Conceptualising educational quality in Learning Communities

Author(s):

Tamas Harangozo (presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES H 04, Efficacy and Success in Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

11:00-12:30

Room:

OB-E2.38 (ALE 4)

Chair:

Iveta Kestere

Contribution

Conceptualising educational quality has been characterised by two major traditions: an economist that mostly judges quality based on financial returns, cost-efficiency of programs with the use of indicators; and a humanist/progressive one that focuses more on the role of education in overcoming inequalities and establishing social well-being. Many authors suggest (e.g. Barrett et al., 2006; Tikly, 2011) that the dominance of the economist approach, with few exceptions, has made the western episteme of understanding quality in education prevail, which impedes grasping the complexity of outcomes in unique educational programs that do not fit neatly in either of the two approaches. Learning Communities, a school transformation model based on a large-scale longitudinal research project (INCLUD-ED: Strategies for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe from Education 2006-2011), is one of these programs. It has been evidenced that inclusion and utilisation of the cultural knowledge of parents, community members and social workers in classrooms and school matters not only improve students academic performance, solidarity and equality in general, but also lead to a more efficient school operation and the socio-economic development of the surrounding community.

The main obejctive of the paper was to find out how educational quality is defined in Learning Communities when characteristics of the economist and humanist/progressive traditions are equally discernible. The following two research questions were identified. What are the underlying quality-related assumptions in research papers discussing Learning Communities? How consistent the quality concept of Learning Communities is with the major approaches to educational quality?

The theoretical framework is based on a five-component model that is proposed as a tool to analyse education quality. It includes effectiveness, efficiency, equality, relevance and sustainability. The model is argued to be independent from any tradition of quality concept, as they were identified by a literature review that involved both economist and humanist/progressive accounts. This framework was intentionally chosen to allow for a more objective approach in analysing the quality concept.

Method

In the study a qualitative research approach was taken and document analysis was used as a primary method which explores different historical, political, social, economic and personal aspects of the research questions (Mills et al., 2010). The social and the personal perspectives are emphasised in the paper. A thematic analysis was applied both as a descriptive and a data reduction strategy, and it helped to identify patterns in the data (Given, 2008). The analysis is inductive and it has a bottom-up approach. Different themes and subthemes were identified, some of which emerged from either the literature review or the theoretical framework and along the process of analysis. Common themes with regard to quality were identified and contested against the wider research findings that was previously outlined in the literature review. Designing the tool for analysis was based on a literature review that was previously conducted. While choosing the theoretical framework, it was important to take an unbiased view that allowed for analysing the data from multiple perspectives instead of prioritising one. The primary source for data were provided by 14 academic pieces of work e.g. reports, research papers, and case studies. 4 of the writings were connected to the conceptualisation of educational quality, and 10 were those discussing the findings of the INCLUD-ED Research from a wider perspective. Excerpts from these topics were taken into consideration and scrutinised from two angles: sociological on the one hand to gain insight into the underlying terms and ideology of Learning Communities as a construct; and a cognitive perspective on the other hand to involve the learning aspect of the model.

Expected Outcomes

There were two conclusions regarding the theoretical framework. Firstly, relevance and external effectiveness in the reviewed cases tend to be connected meaning that what in the analysis appeared to be relevant for education, seemed to be valid for what schools were defined to stand for. In other words, educational program serves the goals of schooling (external effectiveness) and the goals of schooling are aligned with the needs of the community (relevance). The other point concerns the relationship between equality and efficiency. In many cases efficiency is ensured on the cost of equality (Barrett et al., 2006). In the case of Learning Communities, this tension is resolved, because one factor that increases efficiency is the reallocation of human resources (parents’, community members’, social workers’ participation) contributes to a stronger social cohesion, thus promoting equality.  As for the traditions of educational quality concepts, Learning Communities is difficult to classify as it does not fit in either approach. Although, many of its characteristics are mostly associated with the humanist/progressive approach (e.g. focus on inclusive school processes, pedagogies, democratic school governance) there are many that are associated with the economist view (e.g. strong emphasis on development, cost-efficiency, high academic attainment, especially in literacy & numeracy skills). Thus considering the actual needs of the local environment through educational programs can be more beneficial economically and in a progressive humanist sense than thinking of educational quality in ‘either-or’ dichotomies.  The findings revealed a more subtle understanding of quality, according to which efficiency and equality are not contradictory principles, the purpose and mission of schools respond to the need to equip students with what is necessary to cope with issues in their actual community, but at the same time basic skills are developed and positive results reflected in indicators are delivered too.  

References

Alexiu, T. M., & Sorde, T. (2011). How to turn difficulties into opportunities: Drawing from diversity to promote social cohesion. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(1), 49-62. Aubert, A., Flecha, A., García, C., Flecha, R., & Racionero, S. (2008). Aprendizaje dialógico en la sociedad de la información. Barcelona: Hipatia. 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. England: EdQual. Díez, J., Gatt, S., & Racionero, S. (2011). Placing immigrant and minority family and community members at the school's centre: The role of community participation. European Journal of Education, 46(2), 184-196. Flecha, A. (2012). Family education improves student’s academic performance: Contributions from European Research. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 301–321. Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing words: Theory and practice of dialogic learning. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Flecha, R. (2011). The dialogic sociology of education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(1), 7-20. Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2013). Turning difficulties into possibilities: Engaging Roma families and students in school through dialogic learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 451-465. García Carrión R. (2012). Out of the ghetto psychological basis of dialogic learning. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 1(1), 51–69. Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. London, UK: SAGE. INCLUD-ED Consortium. (2015). Successful educational actions for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe. New York: Springer. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol 1). NewYork: Sage Publications. Ríos, O., Herrero, C., & Rodríguez, H. (2013). From Access to Education: The Revolutionary Transformation of Schools as Learning Communities. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6(2), 239-253. Soler, M. (2004). Reading to share: Accounting for others in dialogic literary gatherings. In M. Bertau (Ed.), Aspects of the Dialogic Self. International Cultural-Historical Human Sciences. Berlin: Lehmanns Media. Tikly, L. (2011). Towards a framework for researching the quality of education in low‐income countries. Comparative Education, 47(1), 1-23. Valls, R., & Kyriakides, L. (2013). The power of Interactive Groups: how diversity of adults volunteering in classroom groups can promote inclusion and success for children of vulnerable minority ethnic populations. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(1), 17-33.

Author Information

Tamas Harangozo (presenting / submitting)

University College London

Institute of Education

Kozarmisleny

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.