying their immediate needs, both personal and professional, thus it is closely connected with
learner needs.
2. QA in the Context of AE in Latvia
QA refers to the policies, attitudes, actions and procedures necessary to ensure
that quality is being maintained and enhanced (Woodhouse, 1999). QA can be
described as a means of getting it right the first time (Muller & Funnell, 1992). In
a more restricted sense, it may denote the achievement of a minimum standard or
refer to assuring stakeholders that quality is being achieved (Woodhouse, 1999).
AE was not the first sector to incorporate the concept of QA; the phrase is now
firmly established as part of the general discourse (Tovey, 1994). The focus is
on assurance, not checking of finished products. Quality conforms to customer
requirements (Muller & Funnell, 1992).
In AE assuring education quality is complex work. Therefore, it is necessary
to set clear objectives for individual learning processes that will be subjected to
QA or quality measurement. Frequently, in AL processes, the participant will
find elements of an earlier qualifying or learning process. In this report, quality is perceived as a concept that can have different meanings depending on the
context.
It is essential to define the objectives of the learning process, clarify the level of
the organisation/institution addressed and decide if quality is with respect to the
result of the process or it is the quality of the process (Faurschou, 2008).
One of the most frequently used evaluation models for AE programmes is
Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model (Kirkpatrick, 1998) or the updated four-level
evaluation framework (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) comprising learner’s reaction, learning, behaviour and results.
Furthermore, QA consists of three major areas: structural quality (the
organisation and resources, prerequisites in a broad context), process quality
(the internal activities, involving work with learning) and result quality (how
and within which areas the participant has developed their competences)
(­Faurschou, 2008).
In Latvia, evaluation of education quality is considered necessary for ensuring
adult competitiveness and career development based on consolidation of selfevaluation, internal and external evaluation in the identified segments of assuring
the learning quality and their interaction. Adults perceive the learning quality
both with the qualification and competence of their teachers, training and labour
market possibilities, infrastructure, administration, partnership and participation
(Lusena-Ezera & Liduma, 2014).
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
163
As the Latvian AE development policy has been designed according to the
guidelines set by the basic European policy planning documents, such as the Lisbon Strategy, the Bologna Process and the European Commission Memorandum
on LLL, ‘much of the AE market and the educators’ mobility depend on a common
European evaluation system’ (Marzano, Lubkina, & Usca, 2015, p. 2179). Adult
learner educators’ quality is becoming a significant criterion for measuring education quality in Latvia and its aim, learning outcomes, communication, methodology,
management and motivation are significant issues therein (Pigozne & Usca, 2015).
Article 46 of the Education Law (1998) stipulates that AE may be implemented
both in formal and non-formal education programmes. Procedures for the implementation of adult formal education programmes are defined by the provisions of
the Education Law (1998), the Vocational Education Law (1999) and the Law on
Institutions of Higher Education (1995). According to Article 46 (3) of the Education Law (1998), non-formal AE programmes shall conform to the interests of
the State and of employers, as well as of individual development,
and adults have the right to acquire such programmes throughout the length of their whole life regardless of previously acquired
education.
The formal AE programmes have to undergo a licensing, registration and
accreditation process, whereas non-formal and interest-related education programmes are licenced by the local self-governments (see Table 1).
The procedure of implementing formal AE programmes is stipulated by the
Education Law (1998), the Vocational Education Law (1999), the Law on Institutions of Higher Education (1995) and other legal enactments.
When licensing an adult non-formal education programme, the local government can assess: the formulation of the programme’s objectives, tasks, duration, the description of the planned outcomes, the curriculum, the programme’s
implementation plan and the material and financial provision of the programme,
the staff needed to implement the programme, whereas for interest-related programmes teachers’ pedagogical education is additionally evaluated.
‘Basic Guidelines of LLL Policy for 2007–2013’ (2006) sets a long-term goal
for LLL – to provide education during the whole life in accordance with people’s
interests, abilities and needs of the socio-economic development of the region.
One of the problems defined in this Policy is that in the legal enactments of Latvia
attention is paid mostly to the development of legislation linked with the levels
and types of education, but not to the variety of education possibilities, quality
and accessibility by different target groups regardless of their age, gender, health
condition, place of residence and income level.
Analysing the above-mentioned laws regulating education in Latvia, it may
be concluded that legally AE is perceived as an institutionalised lifelong education process. In the ‘Basic Guidelines of LLL Policy for 2007–2013’ (2006), AE
and LLL apply human centred approach in accordance with the national development goals defined in the long-term conceptual document ‘Latvia’s Growth
Model: Human in the First Place’ (Latvijas izaugsmes modelis: Cilvēks pirmajā
Higher Education
Quality Agency
Local Government
Higher education (incl.
higher professional
education)
Adult non-formal
education, interestrelated educationa
–
Accreditation
Register
Do not undergo
accreditation
Higher Education
Quality Agency
–
Register of Study
Directions
State Education Quality National Education
Service
Information System
State Education Quality National Education
Service
Information System
Institution Implementing
Accreditation
Educational institutions registered in the Register of educational establishments do not need licences for the implementation of non-formal education and
interest-related education programmes for adults.
a
State Education Quality National Education
Service
Information System
Vocational education
(≤160 hours)
Register of Study
Directions
State Education Quality National Education
Service
Information System
Licence
Register
General education
Institution Issuing the
Licence
Licensing and Accreditation of AE Programmes in Latvia (by the Authors).
Type of the
Programme
Table 1.
164
Ineta Luka et al.
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
165
vietā, 2005). Furthermore, the ‘Basic Guidelines of LLL Policy for 2007–2013’
(2006) indicate that AE is the weakest stage in the education provision process in
Latvia and it is not clearly revealed in the legal enactments. The field of AE lacks
a system. At the same time, it also means that the education system in Latvia
from the formal aspect does not develop as a lifelong education system. Although
certain initiatives have been taken to increase AL QA, most of those initiatives
concern the institutional and national level and they do not fully comply with
humanistic pedagogy principles.
3. Research Methodology
Research aim: Research opportunities for improving the QA process in AE in
Latvia in order to increase personal benefits for an individual.
Research question: To what extent does existing research enhance QA improvement in AE in Latvia to increase targeted benefits for adult learners?
Research methods: the authors conducted a systematic search and review
(Booth, Sutton, & Papaioannou, 2016) of scholarly articles, monographs,
research reports, etc. published applying limitations as to the language (reviewing Latvian and English), the year (2000–2019) and source. The search involved
electronic databases: Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, SAGE, EBSCO applying filters – keywords defined based on AL principles of Knowles (1980): ‘selfdirected learning’, ‘learning experience’, ‘learning motivation’, ‘learner needs’,
‘learning orientation’ and ‘QA’ (see Fig. 1). ‘A complex synthesis using textual,
numerical and tabular methods’ (Booth et al., 2016, p. 23) was done to elaborate
suggestions.
Literature search comprised four stages applying four limitations (LIM):
Stage 1. The keyword was entered in the database → LIM1.
Stage 2. The search was limited by inserting the word ‘adult’ → LIM2.
Stage 3. The search was limited by inserting the word ‘education’ → LIM3.
Stage 4. The sources written by Latvian authors were searched → LIM4.
The process was repeated six times per database, every time using one of the
keywords mentioned above. As a result, 48 sources were subjected to in-depth
analysis.
4. Research Outcomes Concerning QA in Latvia
Certain regularities have been observed concerning the number of records: the
number of articles referring to the Latvian context tends to decrease significantly,
applying different key words for systematic search. The most widely represented
keyword is ‘learning experience’ (n = 13 on WoS, n = 7 on EBSCO and n = 21 on
SCOPUS). The keywords ‘learner needs’ (n = 15), ‘learning orientation’ (n = 12)
and ‘self-directed learning’ (n = 11) are predominantly found in Latvian articles
on SCOPUS DB. The least frequently found keyword is ‘QA’ – not shown in
EBSCO DB and Sage journals, and only 1–2 records in other DBs (Table 2).
166
Ineta Luka et al.
Literature search
Databases: Web of Science; EBSCO (Academic Search Ultimate, Academic Search
Complete, Business Source Ultimate, eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost), eBook
Collection (EBSCOhost), ERIC); SCOPUS; SAGE journals
Limits: Years 2000–2019
Limits: articles in English and Latvian only
No. of records identified through the search
(n = 2,875,033)
No. of records limited
by “adult”
(n = 817,507)
No. of records limited
by “education”
(n = 273,303)
Excluded
(n = 2,057,526)
Excluded
(n = 544,204)
No. of records limited
by “Latvia”
(n = 120)
Excluded
(n = 273,183)
No. of records after
duplicates removed
(n = 84)
Excluded
(n = 36)
No of records included in the in-depth analysis
(n = 48)
Fig. 1.
The Scheme of Systematic Search (by the Authors).
Conducting a systematic review of Latvian articles applying the keyword ‘QA’,
only three records have been found on WoS DB (Table 3). Two of them are associated with non-formal AL and one – with higher education.
In non-formal education, QA is analysed as a process and outcome quality,
emphasising the evaluation of performance; goals are related to the assurance of
quality according to learners’ needs, motivation, communication and management
(Pigozne & Usca, 2015). Educators admit that most often, it is the learner’s satisfaction with the benefits gained from the educational process and practical application in real situations of life and work. However, to evaluate adult educators,
AE participants have to be aware of their needs. Adult educators claimed that the
best evaluators are learners who understand their needs (Pigozne & Usca, 2015).
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
Table 2. Number of Entries in Databases (by the Authors).
WoS
Keyword
Self-directed learning
LIM1
LIM2
LIM3
LIM4
3,379
308
195
3
136,447
8,679
2,492
13
Learner needs
14,156
11,40
692
2
Learning orientation
15,393
822
173
2
Learner motivation
5,567
444
251
2
36,797
730
106
3
Learning experience
Quality assurance
EBSCO
Keyword
LIM1
LIM2
LIM3
LIM4
Self-directed learning
4,115
1,073
991
1
Learning experience
69,261
6,610
5,453
7
Learner needs
7,356
1,265
1,188
3
Learning orientation
3,514
334
274
2
Learner motivation
2,158
339
327
1
69,040
3,194
1,442
0
Quality assurance
SCOPUS
Keyword
LIM1
Self-directed learning
20,230
Learning experience
LIM3
LIM4
8,957
7,849
11
869,864
275,399
142,753
21
75,032
25,099
23,147
15
Learning orientation
216,335
63,730
28,681
12
Learner motivation
50,885
17,726
15,911
9
263,510
44,510
13,777
2
Learner needs
Quality assurance
LIM2
SAGE journals
Keyword
LIM1
LIM2
LIM3
LIM4
Self-directed learning
148,340
58,947
4,507
3
Learning experience
285,356
100,075
7,675
3
Learner needs
316,010
106,230
8,126
3
Learning orientation
74,585
26,946
2,300
0
Learner motivation
129,686
48,065
3,975
2
58,017
16,885
1,018
0
Quality assurance
167
The research explores the specifics for
designing online language learning
courses for the application in tourism and
hospitality industry. The course efficiency
and quality are evaluated from provider,
recipient and wider community perspective
To analyse the application of a pedagogybased approach to designing online
language learning courses
Luka (2018)
Higher education
Adult non-formal AE is seen as a means for achieving new
and informal
skills and competences. LLL and AE are
education
perceived as synonyms. Quality assessment
is considered necessary for competing
in the global world (young unemployed
people), and for career advancement
(employed people)
To present results from an investigation
conducted in Latvia within the EU project
EduEval (Evaluation for the Professional
Development of AE Staff) on the issue of
AE evaluation strategies
Marzano et al.
(2015)
Outcomes
Adult non-formal The model for evaluation of competence
education
of adult educators’ assessors is offered
and analysis of the real situation of adult
educators’ evaluation in Latvia is done
Learning Areas
Pigozne and Usca To analyse the experience of adult
(2015)
educators in the field of evaluation
Aim
Context of Term ‘QA’ in DB WoS (by the Authors).
Author, Year
Table 3.
168
Ineta Luka et al.
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
169
The second article (Marzano et al., 2015) evaluates AE as a teacher-centred
learning process that in the future could be impacted by the application of technologies transforming teachers’ role in non-formal and informal education.
The learning outcome, both from the point-of-view of teachers and learners, is
obtaining a successful certification of the competencies acquired. Process quality
is evaluated from the point-of-view of educators and policy makers associating it
with benefits for a learner. Concerning the learning aspect, adult educators and
learners prefer more conventional teacher-directed methods. Learners are generally very motivated to acquire new knowledge and find discussion a waste of
time. Respondents identified three overlapping objectives of AE: giving people
the opportunity of learning, satisfying individual education needs and improving
one’s own personal knowledge.
The article by Ineta Luka (2018) describes QA in terms of structural quality (resource creation: development of a blended-learning course), process quality: approbation in provider, recipient and wider community perspective and
result quality: the development of tourism and hospitality industry students’ and
employees’ language competences. The article is directly focussed on learner benefits. The learner benefits are enhanced creativity, widened interests, attractive
engagement, autonomous self-directed learning, collaboration and professional
development. The approach selected is in line with Knowles’ principles (1980) as
it considers learner needs and previous experience.
SCOPUS DB contains 2 records (Table 4), one of which is focussed on
higher education and the other one on LLL – raising participants’ professional
qualification.
In the first article (Maslo, Surikova, & González, 2014), QA is associated with
structural quality: the provision of on-line support in study courses, process quality: systemic approach to e-learning as a socio-cultural ecological system which
fosters students’ and faculty staff’s participation. As a result, new knowledge
and pedagogical solutions have been created, a synergy between science, education and politics in local, regional, national, European and global socio-cultural
contexts has been formed. This is evaluated as result and structural quality. The
benefits are the promotion of students’ generic, basic and specific competences,
autonomy and responsibility.
The second article (Bailey et al., 2013) deals with continuing professional
development of a definite target group – dentists. QA is analysed complying with
the EU requirements to develop core topics in order to update their skills and
knowledge and integrate recent developments in dentistry into their practice.
Thus, according to Kim Faurschou’s (2008) classification, it is structural quality,
as topics are a resource. Benefits concern forecasting courses to further learners’
professional development. Consequently, when the course is created all dentists
will have up-to-date knowledge and skills in topic areas of direct relevance to
patient safety. In the future, result quality might be addressed as well.
Research limitations: The systematic literature search and review were done
selecting the most prominent and popular databases for social sciences available
in Latvia. The keywords selected and the order of applying them as limitations
for the systematic search gave the above-mentioned results. The authors presume
170
Ineta Luka et al.
Table 4. Context of Term ‘QA’ in DB SCOPUS (by the Authors).
Author, Year
Aim
Learning Areas
Outcomes
Maslo,
Surikova,
and
González
(2014)
To conceptualise
Higher
e-learning as a socioeducation
cultural ecological
system and explore the
empirical evidences for
using this concept in
practice for increasing
the participation in
higher education
Pedagogical
solutions on
creating synergy
between science,
education, and
politics at various
levels
Bailey et al.
(2013)
To identify essential
CPD requirements for
EU dentists
The outcome
of this process
was a three-part
recommendation
for four core
compulsory
continuing
professional
development topics
Adult
non-formal
(Continuing
professional
development)
education
that if they had used other databases and other keywords and/or different order
of the keywords, the research results would have been different.
Summary
The research findings indicate a contradiction between theoretical concepts
applied to AE in Latvia which are in line with human pedagogy and andragogical
principles and the implementation of the QA process in practice as AE is more
focussed on the institutional perspective rather than the individual’s needs and
wishes.
The research conducted on monitoring AE quality in Latvia proves that the
following Knowles’ assumptions are significant in AE: educator’s role is to help
adult learners to become independent self-directed learners and adults consider
learning as a means to develop their competitiveness. Adult learners mostly gain
such targeted benefits: enhancement of their generic, basic and specific competences, capabilities, autonomy and responsibility, creativity, interests, attractive
engagement, autonomous self-directed learning, collaboration and professional
development.
It was discovered that the improvements of AE structural and process quality
by offering online learning courses favour the increase of the above-mentioned
targeted benefits, consequently transforming the teacher’s role into that of a
coach, thus facilitating the learning process and stimulating the use of collaborative tools. The researches mostly explore learning in relation with the degree
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
171
to which participants acquire the intended knowledge and skills based on their
participation.
The following research opportunities for improving the QA in AE in Latvia to
increase personal benefits for an individual may be elicited:
(1) Conduct an in-depth study on Knowles’ assumptions mentioned below and
their impact on the increase of targeted benefits for adult learners. The most
valuable resource for learning is the adult learners’ previously gained experience and willingness to learn to solve life problems. These results are significant to increase targeted benefits for adult learners, raise AE quality by
availability of external organisations and resources and improve the learning
process and development of adult learners’ competences.
(2) Conduct a research in accordance with Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model on
learners’ reaction to find out if the training is favourable, engaging and relevant to learners’ jobs and on behaviour – what learners have learnt during
training when they return to their jobs and on the results concerning the targeted outcomes that occur.
References
Alksne, A. (2016). The problem of will: Psychological, pedagogical and caritative social
assessment. Society, Integration, Education, I, 28–34.
Alondere, L. (2014). Preparedness for Studies and their most Influencing Factors. Society,
Integration, Education, I, 24–32.
Bailey, S., Bullock, A., Cowpe, J., Barnes E., Thomas, H., Thomas, R., … Akota, I. (2013).
Core continuing professional development (CPD) topics for the European dentist.
European Journal of Dental Education, 17, 23–28. doi:10.1111/eje.12010
Baranova, S., & Kaļķe, B. (2012). Competences needed for the university faculty in view of
pedagogy students. Society, Integration, Education, I, 205–216.
Basic Guidelines of Lifelong Learning Policy for 2007–2013. (2006). Approved by the
Decree No.111 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Latvia on 23.03.2007. Retrieved from
http://uil.unesco.org/i/doc/lifelong-learning/policies/latvia-basic-guidelines-of-lifelong-learning-policy-for-2007-2013.pdf
Bojare, I., & Skrinda, A. (2016). Transformation of the system of values of autonomous
learning for English acquisition in blended e-studies for adults: A holistic fractal
model. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(2), 119–134.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. Systematic approaches to a successful literature
review. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Brooks, G., & Burton, M. (2010). European adult learning glossary, Level 1. Brussels:
European Commission.
Chan, S. (2010). Applications of andragogy in multi-disciplined teaching and learning.
Journal of Adult Education, 39(2), 25–35.
Dabolins, J. (2018). Teaching of computer aided design systems. Society, Integration,
Education, V, 248–259.
Druvmale-Druvleja, B., Alondere, L., Vovere, B., Biteniece, I., Lure, J., Taurene, A., &
Ozols, V. (2014). Medical student motivation to work in e-learning. Society,
Integration, Education, II, 300–311.
Education Law. (1998). Adopted by the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia on 29.10.1998. In
force since 01.06.1999. Retrieved from https://likumi.lv/ta/id/50759-izglitibas-likums
172
Ineta Luka et al.
Faurschou, K., (2008). Systematic quality assurance in adult learning, Nordic tiles in a
mosaic. Nordic network quality in adult learning. Copenhagen: The Nordic Council
of Ministers.
Galpotthawela, N., & Lubkina, V. (2018). Learning achievement in STEM subject:
Commonalities and differences in Latvia and Finland a comparative study. Society,
Integration, Education, I, 94–102.
Garkule, V., & Makarevičs, V. (2018). Moodle environment and its use within formal and
informal education at a vocational school. Society, Integration, Education, V, 68–80.
Gaveika, A. (2016). Personības attīstība, izglītība un kompetence kā kreativitātes pamatelementi [Personality development, education and competence as basic components
of creativity]. Society, Integration, Education, IV, 48–57.
Gehtmane-Hofmane, I. (2018). Equine assisted learning: Symbolic value of horse as underlying pattern in human thinking. Society, Integration, Education, V, 81–86.
Geidžs, N. L., & Berliners, D. C. (1998). Pedagoģiskā psiholoģija [Pedagogical psychology.]
Rīga: Apgāds Zvaigzne ABC.
Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3),
125–149.
Herod, L. (2003). Adult learning from theory to practice. Family Literacy Events Committee.
Retrieved from http://jarche.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/adult_learning.pdf
Hodgson, A., & Kambouri M. (1999). Adults as lifelong learners: The role of pedagogy
in the new policy context. In P. Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its
impact on learning (pp. 175–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. doi.
org/10.4135/9781446219454.n9
Holyoke, L., & Larson, E. (2009). Engaging the adult learner generational mix. Journal of
Adult Education, 38(1), 12–21.
Illeris, K. (Ed.). (2009). Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists... in their own
words. London: Routledge.
Indriksons, A. (2013). Social roles of the teacher in militarized educational institution.
Society, Integration, Education, I, 91–99.
Izglītības attīstības pamatnostādnes 2014.-2020.gadam. (2014). Education development
guidelines for 2014–2020. Adopted by the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia on
22.05.2014. In force. Retrieved from https://m.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=266406
Jarvis, P. (2013). Universities and corporate universities: The higher learning industry in
global society. London: Routledge.
Katalnikova, S. (2018). Knowledge worker as a user of intelligent collaborative educational
system. Society, Integration, Education, V, 315–326.
Katane, I., Katans, E., & īriste, S. (2016). Darba vidē balstītās mācības teorijā un
profesionālās izglītības duālā sistēma praksē. [Workplace-based learning in theory and dual system of professional education in practice]. Society, Integration,
Education, I, 125–136.
Kāposta, I. (2014). Reflection as a means for learning skill improvement in students.
Society, Integration, Education, I, 425–434.
Kersh, N., & Toiviainen, H. (2017). EduMAP report: Broad research on adult education
in the EU. Part I. Conceptual Review, pp. 1–21. Retrieved from http://www.uta.
fi/edu/en/transit/index/D2.1.Report.30.6.2017.pdf
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The Kirkpatrick model and the four
levels (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria: ATD Press.
Knowles, M. (1980). Modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. (2nd
ed.). Cambridge: Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall.
Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company.
Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia
173
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: Guide for learners and teachers. New York,
NY: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult Learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing.
Koha, A., Ivanova, I., & Ivanova, T. (2018). Medicīnas koledžas studentu motivācijas
sekmēšana profesionālo kompetenču attīstībā. [Fostering medicine college students’
motivation for development of professional competences]. Society, Integration,
Education, I, 237–247.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Kušnere, I. (2018). Skolotāju profesionālās mūžmācīšanās metožu un paņēmienu izvēle. [A
selection of methods and techniques professional teachers can apply to their own
lifelong learning]. Society, Integration, Education, V, 122–136.
Latvijas izaugsmes modelis: Cilvēks pirmajā vietā. (2005). Latvia’s growth model: Human
in the first place. The long-term conceptual document of Latvia. Approved by the
Saeima on 26.10.2005. In force. Retrieved from https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=217923
Law on Institutions of Higher Education. (1995). Approved by the Saeima of the Republic
of Latvia on 02.11.1995. In force with amendments since 01.12.1995. Retrieved from
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/37967-augstskolu-likums
Lieģeniece, D. (2002). Ievads andragoģijā. [Introduction in andragogy]. Riga: RaKa.
Lieģeniece, D. (2003). Mācīšanās bagātināt savu «Es» mūžilgās mācīšanās kontekstā. [How
to Develop Ego Identity in a Life-long Learning Process]. In 6th ATEE Spring
University “Changing Education in a Changing Society”, Riga, May 2–3, pp. 100–109.
Liepa, D., & Špona, A. (2012). Pedagogical principles of foreign language studies. Society,
Integration, Education, I, 331–341.
Luka, I. (2016). Developing language competence for tourism students and employees in a
blended learning language course. Society, Integration, Education, I, 137–157.
Luka, I. (2018). Summative evaluation of online language learning course efficiency
for students studying tourism and hospitality management. Quality Assurance in
Education, 26(4), 446–465.
Luka, I., Pigozne, T., & Surikova, S. (2015). Impact of plurilingualism on learning quality
in evening (shift) schools. Society, Integration, Education, IV, 90–103.
Lusena-Ezera, I., & Liduma, D. (2014). Quality assurance in management studies: Case study
in Liepaja University (Latvia). In 7th International conference of education, research
and innovation. Book Series: ICERI Proceedings, Seville, Spain, pp. 6214–6223.
Marzano, G., Lubkina, V., & Ochoa Siguencia, L. (2016). Key issues in adult non-formal
participatory e-learning. Society, Integration, Education, IV, 69–79.
Marzano, G., Lubkina, V., & Usca, S. (2015). Involving adult educators in quality assessment processes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2174–2181.
Maslo, I., & McGinley, V. A. (2017). Towards to an effective adult learning system governance
quality in Latvia. In Izaicinājumi pieaugušo izglītības kvalitātes pilnveidei: Starptautiskas
zinātniskas konferences rakstu krājums [Challenges for High Quality of Adult Education:
International Scientific Conference: Conference Proceedings], Riga. pp. 150–159.
Maslo, I., Surikova, S., & González, M. J. F. (2014). E-learning for widening participation
in higher education. In E-Learning as a socio-cultural system: A multidimensional
analysis (pp. 21–42). Philadelphia, PA: IGI Global.
McGrath, V. (2009). Reviewing the evidence on how adult students learn: An examination of knowles’ model of andragogy. Adult Learner: The Irish Journal of Adult and
Community Education, 99, 110.
Medveckis, A. (2016). The reflection of Pedagogue’s identity in the life activities: Theoretical
research model. Society, Integration, Education, IV, 80–96.
174
Ineta Luka et al.
Mezinska, S. (2012). Evaluation of students’ research activities in the design study
­programmes at Rezekne higher education institution. Society, Integration, Education,
I, 345–358.
Muller, D., & Funnell, P. (1992). An exploration of the concept of quality in vocational
education and training. Educational and Training Technology International, 29,
257–261. doi:10.1080/0954730920290309
Pata, K., Maslo, I., & Gedvilas, P. (2017). Part II: Country-specific review: Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania. In N. Kersh & H. Toiviainen (Eds.), Broad research on adult
education in the EU (pp. 61–114). Retrieved from http://www.uta.fi/edu/en/transit/
index/D2.1.Report.30.6.2017.pdf
Pieaugušo izglītība. (2015). Adult education. The webpage of the Ministry of Education
and Science of Latvia. Retrieved from www.muzizglitiba.lv/pieauguso-izglitiba/15
Pieaugušo izglītības politika Latvijā. (2015). Adult education policy in Latvia. The webpage
of the Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia. Retrieved from http://www.
muzizglitiba.lv/izglitibas-politika
Pigozne, T., & Usca, S. (2015). Case of Latvia in the evaluation of adult educators: Issues
and solutions. Society, Integration, Education, IV, 165–177.
Prokofjeva, N., Zagulova, D., Katalnikova, S., & Synytsya, K. (2018). Possible uses of
computer systems in university training of IT professioanls. Society, Integration,
Education, V, 390–401.
Prudnikova, I. (2018). Pedagogu profesionālās kompetences pilnveides nodrošināšana
iekļaujošā izglītībā [Provision of the Development of the Professional Competence
of Teachers in Inclusive Education]. Society, Integration, Education, III, 127–136.
Pūre, D. (2014). Actvization of self-guided learning in process of implementation of education. Society, Integration, Education, I, 217–224.
Rudzinska, I., Pop, A., & Dredetianu, M. (2015). Student creativity boosting with digital
activities to enhance course quality. Society, Integration, Education, I, 341–347.
Samuseviča, A. (2014). Sources of pedagogical experience in the study process. Society,
Integration, Education, I, 241–250.
Saulīte, M., & Andersone, R. (2016). Karjeras vadības prasmju attīstības identificēšanas
problēmas podologu studiju procesā [Identification of career management skills
related problems in the study process of podologists]. Society, Integration, Education,
I, 221–230.
Stepanova, J. (2016). Third generation learning in business English. Society, Integration,
Education, I, 241–249.
Timoshtchenko, J., & Bavrina, L. (2008). ICT use in creating environment supporting study
process at university level. European Integration Studies, 2, 31–37.
Tovey, P. (1994). Quality assurance in continuing professional education: An analysis.
London: Routledge.
Tusting, K., & Barton, D. (2003). Models of adult learning: A literature review. Leicester:
NIACE.
Vintere, A., Čerņajeva, S., & Koroļova, J. (2014). Challenges in work with adults: The
situation analysis in Latvia. Society, Integration, Education, II, 248–259.
Vocational Education Law. (1999). Adopted by the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia on
10.06.1999. In force with amendments. Retrieved from https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/
id/20244-vocational-education-law
Woodhouse, D. (1999). Quality and quality assurance, quality and internationalisation in
higher education. In H. De Wit, J. Knight (Eds.), Quality and internationalisation in
higher education (pp. 29–43). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Zariņa, S., Drelinga, E., Iliško, D., & Krastiņa, E. (2016). Teacher’s vocation and students’
attitudes towards a choice of teacher’s vocation. Society, Integration, Education, I,
265–274.
Žogla, I. (2001). Didaktikas teorētiskie pamati [Theoretical basis of didactics]. Riga: Raka.
Index
Note: Page numbers followed by “n” indicate notes.
A Nation at Risk report, 18
Academic achievement, 38, 73
Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology
(ABET), 141
Active learning, 21
Adult education (AE), 8–9, 154. (see
also Distant education;
Higher education)
adult learner needs, 161
adult self-directed learning, 158
humanistic approach to AL,
157–158
in Latvia, 156
licensing and accreditation of AE
programmes, 164
QA in context of AE in Latvia,
157, 162–165
research methodology, 165
research outcomes concerning QA
in Latvia, 165–170
Adult learner needs, 161
Adult learning (AL), 157
experience, 158–160
motivation, 160–161
orientation, 161–162
Adult self-directed learning, 158
American education, critical thinking
in, 16–18
American Psychological
Association, 18
Andragogy principles, 157
Argument mapping, 21–22
ASEAN University Network–Quality
Criteria Assurance
(AUN-QA), 139
Assessment, 92–93
Assessment and Quality Assurance
Committee (AQAC), 47
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business
(AACSB), 141
Atatürk nationalism, 65
Atatürk’s revolutions and
principles, 65
Attention, 36–37
Attitudes of teachers, 121
Authentic conversations, 41
Benchmark, 46
Circuit office, 90
Classroom climate, 76
Co-education, principle of, 65
Cognitive skills, 112
Collaboration, communication,
creativity, and critical
thinking of learning (four
Cs of learning), 6, 20
Collaborative learning, 21
Collaborative teaching, 112
Collegiate pedagogical leadership, 41
Compulsory education, 35,
64, 131
Constructivism, 68
Constructivist learning approaches, 68
Continuity, principle of, 65
Cooperation between school and
family, principle of, 65
Cooperative education system, 134
Council for Higher Education (CHE),
105–106
Council of the University of Thailand
QA (CUPT QA), 140
176
Index
Critical thinking, 6, 14, 15
in American education, 16–18
challenges, 14–15
in elementary school, 24
general, infusion, immersion,
and mixed approaches to
teaching of, 19
at high school level, 23
in middle school, 23–24
models and theories, 16
pedagogy in United States, 19–22
taxonomies, 15
at university level, 22–23
Curriculum, 36
Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement (CAPS), 88–89
Curriculum level, IQA procedures at,
139–140
Delphi Report, 18
Democracy education, principle of, 65
Department of Basic Education
(DBE), 88
Distant education. (see also Adult
education (AE))
high school, 66–67
secondary school, 66
Diversity, 118–119
e-Learning, 20
Eastern Cape (EC), 90
EBSCO database, 165, 167
Education Act (1999), 130
Education Criteria for Performance
Excellence (EdPEx), 139
Education Law (1999), 156, 163
Education Quality Assurance Law,
6, 46
Education(al), 5–7, 64, 67, 88
development, 3
development policy, 156–157
inclusion, 118
institutions, 143
management, 70
principle of education
everywhere, 65
project in institutions, 37–38
quality, 29–30
reform frame, 133
system, 107, 118
Effective schools, 74–76
Effectiveness, 34, 75
Efficiency, 34
Elementary school, critical thinking
in, 24
Emotional skills, 112
Equal opportunity, principle of, 61
Equity, 34
European Proficiency Framework, 78
European Union (EU), 156
‘Evidence culture’, 48
External assessment, 47–48
External QA (EQA), 130, 136,
141–145
indicators for, 150–153
Faculty levels, IQA procedures at,
140–141
Flipped Classroom Model, 21
Functional inclusion, 107
General secondary education, 66
Generality and equality, principle
of, 64
High school level, critical thinking
at, 23
Higher education, 8–9
quality assessment in, 71–73
TQF for, 135–137
Higher Education Act (2019), 135
Higher Education Council (YÖK), 72
Higher education institutions (HEI), 130
Higher-order thinking, 15
‘Human development’, 38
Human education process, 156
Humanistic approach to AL, 157–158
Imam hatip secondary school, 66
Inclusion, 49
advantages and challenges for
parents during, 111–112
Index
advantages and challenges for
pupils during, 111
advantages and challenges for
teachers during, 110–111
challenges and opportunities
through inclusion, 110
of children with special needs, 103
as legislated throughout history,
104–105
policy and processes in Israel,
106–110
raising quality of teacher training,
112–113
society, 103–104
teacher training in Israel, 105–106
Inclusion Law, 104, 108–109
Inclusive education, 40, 119
Individual and society needs, principle
of, 64
Individual pedagogical leadership, 40
Informal assessment, 95
Institutional levels, IQA procedures
at, 140–141
Institutional self-assessment, 69–70
Instructional leadership, 77
Interdisciplinary teaching, 112
Internal QA system (IQA system),
136, 139–141
Internal quality assurance (IQA), 152
International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO), 141
Israel, teacher training in, 105–106
Israeli inclusion law, 104
Law on Institutions of Higher
Education, 163
Leadership developement in
community, 40–41
Learning, 91. (see also Adult learning
(AL))
environment, 157
experience, 159–160
networks, 39
skills, 76
and teaching processes, 70
teamwork, 111
177
Lifelong learning (LLL), 156, 163
Local inclusion, 107
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award (MBNQA), 141
Mediated Learning Experience theory
(MLE theory), 104
Metacognitive skills, 112
Middle school, critical thinking in,
23–24
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB), 74
Ministry of Education (MOE),
108–109, 133
Ministry of Higher Education,
Science, Research, and
Innovation (MHESI), 132
Ministry of National Education
(MoNE), 69, 78
Ministry of University Affairs
(MUA), 130
National Economic and Social
Development Plan, 136
National Education Act, 136–138
National Education Standards,
134–135
National educational system (NES),
47, 67
National Higher Education
Plan, 136
Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS), 23
Non-experimental mixed-type
research design, 119–120
Non-formal AE programmes, 163
Non-university education system
quality in Spain, 35–37
Office of National Education
Standards and Quality
Assessment (ONESQA), 130
Office of the Higher Education
Commission (OHEC), 132
One-size-fits-all approach, 40
Organic Law on Education (LOE),
35–36
178
Index
Organic Law on General Regulation
of the Educational System
(LOGSE), 35
Organic Law on the Improvement
of Educational Quality
(LOMCE), 36
Organic Law on the Participation,
Evaluation and
Governance of Educational
Centres (LOPEG), 35
Organic Law on the Quality of
Education (LOCE), 35
Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and
Development (OECD),
18, 89
Orientation, principle of, 64
Pedagogical/pedagogy, 3–5
approach, 94
education and schools, 5–7
higher education and adult
education, 8–9
leadership, 40
special education, 7–8
training, 38
Performance indicators, 47
Personally adapted teaching, 112
Philosophy for Children (P4C), 21
Planning, principle of, 65
Practical skills, 112
Pre-school education, 66
Pre-service training, 38–39
Primary education, 120
Primary education institutions, 66
Problem solving, 14
Problem-based learning, 20
Professional development, 38
Programme for International
Student Assessment
(PISA), 32, 36
Project-based design, 20
Project-based learning, 19
Qualifications, 47
Qualitative analysis, 91
Quality assurance (QA), 4–5, 73, 104,
130, 157, 157
developing and managing QA in
Thai Higher Education,
136–139
education management, 70
field of education, 79–80
in higher education, 71–73
initiatives for educational QA,
78–79
institutional self-assessment, 69–70
learning and teaching processes, 70
methodology, 46
support services, 70–71
teacher training and initiatives for
educational QA, 77
teacher training in Turkey, 77–78
in Turkish Education System, 69
in vocational and technical
education, 71
Quality indicators, 146
Quality management, 49
Quality of education, 29–30, 47.
(see also Vocational and
technical secondary
education)
developing leadership in
community, 40–41
educational project in institutions,
37–38
elements and strategies to improve
educational quality, 37
non-university education system
quality in Spain, 35–37
perspectives and priorities for, 33
promoting attention to diversity in
educational process, 39–40
shift from educational goals to
indicators, 30–32
synergy between and integration of
pedagogical approaches for
quality framework, 32–34
teacher training and professional
development, 38–39
Quantative indicators, 77–78
Questionnaire-Scale, 120
Index
Reflexivity, 34
Relevance, 34
Research and development (R&D), 133
Responsiveness, 34
Right to education, principle of, 64
Romanian educational system, 50
Romanian quality legislation, 46
Romanian schools, quality assurance in
literature review, 46–49
methodology, 49–52
research results, 52–59
SAGE database, 165, 167
Schools, 5–7, 119
Science education, 88
Scientific, principle of, 65
SCOPUS database, 165, 167
Secondary education, 66
Secularism, principle of, 65
Self-assessment reports (SAR), 139
Self-directed learning, 158
Skills, 134
Social inclusion, 107
Society in education, 103–105
Sociocultural theory, 105
Solid pedagogy theories, 3
South Africa
assessment approaches and
alignment to pedagogical
approaches, 94–95
CAPS, 88–89
congruence between pedagogical
and assessment
approaches, 91
methodology, 90–91
teachers determining assessment
method, 95–96
teachers’ common understanding
and rationale for
assessment, 91–94
theoretical framework, 89–90
Spain, education quality in, 29–41
Special Education Law, 106–107
Special educational needs (SEN), 51
Standards, 46, 48
Structural Cognitive Modifiability, 105
179
Subject advisors, 91
Support services, 70–71
Sustainability, 34
Systems theory framework, 89
Systems thinking, 90
Teacher
conceptual framework, 119–120
diversity, 118
methodology, 120
perception in State of Sonora, 118
research design and participants, 120
results, 120–123
training, 38
training in Israel, 105–106
Teaching, 67
practice, 118
Teaching and Learning International
Survey (TALIS), 74
Teaching and Learning Research
Programme, 88
Technocratic rationalisation, 34
Thai higher education institutions.
(see also Turkish Education
System)
developing and managing QA in
Thai Higher Education,
136–139
external QA, 141–145
Higher Education Standards, 135
indicators for external quality
assessment, 150–153
internal QA, 139–141
national context and holistic
information of Thailand’s
higher education system,
130–134
National Education Standards,
134–135
research on effectiveness of QA
practices in Thai HEIs,
146–147
structure of education system in
Thailand, 132
TQF for higher education,
135–136
180
Index
Thailand Qualification Framework
(TQF), 135
for higher education, 135–137
Thailand Quality Award (TQA), 141
Traditional teacher-centred
approaches, 67–68
Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study
(TIMSS), 74
Turkish Education System, 65
constructivist learning approaches, 68
formal education, 65–67
initiatives for quality assurance in,
69–73
non-formal education, 67
pedagogical approaches in
Turkey, 67
pedagogical features of National
Education System, 64–65
results from empirical studies on
school effectiveness and
teacher characteristics,
73–77
teacher training and initiatives for
educational QA, 77–80
traditional teacher-centred
approaches, 67–68
University level, critical thinking at,
22–23
Vocational and technical secondary
education, 66
quality assessment in, 71
Vocational Education Law, 163
Web of Science (WoS), 165–166
QA in, 168