You are on page 1of 217

Problems of Education in the 21st Century, ISSN 1822-7864

VOLUME 20, 2010

ISSUES IN EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH – 2010

Scientific Methodical Center „Scientia Educologica“, Lithuania,


the associated member of Lithuanian Scientific Society and ICASE
(International Council of Associations for Science Education)

The articles appearing in this scientific journal are indexed and abstracted in EBSCO:
Education Research Complete (http://search.ebscohost.com),
Copernicus Index (http://www.indexcopernicus.com),
the Asian Education Index (http://www.asian-education-index.com/education_journals_index_P.php)
and list of Science Education Journals (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~rudged/journals.html)
Pub­lis­her

Scien­ti­fic Met­ho­di­cal Cen­ter „Scien­tia Edu­co­lo­gi­ca“, Lit­hu­a­nia, the as­so­cia­ted mem­ber of Lit­hu­a­
nian Scien­ti­fic So­cie­ty and In­ter­na­tio­nal Coun­cil of As­so­cia­tions for Scien­ce Edu­ca­tion (ICASE)

Edi­tor

Prof.dr. Vin­cen­tas La­ma­naus­kas, Scien­ti­fic Met­ho­di­cal Cen­tre „Scien­tia Edu­co­lo­gi­ca“, Re­pub­lic of


Lit­hu­a­nia

Edi­to­rial Bo­ard

Dr., prof. Bo­ris Aber­šek, Uni­ver­si­ty of Ma­ri­bor, Slo­ve­nia


Dr., prof. Ag­nal­do Ar­roio, Uni­ver­si­ty of São Pau­lo, Bra­zil
Dr., prof. Mar­tin Bi­lek, Hra­dec Kra­lo­ve Uni­ver­si­ty, Cze­chia
Dr., prof. An­dris Broks, Uni­ver­si­ty of Lat­via, Lat­via
Dr., prof. Ja­nis Ged­ro­vics, Ri­ga Te­acher Trai­ning and Edu­ca­tio­nal Ma­na­ge­ment Aca­de­my, Lat­via
Dr. To­dar T. Lakh­vich, Be­la­ru­sian Sta­te M.Tank Pe­da­go­gi­cal Uni­ver­si­ty, Re­pub­lic of Be­la­rus
Dr. Ele­o­no­ra Mel­nik, Ka­re­lian Sta­te Pe­da­go­gi­cal Uni­ver­si­ty, Re­pub­lic of Ka­re­lia, Rus­sia
Dr. Yuriy Pe­lekh,
Dr. Ula­dzi­mir K. Sla­bin, Uni­ver­si­ty of Ore­gon, USA
Dr. Lai­ma Rai­lie­nė, Scien­ti­fic Met­ho­di­cal Cen­tre „Scien­tia Edu­co­lo­gi­ca“, Re­pub­lic of Lit­hu­a­nia
Dr., prof. Bo­ris­lav V. Tos­hev, So­fia Uni­ver­si­ty, Bul­ga­ria

Co­py­right of this scien­ti­fic col­lec­tion en­tit­led Is­su­es in Edu­ca­tio­nal Re­se­arch – 2010 is the pro­per­ty of
Scien­ti­fic Met­ho­di­cal Cen­tre “Scien­tia Edu­co­lo­gi­ca”, Lit­hu­a­nia. All rights re­ser­ved. No part of this bo­
ok may be rep­ro­du­ced or tran­smit­ted in any form or by any me­ans, elec­tro­nic or me­cha­ni­cal, inc­lu­ding
pho­to­co­py­ing, re­cor­ding, or any in­for­ma­tion sto­ra­ge and ret­rie­val sys­tem, wit­hout per­mis­sion in wri­ting
from the co­py­right hol­ders.

Pro­blems of Edu­ca­tion in the 21st Cen­tu­ry is an in­ter­na­tio­nal, pe­ri­odi­cal, pe­er re­vie­wed scien­ti­fic
jour­nal, is­su­ed by the SMC „Scien­tia Edu­co­lo­gi­ca“.

Ad­dress: Scien­ti­fic Met­ho­di­cal Cen­ter “Scien­tia Edu­co­lo­gi­ca”


Do­ne­lai­čio Stre­et 29, LT-78115 Siau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia
E-mail: pro­blem­so­fe­du­ca­tion@gmail.com
Pho­ne: +370 687 95668
WEB pa­ge: http://www.gu.pro­jek­tas.lt; http://www.jbse.we­bin­fo.lt/Pro­blems_of_Edu­ca­tion.htm

ISSN 1822-7864 © SMC „Scientia Educologica“, Lithuania, 2010


© Authors, 2010

The authors of the articles and studies are responsible for the scientific content and stylistic aspects of the texts
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

Contents

Edi­to­rial

DISAGREEMENTS AND PARADOXES OF EDUCATION...........................................................5


Vin­cen­tas La­ma­naus­kas

Ar­tic­les

RANKING OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS IN NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS:


THE PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS............................................................ 10
Ja­ne K. Amun­ga, Mau­ri­ce M. Ama­da­lo, Ju­lius K. Mai­yo

Sta­tis­tics & Pro­ba­bi­li­ty Edu­ca­tion in South Af­ri­ca:


Const­raints of Le­ar­ning......................................................................................... 25
Anass Ba­y­a­ga

TWO EUROPEAN RESPONSES TO ASSURE QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION..................... 36


An­drea Bern­hard

The suc­ces­sful in­teg­ra­tion of fo­reign-born in­struc­tors


in the aca­de­me: Les­sons from Is­ra­el’s lar­gest pub­lic col­le­ge.......................... 44
Ya’arit Bo­kek-Co­hen, Nit­za Da­vi­do­vich

REFLECTIVE LEARNING MODELS IN THE CONTEXT OF HIGHER EDUCATION:


CONCEPT ANALYSIS....................................................................................................... 58
Re­mi­gi­jus Bub­nys, Vil­ma Žy­džiū­nai­tė

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF STUDY PROGRAM MANAGERS:


TOPICALITY AND ESSENCE............................................................................................. 71
Dai­na Cel­ma, Aus­ma Go­lu­be­va

Dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en le­ar­ning facts and com­plex phe­no­me­na A


le­ar­ning stu­dy in his­to­ry ba­sed on Va­ria­tion The­o­ry........................................ 80
Mo­na Holm­qvist, Kar­men Björkman, Ma­lin Oh­lin

TWO COMPLEMENTARY ASPECTS OF CONTEMPORARY vo­cal pe­da­go­gy........................ 93


Vai­ke Ki­ik-Sa­lu­pe­re, Ja­an Ross

THE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES OF THE 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL TEACHER.............. 104


Ke­te­van Ko­ba­lia, El­za Ga­ra­ka­ni­dze
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

 ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION AS A CRITERION


IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN POLAND.................................................. 109
Mar­ze­na Ok­ra­sa

CULTURAL CAPITAL AND THE RICHES OF MANNA: INTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANT


SCIENTISTS IN ISRAELI ACADEMIA.............................................................................. 118
Nit­za Da­vi­do­vitch, Dan So­en, Zi­la Si­nu­a­ny-Stern

Re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness and re­a­ding pre­fe­ren­ces of THE 6th


gra­de stu­dents of ba­sic scho­ol in es­to­nia........................................................ 135
An­ne Uusen

Rus­sian-Es­to­nian Bi­lin­gu­a­lism Re­se­arch and its Prac­ti­cal Me­a­ning


for Es­to­nian Scho­ols............................................................................................. 146
Na­ta­lia Zam­ko­va­ja, Iri­na Mois­se­jen­ko, Na­ta­lia Tshui­ki­na

Stan­dards for Field Eva­lu­a­tions of Mo­di­fi­ca­tions to


Edu­ca­tio­nal Set­tings............................................................................................. 156
Al­bert Zieg­ler, Dia­na Schim­ke, Heid­run Sto­e­ger, Pe­ter Mer­rot­sy

Общее понятие и законы формирования социального заказа


в области образования......................................................................................... 170
Тамара А. Арташкина

Особенности инклюзивного дополнительного образования детей


с ограниченными возможностями развития.................................................... 182
Надя Бизова

Герменевтический подход к проектированию образовательного


процесса в системе высшего профессионального образования.................. 191
Ирина М. Бродская, Наталья О. Верещагина

Модель-конструкт интерактивного модульного учебника


(направление подготовки «реклама и связи с общественностью»)............. 199
Ольга Н. Кравченко

Внедрение ИКТ в практику управления образовательным учреждением...... 206


Наталья Вронская

In­for­ma­tion

„Information & communication technology in natural science


education – 2010“.................................................................................................... 214

Jour­nal of BALTIC Scien­ce Edu­ca­tion................................................................... 215


PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

DISAGREEMENTS AND PARADOXES OF EDUCATION

Vin­cen­tas La­ma­naus­kas
Uni­ver­si­ty of Šiau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia
E-mail: v.la­ma­naus­kas@ef.su.lt

Lis­ten, watch and ke­ep si­len­ce if you want to en­joy li­fe...


He­ri­ta­ge lan­gu­a­ge
In­tro­duc­tion

Why the 21st cen­tu­ry scho­lars start rai­sing their voi­ces whi­le fa­cing troub­les and dif­fi­cul­ties
in the field of edu­ca­tion. To iden­ti­fy the si­tu­a­tion, it is worth ha­ving a clo­ser lo­ok at the pre­sent
scho­o­ling sys­tem. Post-mo­dern li­fe and edu­ca­tion mo­re and mo­re fre­qu­ent­ly are co­ming in­to for­ce.
Su­per­fi­cia­li­ty be­co­mes a com­mon phe­no­me­non. On­ly avai­lab­le re­gu­lar­ly used and easi­ly with no ef­
fort achie­ved at­trac­ti­ve things are gre­at­ly ap­pre­cia­ted. What is mo­re, on­ly mi­ni­mal ef­forts are ta­ken
to gain a bro­a­der edu­ca­tio­nal bac­kground. Qui­te a few coun­tries dis­play si­mi­lar ten­den­cies. On the
ot­her hand, edu­ca­tion is fre­qu­ent­ly tre­a­ted as a pro­duct or a kind of ser­vi­ce. The laws of the wild
mar­ket fail to get round this area of li­fe. The cho­sen li­fe sty­le (inc­lu­ding edu­ca­tion) rat­her than the
me­a­ning of li­fe and edu­ca­tion it­self of­ten play a cru­cial ro­le.

Li­ving with Di­sag­re­e­ments on Edu­ca­tion!

The­re is no ne­ed to be an ex­pert per­fec­tly kno­wing mat­ters of edu­ca­tion to find out not eve­
ryt­hing works in the sys­tem of edu­ca­tion. Al­so, it se­ems to be cle­ar that the eva­lu­a­tion of tho­se
wor­king in the ‘fields’ of edu­ca­tion can­not be re­jec­ted. I sup­po­se the lat­ter are not the ma­jo­ri­ty as
mo­re and mo­re fre­qu­ent­ly ‘stran­gers’ gain ac­cess to the edu­ca­tion sys­tem. Dis­cus­sions with the
rep­re­sen­ta­ti­ves of ot­her coun­tries ha­ve re­ve­a­led that tho­se cur­rent­ly stu­dy­ing edu­ca­tio­nal sub­jects
at uni­ver­si­ties usu­al­ly fail to un­ders­tand what the scho­ol is and what ro­le they are going to play in
this ins­ti­tu­tion. The most im­por­tant point is stu­dy­ing and re­cei­ving a di­plo­ma. Mo­dern edu­ca­tion
en­coun­ters a lar­ge num­ber of dif­fe­rent pro­blems the ans­wers to which can be hard­ly found.
Thus, the ve­ry first di­sag­re­e­ment is one bet­we­en the ne­ces­si­ties of pro­vi­ding a cre­a­ti­ve, so­cial­
ly chan­ge­ab­le and al­te­ra­tion de­ter­mi­ning en­vi­ron­ment and the pre­va­len­ce of ap­ply­ing ver­bal-bo­o­
kish met­hods for edu­ca­tio­nal pur­po­ses. Alt­hough te­achers ex­pend enor­mous ef­forts, a de­ci­sion on
the abo­ve men­tio­ned di­sag­re­e­ment is not re­a­ched and on­ly a ve­ry slight ho­pe can be se­en it will be
ma­de in the fu­tu­re. A si­mi­lar si­tu­a­tion exists whi­le ge­ne­ra­ting a dis­cus­sion on the ne­ed for ‘ha­ving
the le­ad’ in the field of chan­ges (al­te­ra­tions) and a con­ser­va­ti­ve edu­ca­tion sys­tem re­flec­ting the al­
re­a­dy pro­du­ced chan­ges in li­fe. To so­me pur­po­se, a te­acher (pre­sent) brings past (know­led­ge) for
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010


the fu­tu­re (chil­dren). No one can de­ny that anot­her di­sag­re­e­ment can be no­ti­ced which is one bet­
we­en the ne­ed to pur­po­se­ful­ly pe­da­go­gi­cal­ly ma­na­ge the de­ve­lop­ment of eve­ry sin­gle per­so­na­li­ty
and ac­tu­al­ly exis­ting dis­so­lu­tion of the edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess (un­re­al se­pa­ra­tion) com­bi­ned with the
in­con­sis­ten­cy of pe­da­go­gi­cal im­pacts (te­achers of­ten work se­pa­ra­te­ly from one anot­her on the ba­sis
of their per­so­nal know­led­ge and un­ders­tan­ding). Des­pi­te ta­ken in­to ac­count all wis­hes the pre­sent­
ly ob­ser­ved abun­dan­ce of dif­fe­rent gui­de­li­nes and re­or­ga­ni­za­tions re­mains bro­ken in­to pie­ces. The
sup­pres­sion of such si­tu­a­tion is a re­gu­lar event pro­po­sing this is dif­fe­rent. A num­ber of pro­du­ced
the­o­ries about how to ma­ke the edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess mo­re ef­fec­ti­ve are left un­re­a­li­zed due to va­rio­
us re­a­sons. First, scho­o­ling prac­ti­ce is so­met­hing dif­fe­rent. The­o­ries lo­se their vi­ta­li­ty. On the one
hand, re­qui­re­ments for how to inc­re­a­se ac­ti­vi­ties of le­ar­ners as the main sub­jects of the edu­ca­tio­nal
pro­cess are im­po­sed, whe­re­as on the ot­her - their sta­tus sta­ys pas­si­ve and si­mi­lar to that of pas­si­ve
ob­jects ha­ving a pe­da­go­gi­cal im­pact which is ob­jec­ti­ve truth as in the bi­na­ry pro­cess of the in­te­rac­
tion bet­we­en le­ar­ner and te­acher, their ac­ti­vi­ty has in­ver­se cor­re­la­tion. High ac­ti­vi­ty of one of the
com­po­nents holds down ac­ti­vi­ty of the ot­her. Sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly, any kind of edu­ca­tion is mo­re or less
const­raint. Edu­ca­tion, as a ru­le, is or­ga­ni­zed, pur­po­se­ful, co­or­di­na­ted (being co­or­di­na­ted) ac­ti­vi­ty
with ob­jec­ti­ves es­tab­lis­hed by a cer­tain so­cie­ty (the so cal­led so­cial or­der). Ho­we­ver, a pro­blem of
how to achie­ve a pro­per ba­lan­ce bet­we­en the ele­ments of const­raint and per­so­nal fre­e­dom oc­curs.
Though an emp­ha­sis is put on the ne­ces­si­ty of ma­king the edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess mo­re in­ten­si­ve,
ne­vert­he­less, ex­ten­si­ve wa­ys of im­pro­ving it are ac­tu­al­ly pre­vai­ling, e.g. the num­ber of les­sons
inc­re­a­ses, dif­fe­rent in­for­mal edu­ca­tio­nal ac­ti­vi­ties are un­der­ta­ken etc. In this ca­se, anot­her di­sag­re­
e­ment bet­we­en the con­ti­nuo­us qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve de­ve­lop­ment of the edu­ca­tion sys­tem and a con­sis­tent
inc­re­a­se in edu­ca­tion qu­a­li­ty can be no­ti­ced. The lat­ter pro­cess go­es with the dep­re­cia­tion of eva­lu­a­
tions (points and marks) and di­plo­ma. The ana­ly­sis of uni­ver­si­ty cur­ri­cu­la in so­me coun­tries re­ve­als
that the­se do­cu­ments suf­fer from a lack of ho­lis­tic plan­ning and cle­ar phi­lo­sop­hi­cal pro­po­sals. The
in­tro­du­ced si­tu­a­tion re­sults in a com­pi­la­tion of in­co­he­rent cour­ses and is par­ti­cu­lar­ly fa­ced in the
coun­tries of Eastern and Cen­tral Eu­ro­pe, the pla­ces whe­re uni­fied edu­ca­tion has pre­vai­led for a long
ti­me. The ra­pid di­ver­si­fi­ca­tion of edu­ca­tion is a com­mon oc­cur­ren­ce of­ten ta­king the wrong mo­ve.
In­flu­en­ced by the re­gu­la­ri­ties of the mar­ket, in the na­me of sur­vi­val, scho­ols usu­al­ly sac­ri­fi­ce the
qu­a­li­ty of their ac­ti­vi­ties in a bro­ad sen­se.
‘Bu­y­ing’ di­plo­ma is anot­her re­la­ted pro­blem. Qui­te a few dis­cus­sions ha­ve be­en ge­ne­ra­ted and
will li­ke­ly be held in a num­ber of coun­tries in the fu­tu­re. The In­ter­net is full of web si­tes of­fe­ring si­
mi­lar kinds of ser­vi­ces with the es­tab­lis­hed pri­ces. Thus, the mar­ket im­po­ses the ru­les of the ga­me.
Sup­ply and de­mand al­wa­ys go to­get­her.
Des­pi­te the fact that a con­ti­nuo­us pro­cess of inc­re­a­sing the vo­lu­mes of scien­ti­fic and so­cial
in­for­ma­tion is ta­king pla­ce, ho­we­ver, li­mi­ted ter­mi­no­lo­gy on le­ar­ning/stu­dy­ing used by edu­ca­tio­nal
es­tab­lis­hments is re­gu­lar­ly ob­ser­ved. Mo­re­o­ver, the Bo­log­na pro­cess re­qui­res cut­ting the stan­ding
of stu­dies. No at­ten­tion is paid to the eva­lu­a­tion of the pro­mo­ted idea. The pa­ce of li­fe ne­ces­si­ta­tes
growth in any area thus le­a­ving be­hind ri­vals etc. Ne­vert­he­less, the lo­gic of li­fe cle­ar­ly shows that
when gai­ning one thing you lo­se anot­her. The­re is no qu­es­tion of get­ting anyt­hing you want he­re
and now. Eve­ryt­hing has a pri­ce, and the­re­fo­re the on­ly qu­es­tion about how ex­pen­si­ve, when and to
whom mo­ney will be paid ne­eds to be ans­we­red.
Di­sag­re­e­ment bet­we­en an ob­jec­ti­ve ne­ed for a con­ti­nuo­us im­pro­ve­ment on edu­ca­tio­nal con­tent
(is the­re any­o­ne who will da­re to say it is ne­ed­less) and a tra­di­tio­nal pe­da­go­gi­cal re­qui­re­ment for en­
su­ring the sta­bi­li­ty of edu­ca­tio­nal con­tent is anot­her field of the ini­tia­ted dis­cus­sion. A try at im­pro­
ving things is clo­se­ly re­la­ted with the ex­ten­si­ve de­ve­lop­ment of edu­ca­tion, for exam­ple, mo­re and
mo­re al­ter­na­ti­ve cour­se bo­oks and in­for­ma­tion sour­ces for le­ar­ners are pre­pa­red which di­sin­teg­ra­tes
the con­tent of edu­ca­tion. Di­sag­re­e­ment bet­we­en the inc­re­a­sed abst­rac­tness of edu­ca­tion in­flu­en­ced
by gro­wing the­o­re­ti­cal know­led­ge and the ne­ces­si­ty of im­pro­ving prac­ti­cal le­ar­ners’ trai­ning should
be men­tio­ned. An opi­nion that the pro­cess of le­ar­ner/stu­dent trai­ning is too much the­o­re­ti­cal­ly sup­
por­ted can be fre­qu­ent­ly he­ard. In this ca­se, a hu­ge num­ber of re­a­sons could be sug­ges­ted.
Em­plo­y­ers al­so of­ten com­plain that the young ge­ne­ra­tion co­ming on­to the mar­ket is not pro­
per­ly trai­ned. Ho­we­ver, the ot­her si­de of the me­dal exists. So­me of the te­achers eit­her ha­ve no
Vincentas LAMANAUSKAS. Disagreements and Paradoxes of Education
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
con­nec­tion with prac­ti­ce or it is ve­ry we­ak. The­re­fo­re, the on­ly de­ci­sion to be ta­ken is to pre­pa­re 
the would-be spe­cia­lists on the­o­re­ti­cal grounds. Di­sag­re­e­ment bet­we­en the inc­re­a­sed de­gre­es of
edu­ca­tion and the im­por­tan­ce of edu­ca­tio­nal in­di­vi­du­a­li­za­tion in or­der to show the im­ma­nent po­
wers of eve­ry child (le­ar­ner) should be con­si­de­red. In most ins­tan­ces, com­pre­hen­si­ve scho­ol ke­ep
the­se po­wers un­no­ti­ced and unex­pan­ded. To so­me pur­po­se, the U.S.A. al­wa­ys re­fers to the pri­ori­ty
of ma­king edu­ca­tion in­di­vi­du­al. The­re­fo­re, in this ca­se, a qu­es­tion of how to achie­ve a ba­lan­ce bet­
we­en mass and eli­te edu­ca­tion is fa­ced. Eve­ry coun­try is con­fron­ted with pro­blems com­mon for a
cer­tain area.
An in­te­res­ting di­sag­re­e­ment oc­curs bet­we­en ob­jec­ti­ve­ly gro­wing pub­lic de­mand for ha­ving
cre­a­ti­ve, high­ly qu­a­li­fied te­achers/lec­tu­rers and li­mi­ted pos­si­bi­li­ties of sa­tis­fy­ing such ne­ed. As
men­tio­ned abo­ve, mo­re and mo­re scho­ols fail to cho­o­se stron­gly mo­ti­va­ted per­so­na­li­ties ab­le to get
on with pe­da­go­gi­cal work. First of all, this should be a con­cern for tho­se for­mu­la­ting edu­ca­tio­nal
po­li­cy at dif­fe­rent le­vels.
In­for­ma­tion sour­ces sug­gest that re­gar­ding edu­ca­tion, a pub­lic opi­nion of qui­te a few coun­tries
is high­ly po­si­ti­ve and this ma­kes us fe­el hap­py. Ho­we­ver, on the ot­her si­de, re­gu­lar­ly dis­se­mi­na­ted
in­for­ma­tion that pub­lic glad­ly ac­cept pro­vi­ded edu­ca­tion se­ems to be too pro­vo­king in or­der to he­ar
the opi­nions of col­le­a­gu­es from ot­her coun­tries and to re­a­li­ze that work at scho­ol be­co­mes mo­re
and mo­re ar­duo­us. Du­ring the last few years, se­ve­ral coun­tries ha­ve fa­ced stri­kes and pro­test ac­tions
or­ga­ni­zed by te­achers’ or­ga­ni­za­tions. On the one hand, pub­lic re­qui­re­ments for inc­re­a­sing te­achers’
pro­fes­sio­nal skills are cons­tant­ly gro­wing, whe­re­as on the ot­her, in­di­vi­du­al te­achers’ pos­si­bi­li­ties
of ‘cat­ching the right pa­ce of li­fe’ re­main ob­jec­ti­ve­ly li­mi­ted (ti­me spent for self-trai­ning dec­re­a­
ses). Dif­fe­rent ty­pes of at­tes­ta­tion, te­acher trai­ning etc. pre­vent from con­cen­tra­tion on the main
sub­ject – edu­ca­tion in the clas­sro­om. So­cie­ty has an abst­ract po­si­tion on the is­sue that their chil­dren
should be pro­vi­ded with an ap­prop­ria­te bac­kground, and the­re­fo­re it has che­ris­hed a fal­se ho­pe for
ver­sa­ti­le har­mo­nio­us edu­ca­tion. With re­fe­ren­ce to such si­tu­a­tion, edu­ca­tion pla­y­ers ne­glec­ting con­
trol func­tions and abi­li­ty to think of­ten trans­fer all sub­jects and cre­a­te ad­ver­se cir­cums­tan­ces and
he­a­vy phy­si­cal and emo­tio­nal over­lo­ad. This is a fre­qu­ent dis­cus­sion held by phy­si­cians as­ser­ting
that stu­dents and te­achers’ sta­te of he­alth is get­ting wor­se. The so cal­led sta­te ow­ned com­pre­hen­si­ve
scho­ols fail to pro­vi­de the le­ar­ners with ex­pec­ted edu­ca­tion. To sol­ve the­se pro­blems and com­pen­
sa­te mis­for­tu­nes, pri­va­te tu­tors are cal­led for help.
Anot­her di­sag­re­e­ment is worth being dis­cus­sed. Edu­ca­tion re­qui­res mo­re and mo­re in­vest­
ment, par­ti­cu­lar­ly re­for­ma­tion of edu­ca­tion sys­tems (for exam­ple, the U.S.A. spends ap­prox. 300
bil­lion dol­lars an­nu­al­ly). Ne­vert­he­less, dif­fe­rent in­ter­na­tio­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tions re­ve­al that edu­ca­tion
qu­a­li­ty is being re­du­ced. For ins­tan­ce, pre­sent­ly, Rus­sia mo­re and mo­re of­ten co­mes ac­ross the
doc­tri­ne of de­gra­ding edu­ca­tion. Fi­nal­ly, from a fi­nan­cial point of view, va­rio­us ty­pes of re­for­med
edu­ca­tion are re­ci­pient. The fort­hco­ming re­sult can be hard­ly pre­dic­ted. Ti­me is al­so an im­por­tant
fac­tor as ne­ga­ti­ve af­ter-ef­fects can be vi­sib­le fol­lo­wing the re­qui­red amount of ti­me. In this ca­se,
new re­forms are usu­al­ly in­tro­du­ced and the cyc­le is re­pe­a­ted again.
Anot­her di­sag­re­e­ment is ex­tre­me­ly con­tro­ver­sial and can be eit­her ac­cep­ted or re­jec­ted. Ci­vi­li­
za­tion is not being cre­a­ted by bright stu­dents who we­re bril­liant at all sub­jects stu­died at scho­ol and
not by tho­se awar­ded gold me­dals, but by or­di­na­ry le­ar­ners who we­re of­ten ig­no­red by te­achers and
ne­ver had a chan­ce to stu­dy at a col­le­ge or uni­ver­si­ty.
Cer­tain­ly, even mo­re ob­jec­ti­ve­ly exis­ting di­sag­re­e­ments can be dis­cus­sed. Ho­we­ver, the pro­
blem is not the one they can­not be pro­per­ly re­sol­ved as first of all, they ne­ed to be in­den­ti­fied and
on­ly at a la­ter sta­ge – pos­sib­le wa­ys of fin­ding an ap­prop­ria­te so­lu­tion should be de­ve­lo­ped.

Com­mon Edu­ca­tion Pa­ra­do­xes

The abo­ve dis­cus­sed pa­ra­do­xes are clo­se­ly re­la­ted to the so cal­led edu­ca­tion pa­ra­do­xes worth
being lo­o­ked over.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010


The first pa­ra­dox to be men­tio­ned is the one that hu­man ha­ve dif­fe­rent ru­di­ments of phy­si­cal
and phy­sio­lo­gi­cal ex­pe­rien­ce, and thus their edu­ca­tion en­ti­re­ly de­pends on them. When chil­dren are
‘pla­ced’ in the sa­me scho­ol to be pro­per­ly edu­ca­ted, even pres­su­re on them can­not help with achie­
ving go­od re­sults. Pa­rents pre­fer their chil­dren should be tu­to­red in sub­jects that hard­ly ever will
bring suc­cess in the fu­tu­re rat­her than lo­ok for wa­ys of de­ve­lo­ping their in­na­te abi­li­ties. On the one
hand, the­se are ad­di­tio­nal in­co­me, whe­re­as on the ot­her – ex­pen­ses and he­alth pro­blems. In anot­her
way, tu­tors are not al­wa­ys te­achers ha­ving ne­ces­sa­ry qu­a­li­fi­ca­tions. Tu­to­ring is an old phe­no­me­non
wi­desp­re­ad in all coun­tries at all ti­mes. The con­cep­tion is si­mi­lar at all points – a per­son pro­vi­ding
a le­ar­ner with ad­di­tio­nal les­sons on the sub­jects dif­fi­cult to be ac­qui­red at scho­ol (the le­ar­ner is eit­
her has no wish or is not in­te­res­ted in de­a­ling with le­ar­ning things). The car­ried out re­se­arch points
out three main cri­te­ria for ta­king a tu­tor: pre­pa­ra­tion for the fi­nal exams, to ma­ke the ta­ken cour­se
mo­re sys­te­ma­tic and to bet­ter ac­know­led­ge a par­ti­cu­lar sub­ject. The lat­ter in­vol­ves the se­cond pa­ra­
dox – mo­ti­va­tion which is the dri­ving for­ce of te­aching (le­ar­ning). In an op­po­sed way, mo­ti­va­tion
may ‘pre­vent’ from the te­aching (le­ar­ning) pro­cess. The ge­ne­tic sys­tem de­ter­mi­nes the pur­po­se of
self-re­a­li­za­tion. One ty­pe of ac­ti­vi­ty is easi­ly ac­cep­ted and sti­mu­la­ted, the ot­her – ig­no­red (on­ly obe­
y­ed and imi­ta­ted) and the third ty­pe is not su­itab­le to per­form any ac­tion des­pi­te all pos­sib­le di­dac­tic
met­hods and even co­er­ci­ve me­a­su­res. In this ca­se, the ef­fect achie­ved by the tu­tors is tem­po­ra­ry and
has no sen­se. This event is sti­mu­la­ted by a po­li­cy of ge­ne­ral edu­ca­tion ina­de­qu­a­te for the exis­ting si­
tu­a­tion. It should be ta­ken in­to ac­count that a te­acher is one of the ol­dest pro­fes­sions. Ho­we­ver, li­ke
thou­sands of years ago, s/he tells sto­ries, ex­plains ide­as, im­po­ses pe­nal­ties, en­cou­ra­ges and ma­kes
eva­lu­a­tions. Alt­hough psy­cho­lo­gists ag­ree that chil­dren’s cog­ni­ti­ve ac­ti­vi­ty in the clas­sro­om pla­ys
a cru­cial ro­le, te­achers sug­gest it must be un­der con­trol and at mi­ni­mum ex­pen­di­tu­re (eco­no­mists’
point of view). But what is the right op­tion when clas­sro­oms in scho­ols are over­lo­a­ded? Fi­nal­ly,
who will da­re to point out the exact num­ber of chil­dren in the clas­sro­om in ca­se we ad­mit that in­di­
vi­du­al edu­ca­tion is the most ef­fec­ti­ve? The num­ber of le­ar­ners in the ma­jo­ri­ty of Af­ri­can scho­ols
ma­kes 45 – 50 stu­dents. In so­me coun­tries of the con­ti­nent, the amount of tho­se is even hig­her and
re­a­ches 70. Though the si­tu­a­tion is dif­fe­rent in ot­her coun­tries, still, it de­pends on the va­rie­ty of
cir­cums­tan­ces, not on­ly on eco­no­mi­cal po­ten­tial.
One mo­re pa­ra­dox should be ex­plai­ned. A te­acher pla­ys a le­a­ding ro­le which is re­a­li­ty that can­
not be de­nied eit­her by the wi­de so­cie­ty (mas­ses) or po­li­ti­cians and ot­her mem­bers of pub­lic (eli­te).
Ne­vert­he­less, the fact of te­achers’ re­mu­ne­ra­tion for the work they do shows dif­fe­rent. The­re are
on­ly a few coun­tries whe­re te­acher’s job is a high­ly-paid one.
Sys­te­mic pa­ra­dox should al­so be high­ligh­ted. All ele­ments of the edu­ca­tion sys­tem ha­ve plen­
ty of draw­backs, and the­re­fo­re the who­le sys­tem as such con­tains de­fects. A par­tial mo­der­ni­za­tion
of the sys­tem has no sen­se (fol­lo­wing the prin­cip­les of sys­tem func­tio­ning, any im­plant will be
re­jec­ted). Any sys­tem can be re­pla­ced with the one that se­ems to be mo­re at­trac­ti­ve. Tho­se res­pon­
sib­le for edu­ca­tion po­li­cy and exe­cu­tion of­ten cho­o­se the easiest way ba­sed on ste­e­ling ide­as or
pla­gia­rism, i.e. they com­bi­ne dif­fe­rent re­forms and put the mo­dels de­ve­lo­ped in ot­her coun­tries
in­to prac­ti­ce. No­net­he­less, it do­es not me­an that the sa­me mo­del glad­ly ac­cep­ted in one coun­try
will be suc­ces­sful­ly adop­ted in the ot­her. Then, we are proud of how cle­ver we are and what gre­at
our achie­ve­ments can be. Such ‘im­plants’ ve­ry fre­qu­ent­ly fail in suc­ce­e­ding and turn in­to ‘hor­rib­le’
di­sas­ters.
For­ming clas­ses in scho­ols con­cer­ning age can al­so be tre­a­ted as an in­tri­guing pa­ra­dox. When
a part of scho­ol­chil­dren get bo­red, the ot­hers en­coun­ter dif­fi­cul­ties. Con­se­qu­ent­ly, the new met­hods
of te­aching (for exam­ple, ‘ac­ti­ve’ met­hods of te­aching) are in­tro­du­ced. Why not to form clas­ses
ta­king in­to ac­count cog­ni­ti­ve abi­li­ties, thus le­a­ving be­hind this pro­blem fo­re­ver? Es­tab­lis­hing the
ter­mi­no­lo­gy of ge­ne­ral edu­ca­tion is anot­her am­bi­gui­ty. Why must all le­ar­ners ‘sit in the clas­sro­om’
from bell to bell all year round un­til they ha­ve gra­du­a­ted from scho­ol? Set­ting an in­di­vi­du­al pa­ce
should be a mo­re ra­tio­nal de­ci­sion and help with gai­ning for­mal edu­ca­tion at dif­fe­rent ti­me of stu­
dies.
Vincentas LAMANAUSKAS. Disagreements and Paradoxes of Education
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Epi­lo­gue 

Li­fe and edu­ca­tion with no pro­blems is a hard­ly ac­cep­tab­le idea. Ho­we­ver, a wish to stay at a
dis­tan­ce in or­der not to fa­ce the exis­ting pro­blems is one of most aw­ful di­sas­ters pre­sent­ly se­en in
the edu­ca­tion sys­tem. It might be mo­ney can sol­ve all pro­blems as ac­cor­ding to Marx, ‘They ha­ve
by no me­ans me­re­ly one mo­de of af­fir­ma­tion, but rat­her that the dis­tinct cha­rac­ter of their exis­ten­
ce, of their li­fe, is cons­ti­tu­ted by the dis­tinct mo­de of their af­fir­ma­tion. In what man­ner the ob­ject
exists for them, is the cha­rac­te­ris­tic mo­de of their gra­ti­fi­ca­tion. Whe­re­ver the sen­suo­us af­fir­ma­tion
is the di­rect an­nul­ment of the ob­ject in its in­de­pen­dent form (as in eating, drin­king, wor­king up of
the ob­ject, etc.), this is the af­fir­ma­tion of the ob­ject... By pos­ses­sing the pro­per­ty of bu­y­ing eve­ryt­
hing, by pos­ses­sing the pro­per­ty of ap­prop­ria­ting all ob­jects, mo­ney is thus the ob­ject of emi­nent
pos­ses­sion. The uni­ver­sa­li­ty of its pro­per­ty is the om­ni­po­ten­ce of its being. It is the­re­fo­re re­gar­ded
as an om­ni­po­tent being. Mo­ney is the pro­cu­rer bet­we­en man’s ne­ed and the ob­ject, bet­we­en his
li­fe and his me­ans of li­fe...’ (The Po­wer of Mo­ney, Marx, 1844) I stron­gly re­ject this idea. The pro­
blems of edu­ca­tion can­not be sol­ved on­ly on fi­nan­cial grounds. Eve­ry­o­ne fi­gu­res out that vast and
bro­ad know­led­ge as well as full un­ders­tan­ding are re­qui­red to over­co­me the en­coun­te­red pro­blem.
Edu­ca­tion is not a stab­le sys­tem ma­de of in­se­cu­re and po­or­ly de­fi­ned com­po­nents. To find it mo­re
re­liab­le, it must con­tain ex­cess sup­ply, i.e. gui­ded by the prin­cip­le of re­dun­dan­cy. Mo­re in­vest­ments
in edu­ca­tion are ne­ces­sa­ry so that to ex­pect at le­ast mi­ni­mal re­sults and it ma­kes no ac­count that this
idea pas­ses over the pre­sent­ly pre­vai­ling li­be­ral eco­no­mic lo­gics.

Vin­cen­tas La­ma­naus­kas Pro­fes­sor, Siau­liai Uni­ver­si­ty, Na­tu­ral Scien­ce Edu­ca­tion Re­se­arch Cen­tre, 25-119 P.Vi­
šins­kio Stre­et, LT- 76351, Siau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia.
Pho­ne: +370 687 95668.
E-mail: la­ma­naus­kas@pro­jek­tas.lt
Web­si­te: http://www.la­ma­naus­kas.pro­jek­tas.lt
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

10

RANKING OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND


STUDENTS IN NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS:
THE PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS AND
STUDENTS

Ja­ne K. Amun­ga, Mau­ri­ce M. Ama­da­lo, Ju­lius K. Mai­yo


Ma­sin­de Mu­li­ro Uni­ver­si­ty of Scien­ce and Tech­no­lo­gy, Ke­nya
E-mail: jna­mun­ga@yahoo.com, mai­y­o­kip2004@yahoo.com
Abst­ract

The aim of the stu­dy was to in­ves­ti­ga­te the te­achers’ and stu­dents’ per­cep­tion of ran­king scho­ols and
stu­dents in na­tio­nal exa­mi­na­tions. A desc­rip­ti­ve sur­vey de­sign was used and se­con­da­ry scho­ols in Ka­ka­
me­ga south di­strict for­med the stu­dy po­pu­la­tion. The sam­ple fra­me con­sis­ted of 75 se­con­da­ry scho­ols
stra­ti­fied ac­cor­ding to per­for­man­ce in­to low, ave­ra­ge and top ran­ked ca­te­go­ries. The sam­ple si­ze con­
sis­ted of 36 scho­ols (12 from each per­for­man­ce ca­te­go­ry) se­lec­ted by sim­ple ran­dom sam­pling and 252
res­pon­dents se­lec­ted pur­po­si­ve­ly from the 36 scho­ols. Da­ta col­lec­tion in­stru­ments we­re qu­es­tion­nai­res.
Re­lia­bi­li­ty was es­tab­lis­hed by use of test re­test tech­ni­que. Most of the stu­dents and most he­ad te­achers
ap­pro­ved of ran­king whi­le most of the te­achers di­sap­pro­ved of ran­king. Des­pi­te this stand on ran­king,
both the te­achers and stu­dents felt that ran­king should be im­pro­ved and thus cal­led for a sys­tem of as­ses­
sment that en­com­pas­sed all the as­pects ins­te­ad of fo­cu­sing on aca­de­mic per­for­man­ce on­ly. This would
en­su­re that ran­king of scho­ols and stu­dents did not glo­ri­fy aca­de­mic achie­ve­ment at the ex­pen­se of ta­lent
and ot­her vir­tu­es.
Key words: ran­king, per­cep­tion, per­for­man­ce, ta­lent and vir­tu­es.

Bac­kground

Ran­king in Ke­ny­an edu­ca­tion his­to­ry star­ted af­ter the es­tab­lis­hment of Lo­cal Na­ti­ve Coun­cil
(LNC) and in­de­pen­dent scho­ols (Bo­gon­ko, 1992). The­se scho­ols we­re ran­ked along­si­de the exis­
ting mis­sio­na­ry scho­ols and by the early 1940s, their per­for­man­ce was way abo­ve that of mis­sio­
na­ry scho­ols. Ran­king was al­so do­ne among the Go­vern­ment Af­ri­can Scho­ols (GAS) who­se first
batch of pu­pils sat the Pri­ma­ry Scho­ol Exa­mi­na­tions (PSE) in 1938. Du­ring co­lo­nial pe­riod, exa­mi­
na­tions we­re or­ga­ni­zed by the Bri­tish. Af­ter in­de­pen­den­ce, the or­ga­ni­za­tion of exa­mi­na­tions was
lo­ca­li­sed in East Af­ri­ca. The Camb­rid­ge syn­di­ca­te that was con­duc­ting exa­mi­na­tions was re­pla­ced
by East Af­ri­can Exa­mi­na­tions Coun­cil in 1973 which of­fe­red East Af­ri­can Cer­ti­fi­ca­te of Edu­ca­tion
(EACE) and East Af­ri­can Ad­van­ced Cer­ti­fi­ca­te of Edu­ca­tion (EAACE). In 1980, an act of par­lia­
ment em­po­we­red the Ke­nya Na­tio­nal Exa­mi­na­tion Coun­cil (KNEC) to ma­na­ge exa­mi­na­tions in
Ke­ny­an scho­ols (Es­hi­wa­ni, 1993).
With the in­tro­duc­tion of 8-4-4 sys­tem of edu­ca­tion, Cer­ti­fi­ca­te of Pri­ma­ry Edu­ca­tion (CPE)
was re­pla­ced by KCPE from 1984. The Ke­nya Ju­nior Se­con­da­ry Exa­mi­na­tion (KJSE), Ke­nya Cer­
ti­fi­ca­te of Edu­ca­tion (KCE) Exa­mi­na­tion and Ke­nya Ad­van­ced Cer­ti­fi­ca­te of Edu­ca­tion (KACE)
Jane K. AMUNGA, Maurice M. AMADALO, Julius K. MAIYO. Ranking of Secondary Schools and Students in Na-
tional Examinations: the Perception of Teachers and Students PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Exa­mi­na­tion we­re al­so pha­sed out in 1985, 1987 and 1989 in that or­der (Es­hi­wa­ni, 1993). Un­der 11
the 8-4-4 sys­tem, the four year se­con­da­ry scho­ol edu­ca­tion cyc­le ends with the Ke­nya Cer­ti­fi­ca­te
of Se­con­da­ry Edu­ca­tion (KCSE) exa­mi­na­tion which re­pla­ced KCE in the old 7-4-2-3 sys­tem of
edu­ca­tion. This was fol­lo­wed by a ra­di­cal chan­ge in the ran­king of scho­ols ac­cor­ding to a per­for­
man­ce in­dex. Up to 2007, the­re ha­ve be­en se­ven ca­te­go­ries of ran­king exa­mi­na­tion re­sults at the
se­con­da­ry scho­ol le­vel used. The­se are: the ove­rall, Na­tio­nal scho­ols, Pro­vin­cial scho­ols, Di­strict
scho­ols, Pri­va­te scho­ols, most im­pro­ved scho­ols and Stu­dents’ ca­te­go­ries. The pub­li­ca­tion of me­an
per­for­man­ce sta­tis­tics for the top scho­ols in the res­pec­ti­ve ca­te­go­ries and top stu­dents in the na­tion
and pro­vin­ces was me­ant to ma­ke it pos­sib­le for scho­ols to com­pa­re their per­for­man­ce with ot­her
scho­ols. This form of ran­king was stric­tly ba­sed on stu­dents’ aca­de­mic per­for­man­ce in na­tio­nal. It
al­so fails to ta­ke in­to con­si­de­ra­tion the dif­fe­ren­ce in fa­ci­li­ties and stu­dents’ in­ta­ke mark in form one
among ot­her fac­tors.
To en­han­ce equi­ty and qu­a­li­ty of edu­ca­tion, the re­port on To­tal­ly In­teg­ra­ted Qu­a­li­ty Edu­ca­
tion and Trai­ning not on­ly fo­cus­sed on te­acher trai­ning and mo­ti­va­tion but al­so re­com­men­ded that
scho­ol ran­king sys­tem be abo­lis­hed (Re­pub­lic of Ke­nya, 1999). The pres­su­re of exa­mi­na­tions and
ran­king of scho­ols ac­cor­ding to per­for­man­ce we­re bla­med for lack of depth in le­ar­ning and the
te­aching pro­cess. Te­achers ge­a­red their te­aching to the exa­mi­na­tions en­cou­ra­ging ro­te le­ar­ning.
Fo­cu­sing on exam re­sults ig­no­red ma­ny ot­her im­por­tant out­co­mes of scho­o­ling li­ke phy­si­cal well
being, li­fe skills, in­teg­ri­ty, con­fi­den­ce and de­port­ment. It al­so led to a nar­ro­wing of the cur­ri­cu­lum
due to the ne­glect of non-exa­mi­ned sub­jects (World Bank, 2001).
The is­sue of as­ses­sment is cri­ti­cal to the func­tio­ning of scho­ols. It ser­ves as a mo­ti­va­tor of stu­
dent per­for­man­ce. In ad­di­tion, it pro­vi­des a fe­ed­back to the te­acher on the ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of te­aching
and stu­dent achie­ve­ment. It al­so com­mu­ni­ca­tes to the stu­dents, pa­rents and ot­hers what has be­en
le­arnt (Ja­mes 1998). The pub­li­ca­tion of le­a­gue tab­les sho­wing per­for­man­ce in pub­lic exa­mi­na­tions
is both a symp­tom and a cau­se of gre­a­ter com­pe­ti­tion (Bray, 2003). The pub­li­ca­tion of re­sults may
le­ad to scho­ols that are per­cei­ved to be doing well to at­tract stu­dents of high le­vels of abi­li­ty whi­le
tho­se per­cei­ved to be doing bad­ly will be left with lo­wer achie­ving stu­dents (Kel­lag­han 1996). It
may al­so le­ad to the trans­fer of mo­re ab­le te­achers, lo­wer mo­ra­le in in­di­vi­du­al scho­ols and cre­a­te
ghet­to scho­ols. Alt­hough, Bur­gess et al (2002) ar­gue that, pro­vi­sion of in­for­ma­tion on scho­ol per­
for­man­ce is a pre-re­qui­si­te for in­for­med pa­ren­tal choi­ce, the World Bank (2001) fe­el that whe­re
pa­rents with so­cial and/or eco­no­mic ad­van­ta­ge are en­cou­ra­ged to sup­port scho­ols with go­od re­sults,
mo­ra­le and per­for­man­ce in po­orer per­for­ming scho­ols can be dep­res­sed.
In the Uni­ted Sta­tes, te­achers’ unions, scho­ol le­a­ders, prin­ci­pals and te­achers ha­ve ten­ded to
op­po­se po­li­cies lin­king as­ses­sment to ac­coun­ta­bi­li­ty on the grounds of per­ver­se ef­fects inc­lu­ding
nar­ro­wing the cur­ri­cu­lum to the prac­ti­ce of te­aching to the test and in­cen­ti­ves for te­achers to che­at
(Evers and Wal­berg, 2003). Evi­den­ce sug­gests that agen­cies al­ter the ti­ming of their ac­tions and
en­ga­ge in cre­am skim­ming in res­pon­se to spe­ci­fic per­for­man­ce me­a­su­res (Hic­kman, Hen­rick and
Smith, 2002). They ex­clu­de we­ak stu­dents from sit­ting for exa­mi­na­tions. Che­a­ting was men­tio­ned
as anot­her un­pro­duc­ti­ve ty­pe of res­pon­se to ac­coun­ta­bi­li­ty in­cen­ti­ves and mis­re­por­ting of scho­ol
dro­pout ra­tes (Pe­a­bo­dy and Mar­kley, 2003). Scho­ols al­so ex­clu­ded we­ak stu­dents by en­ga­ging in
cre­am skim­ming at the point of ad­mis­sion. This is be­cau­se the hig­her the abi­li­ty of stu­dents ad­mit­
ted, the bet­ter the out-put and the hig­her the scho­ols re­la­ti­ve po­si­tion in the le­a­gue tab­les (Wil­son,
2001).
Per­for­man­ce tab­les for En­gland ha­ve be­en pub­lis­hed an­nu­al­ly sin­ce 1992 (Wil­son, 2003).
Cur­rent­ly they are used to desc­ri­be the dif­fe­ren­ce bet­we­en ‘ma­te­rials brought in and the fi­nis­hed
pro­duct’ and thus me­a­su­res the va­lue ad­ded by the pro­duc­tion pro­cess (Wil­son, 2003). Ho­we­ver,
ot­her stu­dies in­di­ca­te that, des­pi­te the use of le­a­gue tab­les in Ke­nya, Se­ne­gal and el­sew­he­re, se­ve­ral
fac­tors in­di­ca­te that their use is com­pli­ca­ted and mis­le­a­ding. If stu­dents dif­fer from scho­ol to scho­ol
in their le­vel of achie­ve­ment when joi­ning the scho­ols, a me­a­su­re of achie­ve­ment at a la­ter da­te that
do­es not ta­ke this in­to ac­count will be ine­qui­tab­le and mis­le­a­ding in that it will not ade­qu­a­te­ly re­
flect a scho­ols suc­cess in mo­ving stu­dents from their ini­tial en­try le­vel to their pre­sent le­vel of achie­
ve­ment as re­flec­ted in a pub­lic exa­mi­na­tion (Kel­lag­han and Gre­a­ney, 2001b). At a ge­ne­ral le­vel,
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

12
high sta­kes may be as­so­cia­ted with mal­prac­ti­ce. In their ef­fort to ob­tain high gra­des, stu­dents and
so­me­ti­mes te­achers re­sort to va­rio­us forms of che­a­ting de­sig­ned to gi­ve a can­di­da­te un­fair ad­van­ta­
ge over ot­hers. This ta­kes ma­ny forms inc­lu­ding co­py­ing from ot­her stu­dents du­ring exa­mi­na­tions,
col­lu­sion bet­we­en stu­dents and su­per­vi­sors, use of ma­te­rial smug­gled in­to the exa­mi­na­tion ro­oms
and pur­cha­sing of exa­mi­na­tion pa­pers (Kel­lag­han and Gre­a­ney, 1996b).
In New South Wa­les, a stu­dent’s fi­nal mark in each sub­ject is de­ter­mi­ned by a com­bi­na­tion of
scho­ol-ba­sed as­ses­sments con­duc­ted throug­hout the Hig­her Scho­ol Cer­ti­fi­ca­te (HSC) com­po­nent of
the cour­se which forms 50% and ex­ter­nal­ly ad­mi­nis­te­red fi­nal exa­mi­na­tions held in Oc­to­ber or No­
vem­ber of eve­ry year (Bo­ard of Stu­dies-NSW, 2008). In Chi­le scho­ols are eva­lu­a­ted on the ba­sis of
their im­pro­ve­ment in stu­dent as­ses­sment sco­res, phy­si­cal im­pro­ve­ments by scho­ol ad­mi­nist­ra­tors,
wor­king con­di­tions of te­achers, equ­a­li­ty of op­por­tu­ni­ty through re­ten­tion ra­tes, pro­mo­tion and avoi­
dan­ce of disc­ri­mi­na­tion prac­ti­ces on ba­sis of gen­der or di­sa­bi­li­ty and te­acher- pa­rents in­teg­ra­tion
in scho­ol. The fac­tors are weigh­ted and ad­jus­ted to ar­ri­ve at a fi­nal sco­re en­tit­le­ment for scho­ol.
En­rol­ment in the win­ning scho­ol ac­counts for 25 % of the sco­re. The scho­ols are stra­ti­fied in­to ho­
mo­ge­ne­ous groups so that com­pe­ti­tion is rough­ly bet­we­en scho­ols that are com­pa­rab­le in terms of
stu­dent po­pu­la­tion, so­cio-eco­no­mic sta­tus of the com­mu­ni­ty whe­re the scho­ol is ba­sed. Scho­ols are
ran­ked wit­hin each group ac­cor­ding to sco­re in­dex and awards gi­ven to te­achers of scho­ols in that
or­der to be di­vi­ded among them­sel­ves ac­cor­ding to hours wor­ked (McMakin, 2000).
In Ke­nya, the low le­vels of tran­si­tion ra­tes bet­we­en stan­dard 6 and 7 was par­tial­ly ex­plai­ned
by the fact that scho­ols dis­cou­ra­ged we­a­ker pu­pils from ta­king KCPE for fe­ar that it would lo­wer
the me­an sco­res in pub­lis­hed le­a­gue tab­les (Akers, Mi­go­li and Nzo­mo, 2001). The pub­li­ca­tion of
me­an per­for­man­ce sta­tis­tics for each scho­ol and for each di­strict in le­a­gue tab­les ma­de it pos­sib­le
for scho­ols to see whe­re they sto­od with res­pect to ot­her scho­ols in the di­strict and for di­stricts to
com­pa­re them­sel­ves with ot­her di­stricts. This was a key fe­a­tu­re of the Ke­nya exa­mi­na­tion re­form in
which this kind of in­for­ma­tion was cal­led in­cen­ti­ve in­for­ma­tion (So­mer­set, 1987). The un­der­ly­ing
idea was that dis­se­mi­na­tion of in­for­ma­tion would cre­a­te com­pe­ti­tion bet­we­en scho­ols which would
mo­ti­va­te te­achers to chan­ge their in­struc­tio­nal prac­ti­ces (Chap­man and Syn­der, 2000). Ho­we­ver,
ac­cor­ding to Nda­go (2004), the­re is no mo­ral jus­ti­fi­ca­tion in ran­king scho­ols whe­re no ge­nui­ne
com­pe­ti­tion re­al­ly exis­ted be­cau­se so­me scho­ols ad­mit the best KCPE can­di­da­tes and ha­ve the
best re­sour­ces which cre­a­tes une­ven pla­yg­round. In ad­di­tion, IPAR (2004), main­tain that ran­king
in na­tio­nal exa­mi­na­tions at the in­di­vi­du­al stu­dent and al­so at the scho­ol le­vel has re­sul­ted in fier­ce
com­pe­ti­tion. The fier­ce com­pe­ti­tion so­me­ti­mes led to de­par­tu­re from te­aching to pre­pa­ra­tion for
pas­sing exa­mi­na­tions. Nda­go the­re­fo­re ar­gu­ed that, ins­te­ad of ran­king scho­ols using the per­cen­ta­ge
of can­di­da­tes who at­tai­ned a cer­tain le­vel of per­for­man­ce, we should use de­via­tions (po­si­ti­ve or
ne­ga­ti­ve) of the KCSE gra­des from the KCPE mark. Ma­re­nya (2007) al­so ar­gu­ed that the an­nu­al
ri­tu­al ran­king was not in ke­e­ping with the best prac­ti­ce in­ter­na­tio­nal­ly. In ad­di­tion, it was im­mo­ral
to rank scho­ols as if they we­re com­pe­ting on equ­al terms when ot­hers we­re fa­ci­li­ta­ted to do well by
ta­king the cre­am of stan­dard 8 can­di­da­tes, gi­ving them re­a­so­nab­le fa­ci­li­ties and en­su­ring that they
we­re taught by com­pe­tent and cons­cien­tio­us te­achers whi­le stu­dents in ot­her scho­ols we­re con­dem­
ned to ines­ca­pab­le fai­lu­re by the ab­sen­ce of the sa­me con­di­tions. He ad­vo­ca­ted for a gra­ding sys­tem
that cap­tu­res and re­wards eve­ryt­hing that the scho­ol te­aches and nur­tu­res inc­lu­ding ta­lent.

Sta­te­ment of the Pro­blem

Ran­king of scho­ols and stu­dents in na­tio­nal exa­mi­na­tions en­cou­ra­ges po­si­ti­ve com­pe­ti­tion. Ho­
we­ver, the ex­tent to which this af­fects so­cie­ty and scho­ols in par­ti­cu­lar has be­en evi­den­ced by the
an­xie­ty of the sta­ke-hol­ders du­ring re­le­a­se of Ke­nya Cer­ti­fi­ca­te of Se­con­da­ry Edu­ca­tion (KCSE)
re­sults in Feb­ru­a­ry eve­ry year, when the na­mes of cham­pion stu­dents and scho­ols ha­ve gra­ced the
print and elec­tro­nic me­dia. The po­sting of re­sults has rein­for­ced a wi­de­ly held be­lief that the­re are
go­od and bad scho­ols in Ke­nya. The na­tio­nal ban of ran­king not wit­hstan­ding, scho­ols are still ran­
ked at the pro­vin­cial and di­strict le­vel. This sys­tem of ran­king has be­en cri­ti­ci­sed for pro­mo­ting un­
Jane K. AMUNGA, Maurice M. AMADALO, Julius K. MAIYO. Ranking of Secondary Schools and Students in Na-
tional Examinations: the Perception of Teachers and Students PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
fair com­pe­ti­tion among scho­ols be­cau­se the com­pa­ri­son bet­we­en scho­ols fails to ta­ke in­to ac­count 13
dif­fe­ren­ces in the KCPE in­ta­ke mark, so­cial and phy­si­cal con­di­tions un­der which the dif­fe­rent scho­
ols ope­ra­te. Ran­king in­di­vi­du­al stu­dents and scho­ols cre­a­tes fier­ce com­pe­ti­tion which so­me­ti­mes
le­ads to de­par­tu­re from te­aching to pre­pa­ra­tion for pas­sing exa­mi­na­tions and che­a­ting. The­re­fo­re, it
is against this bac­kground that this stu­dy in­ten­ded to in­ves­ti­ga­te stu­dents’ and te­achers’ per­cep­tion
of ran­king.

Ob­jec­ti­ves of the stu­dy


1. To in­ves­ti­ga­te te­achers’ per­cep­tion of ran­king
2. To in­ves­ti­ga­te stu­dents’ per­cep­tion of ran­king.

In­stru­ments and Met­hods

The stu­dy was a desc­rip­ti­ve sur­vey de­sign. This de­sign was de­e­med most ide­al for this stu­dy
be­cau­se alt­hough the stu­dy co­ve­red the 2003-2006 pe­riod, the prac­ti­ce was on­going and its ef­fects
we­re still being felt. It was al­so ap­prop­ria­te in as­ses­sing the te­achers’ and stu­dents’ per­cep­tions of
ran­king. To ob­tain a rep­re­sen­ta­ti­ve sam­ple, the 75 scho­ols in the di­strict we­re stra­ti­fied in­to three
ca­te­go­ries of 25 scho­ols each. The scho­ols we­re ran­ked from the best to the last and di­vi­ded in­to
three even ca­te­go­ries of 25 scho­ols each. This stra­ti­fi­ca­tion was ba­sed on me­an per­for­man­ce in
KCSE exa­mi­na­tion re­sults bet­we­en 2003–2006. A to­tal of 12 scho­ols we­re ran­dom­ly se­lec­ted from
each of the ca­te­go­ries. This sam­ple of 36 scho­ols com­pri­sing 48% of the tar­get po­pu­la­tion was con­
si­de­red ne­it­her too small nor too big for the stu­dy (Mu­lu­sa, 1990; Co­hen et al, 2000 and Pol­land,
2005). A pur­po­si­ve sam­pling tech­ni­que was used to se­lect the par­ti­ci­pants for the stu­dy. Te­achers
and stu­dents par­ti­ci­pa­ting in the stu­dy we­re the­re­fo­re pur­po­si­ve­ly se­lec­ted to inc­lu­de he­ad te­achers
of par­ti­ci­pa­ting scho­ols and three te­achers from each scho­ol (1 he­ad of an aca­de­mic de­part­ment, 1
he­ad of a non-aca­de­mic de­part­ment, and 1 te­acher in a non-ad­mi­nist­ra­ti­ve po­si­tion in the scho­ol).
Three stu­dents we­re al­so pur­po­si­ve­ly se­lec­ted from each scho­ol. The stu­dy se­lec­ted the he­ad-stu­
dent, the ga­mes cap­tain and one stu­dent in the scho­ol who was not a pre­fect. It was as­su­med that
this se­lec­tion achie­ved even rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the te­acher and stu­dent po­pu­la­tion found wit­hin the
scho­ol com­mu­ni­ty. In ad­di­tion, it was al­so as­su­med that the se­lec­ted par­ti­ci­pants could pro­vi­de the
re­qui­red in­for­ma­tion. The­re­fo­re, a to­tal of 252 res­pon­dents par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the stu­dy. The sum­ma­ry
is pro­vi­ded in tab­le 1.

Tab­le 1. Res­pon­dents and the num­ber from each ca­te­go­ry.

School Performance No. of H/


No. of schools No. of teachers No. of students Total
Category teachers
Top 12 12 36 36 84
Average 12 12 36 36 84
Low 12 12 36 36 84
Total 36 36 108 108 252

Per­cep­tions of the te­achers and stu­dents we­re pre­sen­ted using cross-ta­bu­la­tions and per­cen­ta­
ges. The chi squ­a­re was then used to de­ter­mi­ne whet­her the­re we­re any dif­fe­ren­ces in the per­cep­
tions of the dif­fe­rent res­pon­dents.

Te­achers’ and Stu­dents’ Per­cep­tion of Ran­king

The te­achers’ and stu­dents’ per­cep­tion of ran­king we­re de­ter­mi­ned by use of a va­rie­ty of open
and clo­sed en­ded qu­es­tions which sought to es­tab­lish their own as­ses­sment of their scho­ol po­si­tion
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

14
in the 2006 KCSE re­sults and ef­fects re­la­ted to their scho­ols’ ranks. The choi­ce of this par­ti­cu­lar
year was in­flu­en­ced by the fact that it was the la­test exa­mi­na­tion year and the re­sults we­re still fresh
in the res­pon­dents’ mind. In ad­di­tion, it was as­su­med that most of the te­achers who we­re in­vol­ved
in the pre­pa­ra­tion of the can­di­da­tes we­re most li­ke­ly to be still in their sta­tions. The qu­es­tions al­so
tried to es­tab­lish what they thought was the most im­por­tant fac­tor that con­tri­bu­ted to their scho­ol
rank in that par­ti­cu­lar year, how the re­sul­tant scho­ol rank af­fec­ted their self es­te­em, pro­gres­sion and
their scho­ols’ re­la­tions­hips with ot­her scho­ols. In ad­di­tion, the res­pon­dents we­re ex­pec­ted to sta­te
their sta­te whet­her they ap­pro­ved or di­sap­pro­ved of ran­king and if this prac­ti­ce had im­pro­ved re­
sults. The ana­ly­sis of per­cep­tions was do­ne at the le­vels of the res­pon­dents (he­ad te­achers, te­achers
and stu­dents). The chi-squ­a­re sta­tis­ti­cal test at 0.05 le­vel of sig­ni­fi­can­ce was used to de­ter­mi­ne whet­
her the­re we­re sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ces among the he­ad te­achers, te­achers and stu­dents in their per­cep­
tions of ran­king. In edu­ca­tio­nal circ­les, the 5 per cent(0.05) used as le­vel of sig­ni­fi­can­ce in­di­ca­tes
that the dif­fe­ren­ce would ha­ve re­sul­ted from er­ror in less than 5 out of 100 re­pli­ca­tions. Con­ver­se­ly
the­re is a 95 per cent pro­ba­bi­li­ty that the dif­fe­ren­ce was not due to a sam­pling er­ror.

As­ses­sment of Scho­ol Rank in the 2006 KCSE Re­sults

He­ad te­achers, te­achers and stu­dents of the sam­ple scho­ols we­re as­ked to ra­te their scho­ol
po­si­tions in the di­strict in the 2006 KCSE re­sults. A to­tal of 47 (18.7%) of the res­pon­dents ra­
ted their scho­ols’ per­for­man­ce in 2006 KCSE as go­od whi­le 171 (67.9%) ra­ted them as ave­ra­ge
and 34 (13.5%) as po­or. Ge­ne­ral­ly, most res­pon­dents ra­ted their scho­ols’ per­for­man­ce as ave­ra­ge
(Tab­le 2).

Tab­le 2. As­ses­sment of scho­ol po­si­tion in 2006 KCSE re­sults.

Sta­te­ment H/ te­achers Te­achers Stu­dents To­tal %


Go­od 8 19 20 47 (18.7)
Ave­ra­ge 24 75 72 171 (67.9)
Po­or 4 14 16 34 (13.5)
To­tal 36 108 108 252 (100)

From the in­for­ma­tion col­lec­ted using the qu­es­tion­nai­res, tho­se who ra­ted their scho­ols’ po­
si­tions in the 2006 KCSE re­sults as go­od felt that they had re­a­li­sed a po­si­ti­ve per­for­man­ce in­dex
de­no­ting an im­pro­ve­ment as com­pa­red to the pre­vio­us year whi­le ot­hers at­tri­bu­ted the me­an gra­de
to the com­mit­ment of the te­achers and in­dust­ry of a few of the stu­dents that led to po­si­ti­ve per­for­
man­ce in­dex.
Tho­se who ra­ted their scho­ols as ave­ra­ge peg­ged this as­ses­sment on the low abi­li­ty of stu­dents
they ad­mit­ted. They al­so thought that the per­for­man­ce was a me­re ave­ra­ge be­cau­se the ma­jo­ri­ty of
the stu­dents lac­ked self-dri­ve so that sin­ce the te­achers in­put was mo­re than that of the stu­dents and
this could not tran­sla­te in­to ster­ling per­for­man­ce. This is ac­cor­ding to the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of their ra­ting
ob­tai­ned from the qu­es­tion­nai­res.
Tho­se who ag­re­ed with the fact that their scho­ols re­a­li­sed po­or re­sults felt they could ha­ve do­ne
bet­ter with sup­port from the com­mu­ni­ty in terms prompt pa­y­ment of fe­es and a po­si­ti­ve at­ti­tu­de.
Ho­we­ver, so­me of the com­mu­ni­ties had gi­ven up on the scho­ols and so had the stu­dents. It was
po­in­ted out that af­ter re­gist­ra­tion which is usu­al­ly in term one, so­me can­di­da­tes sta­y­ed away from
scho­ol and on­ly re­sur­fa­ced to sit for exams. This was one of the fac­tors that con­tri­bu­ted to the po­or
per­for­man­ce. The ot­hers who ra­ted their per­for­man­ce as po­or in spi­te of ha­ving be­en grou­ped in
the top ran­ked scho­ols ca­te­go­ry re­gar­ded their po­si­tion and me­an sco­res as a chal­len­ge and thought
they should ha­ve do­ne much bet­ter gi­ven the fact that most of the stu­dents they ad­mit­ted had ve­ry
high KCPE marks.
Jane K. AMUNGA, Maurice M. AMADALO, Julius K. MAIYO. Ranking of Secondary Schools and Students in Na-
tional Examinations: the Perception of Teachers and Students PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Fac­tors that Con­tri­bu­ted to the Scho­ol Po­si­tion in 2006 KCSE Re­sults 15

Fac­tors that we­re found to di­rec­tly af­fect scho­ol ran­king we­re te­achers, stu­dents, the scho­ol ad­
mi­nist­ra­tion, the com­mu­ni­ty and the go­vern­ment. The ma­jo­ri­ty of the res­pon­dents (94, 37.3%) felt
that the stu­dents con­tri­bu­ted gre­at­ly to the scho­ol rank. Te­achers we­re na­med by 75 (29.8%) of the
res­pon­dents. On­ly 4 (1.6%) said the go­vern­ment pla­y­ed a ro­le in the ran­king (Tab­le 3).

Tab­le 3. The fac­tor that con­tri­bu­ted to the scho­ol po­si­tion.

Sta­te­ment H/ te­achers Te­achers Stu­dents To­tal %


Te­achers 14 30 31 75 (29.8)
Stu­dents 13 36 45 94 (37.3)
Scho­ol ad­mi­nist­ra­tion 5 28 26 59 (23.4)
Com­mu­ni­ty 4 12 4 20 (7.9)
Go­vern­ment - 2 2 4 (1.6)
To­tal 36 108 108 252 (100)

In ca­ses whe­re the­re was po­or per­for­man­ce, it was bla­med on stu­dents who had ve­ry low abi­li­
ty on ad­mis­sion be­cau­se of ve­ry low en­try marks. It was re­por­ted that, pa­rents in­sis­ted on ad­mit­ting
stu­dents with the lo­west KCPE marks in low ran­ked scho­ols but strug­gled to ta­ke tho­se with bet­ter
marks to ot­her scho­ols. So­me of the can­di­da­tes sta­y­ed away from scho­ol af­ter re­gist­ra­tion and on­ly
re­sur­fa­ced to sit for exa­mi­na­tions. Most di­strict scho­ols we­re co-edu­ca­tio­nal as well as day scho­ols.
As a re­sult, stu­dent lo­ve af­fairs we­re pre­va­lent in most of the­se scho­ols which di­vi­ded the at­ten­tion
of the can­di­da­tes.
Ac­cor­ding to the res­pon­ses re­cei­ved, the com­mu­ni­ties we­re re­por­ted to ha­ve fai­led to de­ve­lop
and equip the scho­ols. They we­re un­co­o­pe­ra­ti­ve, and en­cou­ra­ged la­zi­ness among the stu­dents. In
ad­di­tion, they con­do­ned in­dis­cip­li­ne and fai­led to pay fe­es and sup­port scho­ol ac­ti­vi­ties. Stu­dents
bla­med the po­or per­for­man­ce on fel­low stu­dents being un­co­o­pe­ra­ti­ve, not fol­lo­wing in­struc­tions,
lac­king com­mit­ment, being ge­ne­ral­ly un­dis­cip­li­ned and cre­a­ting un­rest in the scho­ols. The stu­dents
lac­ked a com­pe­ti­ti­ve spi­rit and self dri­ve. In ad­di­tion, they had po­or stu­dy ha­bits, we­re ge­ne­ral­ly
la­zy and un­dis­cip­li­ned. They we­re bla­med for un­rest in so­me scho­ols which in­ter­fe­red with per­for­
man­ce. The go­vern­ment was bla­med for lack of fi­nan­cial re­sour­ces in so­me scho­ols be­cau­se it was
felt that it had not pro­vi­ded ade­qu­a­te bur­sa­ry funds. In­ci­den­tal­ly, the te­achers we­re not men­tio­ned
by both stu­dents and te­achers in re­la­tion to po­or per­for­man­ce and a low scho­ol rank.
Whe­re go­od per­for­man­ce was re­a­li­sed, the te­achers we­re com­ple­men­ted for their hard work
and sac­ri­fi­ce which re­sul­ted in a po­si­ti­ve im­pro­ve­ment in­dex in so­me scho­ols. This was be­cau­se of
their sup­port and gui­dan­ce of stu­dents, early syl­la­bus co­ve­ra­ge through the te­aching of ex­tra les­sons
that pa­ved way for tho­rough re­vi­sion, ri­go­rous te­sting and mar­king, and ge­ne­ral sel­fles­sness. The
scho­ol ad­mi­nist­ra­tion not on­ly mo­ti­va­ted te­achers and le­ar­ners but al­so pro­vi­ded a con­du­ci­ve en­vi­
ron­ment for le­ar­ning and te­aching.

Ef­fect of the Scho­ol Rank on the Res­pon­dents’ Self Es­te­em

A to­tal of 57 (22.6%), most of who we­re stu­dents said their scho­ol rank ma­de them fe­el su­pe­
rior; 44 (17.5%) said it ma­de them fe­el in­fe­rior whi­le the ma­jo­ri­ty 151 (59.9%); most of who we­re
he­ad te­achers and te­achers said it ma­de them fe­el ne­it­her su­pe­rior nor in­fe­rior (Tab­le 4). This shows
that ge­ne­ral­ly, the scho­ol rank has no ef­fect on the self es­te­em of the res­pon­dents.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

16 Tab­le 4. Ef­fect of scho­ol rank on res­pon­dents’ self es­te­em.

Sta­te­ment H/ te­achers Te­achers Stu­dents To­tal %


Su­pe­rior 3 11 43 57 (22.6)
In­fe­rior 3 14 27 44 (17.5)
Ne­it­her 30 83 38 151 (59.9)
To­tal 36 108 108 252 (100)

Tab­le 4 shows that the­re was a dif­fe­ren­ce in the per­cep­tions of the He­ad te­achers, te­achers and
stu­dents. Whi­le the ma­jo­ri­ty of the he­ad te­achers and te­achers ex­pe­rien­ced no ef­fect on their self
es­te­em, most of the stu­dents felt su­pe­rior as a re­sult of their scho­ol rank. Tho­se who felt su­pe­rior
might be the mem­bers of the scho­ols which main­tai­ned a po­si­ti­ve im­pro­ve­ment in­dex du­ring the
four years and we­re the­re­fo­re proud of their po­si­tions. This shows they we­re proud of being as­so­cia­
ted with what they con­si­de­red go­od re­sults. The ma­jo­ri­ty and most of who we­re he­ad te­achers and
te­achers, felt that the scho­ol rank had no ef­fect on their self es­te­em be­cau­se they re­gar­ded their ro­le
in the­se scho­ols as a du­ty. A smal­ler per­cen­ta­ge of 44 (17.5%) felt in­fe­rior sho­wing that they did not
re­gard te­aching or enab­ling stu­dents to per­form well as being go­od enough.

The Ef­fect of the Scho­ol Rank on Res­pon­dents’ Pro­gres­sion

This stu­dy al­so sought to es­tab­lish te­achers’ and stu­dents’ per­cep­tions of how their scho­ols’
ranks af­fec­ted their pro­gres­sion in terms of pro­mo­tions for the te­achers and pro­mo­tion to the next le­
vel of edu­ca­tion for the stu­dents. The ma­jo­ri­ty of the res­pon­dents 118 (46.8%) felt that their scho­ol
rank de­ter­mi­ned to a lar­ge ex­tend whet­her they we­re pro­mo­ted or pas­sed KCSE. Tho­se who felt that
their scho­ol rank dec­re­a­sed or had no ef­fect on their pro­gres­sion we­re 65 (25.8%) and 69 (27.4%)
res­pec­ti­ve­ly.

Tab­le 5. Ef­fect of scho­ol rank on res­pon­dents’ pro­gres­sion.

Sta­te­ment H/ te­achers Te­achers Stu­dents To­tal %


Inc­re­a­ses chan­ce 14 25 79 118 (46.8)
Dec­re­a­ses chan­ce 13 34 18 65 (25.8)
No ef­fect 9 49 11 69(27.4)
To­tal 39 108 108 252 (100)

Chi-squ­a­re va­lue 60.23 df 4 p va­lue 0.0001

The­re was a sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ce in the res­pon­ses of the He­ad te­achers, te­achers and stu­dents
in their per­cep­tions of how the scho­ol rank af­fec­ted their pro­gres­sion (p va­lue 0.0001, tab­le 5) at
0.05 le­vel of sig­ni­fi­can­ce. The chi va­lue of 60.23 is gre­a­ter than the cri­ti­cal va­lue of 9.49. Ge­ne­ral­
ly, the ma­jo­ri­ty of the stu­dents felt that their scho­ol rank inc­re­a­sed their chan­ce of suc­cess in KCSE
whi­le the ma­jo­ri­ty of te­achers felt that the scho­ol rank had no ef­fect on their pro­mo­tion.

The Ef­fect of the Scho­ol Rank on the In­ter-scho­ol Re­la­tions­hip

The ma­jo­ri­ty of the res­pon­dents 147 (58.3%) felt their scho­ol rank earned their scho­ol res­pect
from ot­her scho­ols, 61 (24.2%) said it earned their scho­ols dis­res­pect from ot­her scho­ols whi­le the
mi­no­ri­ty 44 (17.5%) said it had no ef­fect on their in­ter-scho­ol re­la­tions­hip.
Jane K. AMUNGA, Maurice M. AMADALO, Julius K. MAIYO. Ranking of Secondary Schools and Students in Na-
tional Examinations: the Perception of Teachers and Students PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Tab­le 6. Ef­fect of scho­ol rank on In­ter-scho­ol re­la­tions­hips. 17

Sta­te­ment H/ te­achers Te­achers Stu­dents To­tal %


Res­pect 20 51 76 147 (58.3)
Dis­res­pect 8 29 24 61 (24.2)
No ef­fect 8 28 8 44 (17.5)
To­tal 36 108 108 252 (100)

Chi-squ­a­re va­lue 16.71 df 4 p va­lue 0.002

Ana­ly­sis by chi-squ­a­re shows that the­re was a sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ce in the per­cep­tions of the
He­ad te­achers, te­achers and stu­dents on the ef­fect of the scho­ol rank on their scho­ols’ re­la­tions­hip
with ot­her scho­ols (p va­lue 0.002, tab­le 6) at 0.05 le­vel of sig­ni­fi­can­ce. The chi va­lue of 16.71 is
gre­a­ter than the cri­ti­cal va­lue of 9.49.
Res­pon­dents se­e­med to una­ni­mous­ly ag­ree that being in a scho­ol that per­for­med well in KCSE
earned their scho­ols res­pect from ot­her scho­ols im­ply­ing that it is pres­ti­gio­us to be in a what they
con­si­de­red go­od per­for­ming scho­ols. Des­pi­te being in ave­ra­ge and low per­for­ming scho­ols, so­me
res­pon­dents we­re still proud of their per­for­man­ce in the 2006 KCSE exa­mi­na­tion re­sults. Pro­bab­ly
they re­a­li­zed an im­pro­ve­ment that they we­re proud of the scho­ol rank and clas­si­fi­ca­tion not­wit­hstan­
ding. Ho­we­ver, a sig­ni­fi­cant num­ber felt that their scho­ol ranks earned their scho­ols dis­res­pect from
ot­her scho­ols.

Res­pon­dents’ Views on the Ran­king of Scho­ols Using Na­tio­nal Exa­mi­na­tion


Re­sults

Res­pon­dents we­re as­ked to sta­te whet­her they ap­pro­ved or di­sap­pro­ved of na­tio­nal ran­king.
Tho­se who ap­pro­ved we­re the ma­jo­ri­ty at 146 (57.9%) of the 252 res­pon­dents. The ap­pro­val ra­ting
was hig­hest among stu­dents at 90 (83.33%) as com­pa­red to 34 (31.48%) of the te­achers and 22
(61.11%) of the he­ad-te­achers (Tab­le 7).

Tab­le 7. Res­pon­dents views on the ran­king-Res­pon­dents.

Sta­te­ment H/ te­achers Te­achers Stu­dents To­tal %


Ap­pro­ves 22 34 90 146 (57.9)
Di­sap­pro­ves 14 74 18 106 (42.1)
To­tal 36 108 108 252 (100)

Chi-squ­a­re va­lue 59.75 df 2 p va­lue 0.0001

Ana­ly­sis by chi-squ­a­re shows that the­re was a sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ce in the stand ta­ken on ran­
king ta­ken by he­ad te­achers, te­achers and stu­dents (p va­lue 0.0001, tab­le 7) at 0.05 le­vel of sig­ni­fi­
can­ce. The chi va­lue of 59.75 is gre­a­ter than the cri­ti­cal va­lue of 6.00. Whi­le the he­ad te­achers and
stu­dents ap­pro­ved of ran­king, the te­achers did not. Most stu­dents felt that ran­king en­cou­ra­ged po­si­
ti­ve com­pe­ti­tion among scho­ols and stu­dents which was bound to im­pro­ve per­for­man­ce. It al­so hel­
ped we­ak le­ar­ners and low per­for­ming scho­ols to iden­ti­fy their we­ak­nes­ses and map out stra­te­gies
for im­pro­ve­ment. It al­so pro­vi­ded in­for­med choi­ce to the pa­rents and stu­dents on which scho­ols to
cho­o­se. Ot­her pro­po­nents of ran­king said it pro­vi­ded a sco­re card upon which scho­ols eva­lu­a­ted
their pre­vio­us and cur­rent per­for­man­ce so as to ar­rest fal­ling stan­dards and lay down stra­te­gies for
im­pro­ve­ment li­ke bench-mar­king. Such con­sul­ta­tion hel­ped scho­ols to iden­ti­fy and streng­then
their we­a­ker are­as le­a­ding to im­pro­ved per­for­man­ce. The spi­ral ef­fect of im­pro­ved per­for­man­ce
was a bet­ter po­si­tion in the scho­ol rank, inc­re­a­sed self-es­te­em by the stu­dents and te­achers, inc­re­a­
sed en­rol­ment and at­trac­tion of bet­ter qu­a­li­ty KCPE pro­ducts.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

18
Tho­se who di­sap­pro­ved felt that it ma­de both the te­achers and stu­dents to aban­don low ran­ked
scho­ols for the top ran­ked ones le­a­ding to un­der staf­fing, un­der en­rol­ment and un­der de­ve­lop­ment
in tho­se scho­ols. Con­ver­se­ly it cau­sed over staf­fing, over en­rol­ment and in­fra­struc­tu­ral de­ve­lop­
ment in the re­cei­ving scho­ols. It ma­de we­ak stu­dents to be re­gis­te­red in the low ran­ked scho­ols
furt­her lo­we­ring their me­an sco­res and af­fec­ted pro­mo­tions to se­nior po­si­tions. It al­so re­sul­ted in
che­a­ting to main­tain a po­si­ti­ve im­pro­ve­ment in­dex and fal­se rank, low self es­te­em among so­me stu­
dents from low ran­ked scho­ols and ge­ne­ral in­dis­cip­li­ne.
The­re we­re tho­se who felt that ran­king was un­fair be­cau­se com­pe­ti­tion was ske­wed by a num­
ber of fac­tors for exam­ple, scho­ols did not ha­ve le­vel pla­y­ing ground as they we­re di­ver­si­fied in
terms of avai­la­bi­li­ty of re­sour­ces and the en­try be­ha­vio­ur of the stu­dents. It led to te­achers being
over­wor­ked. So­me scho­ols and stu­dents re­sor­ted to unort­ho­dox wa­ys of achie­ving go­od re­sults li­ke
te­aching exam orien­ted ma­te­rials in or­der to main­tain or im­pro­ve their ran­king. It al­so vio­la­ted so­
me of the na­tio­nal edu­ca­tio­nal ob­jec­ti­ves li­ke edu­ca­tion for all be­cau­se of en­for­ced re­pe­ti­tion that
so­me­ti­mes re­sul­ted in drop­ping out of scho­ol al­to­get­her.

Fac­tors that Should be Con­si­de­red in the Ran­king Scho­ols and Stu­dents in Na­
tio­nal Exa­mi­na­tions

Res­pon­dents we­re as­ked to sug­gest any ot­her fac­tors that could be used in ran­king scho­ols
and stu­dents in na­tio­nal exa­mi­na­tions. From the stu­dy, 50 (19.8%) of the res­pon­dents felt that the­
re should be use of con­ti­nuo­us as­ses­sment tests, 39 (15.5%) re­com­men­ded the use of en­try marks
at KCPE and va­lue ad­ded at the end of form four and ex­tra –cur­ri­cu­lar ac­ti­vi­ties whi­le 37(14.7%)
wan­ted the num­ber of can­di­da­tes put in­to con­si­de­ra­tion du­ring ran­king and 23 (9.1%) of the res­pon­
dents of­fe­red no sug­ges­tion (Tab­le 8).

Tab­le 8. Ot­her sug­ges­ted fac­tors for con­si­de­ra­tion in ran­king.

Sta­te­ment 15H/ te­achers29 Te­achers Stu­dents To­tal %


Ex­tra­cur­ri­cu­lar Ac­ti­vi­ties 4 14 21 39 (15.5)
En­try and va­lue Ad­ded 9 25 5 39 (15.5)
Avai­lab­le re­sour­ces 4 8 5 17 (6.7)
Le­vel of was­ta­ge - 2 1 3 (1.2)
Do re­gio­nal ran­king 1 2 4 7 (2.7)
Con­ti­nuo­us as­ses­sment 6 15 29 50 (19.8)
Just rank stu­dents 5 10 7 22 (8.7)
Con­si­der dis­cip­li­ne 1 5 5 11 (4.4)
No sug­ges­tion 4 8 11 23 (9.1)
Num­ber of can­di­da­tes 2 16 19 37 (14.7)
Con­si­der gen­der - 3 1 4 (1.6)
To­tal 36 10 108 252 (100)

Most of the he­ad te­achers and te­achers for­med the bulk of tho­se who fa­vou­red the use of en­try
marks and va­lue ad­ded. It was im­por­tant to as­sess what va­lue a scho­ol had ad­ded to a stu­dent gi­ven
the KCPE mark du­ring ran­king sin­ce so­me scho­ols put in lit­tle ef­fort and ad­ded ve­ry lit­tle va­lue yet
they re­cei­ved all the glo­ry whi­le ot­hers went un­re­cog­ni­zed even af­ter ad­ding a lot of va­lue to ve­ry
low KCPE marks.
Most of the stu­dents wan­ted the use of con­ti­nuo­us as­ses­sment tests. This is be­cau­se stu­dents
we­re tes­ted and gra­ded throug­hout the four years they we­re in scho­ol so it was on­ly fair that their
cu­mu­la­ti­ve achie­ve­ment du­ring this en­ti­re pe­riod of stu­dy forms part of the fi­nal as­ses­sment.
A sig­ni­fi­cant num­ber of te­achers and stu­dents al­so sug­ges­ted that ex­tra cur­ri­cu­lar ac­ti­vi­ties
be­cau­se it was felt that they con­tri­bu­ted to the buil­ding of an all round in­di­vi­du­al. This would al­so
fa­ci­li­ta­te nur­tu­ring of ta­lent which had be­en stif­led by so­me pa­rents and scho­ols in fa­vour of the
Jane K. AMUNGA, Maurice M. AMADALO, Julius K. MAIYO. Ranking of Secondary Schools and Students in Na-
tional Examinations: the Perception of Teachers and Students PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
aca­de­mic work. In ad­di­tion, even scho­ols con­si­de­red as non-per­for­ming be­cau­se of the emp­ha­sis on 19
the aca­de­mic would al­so get a chan­ce to show whe­re they can ex­cel as ta­lent is equ­al­ly im­por­tant
to the de­ve­lop­ment of the na­tion.
The num­ber of can­di­da­tes en­te­red for the exa­mi­na­tion should was the ot­her key fac­tor for con­
si­de­ra­tion. This is be­cau­se so­me scho­ols re­gis­te­red too ma­ny can­di­da­tes whi­le ot­hers cut down on
their num­bers through re­pe­ti­tion and re­gist­ra­tion in ot­her cen­tres in or­der to at­tain a po­si­ti­ve me­an
sco­re. This would al­so be an in­di­rect way of chec­king was­ta­ge in scho­ols. The le­vels of was­ta­ge and
gen­der con­si­de­ra­tion we­re the le­ast fa­vou­red fac­tors (Tab­le 8).

A Ge­ne­ral As­ses­sment of the ot­her Ef­fects of Ran­king

Res­pon­dents we­re as­ked to ge­ne­ral­ly as­sess the ef­fects of ran­king by use of a li­kert sca­le. He­ad
te­achers and te­achers had a six item li­kert sca­le whi­le the stu­dents had a two item li­kert sca­le.
Te­achers and stu­dents we­re as­ked whet­her ran­king of scho­ols and stu­dents de­stro­y­ed their
mo­ra­le by cre­a­ting je­a­lou­sy. A sum­ma­ry of their res­pon­ses shows that, 123 (48.8%) ag­re­ed, 121
(48.0%) di­sag­re­ed, whi­le on­ly 8 (3.2%) we­re un­de­ci­ded (Tab­le 9).

Tab­le 9. The ef­fect of ran­king on mo­ra­le and je­a­lou­sy.

Sta­te­ment 15H/ te­achers29 Te­achers Stu­dents To­tal %


Di­sag­ree 17 25 78 121 (48.0)
Un­de­ci­ded 3 3 2 8 (3.2)
Ag­ree 16 80 28 123 (48.8)
To­tal 36 108 108 252 (100)

Most of the res­pon­dents who ag­re­ed we­re te­achers whi­le tho­se who di­sag­re­ed we­re stu­dents.
This me­ans that, whi­le the stu­dents felt that ran­king did not de­stroy their mo­ra­le by cre­a­ting je­a­lou­
sy, the te­achers on the ot­her hand felt that ran­king ac­tu­al­ly did just that and this ex­plains why they
had di­sap­pro­ved of ran­king.
Res­pon­dents we­re as­ked to say to what ex­tend they felt that ran­king in­cul­ca­ted a spi­rit of com­
pe­ti­tion and hard work among scho­ols. A few 34 (13.5%) di­sag­re­ed and the ma­jo­ri­ty 211 (83.7%)
ag­re­ed. On­ly 7 (2.8%) we­re un­de­ci­ded (Tab­le 10). From the res­pon­se of the overw­hel­ming ma­jo­ri­
ty it can be conc­lu­ded that ran­king in­de­ed had the po­si­ti­ve ef­fect of cre­a­ting com­pe­ti­tion and hard
work.

Tab­le 10. The ef­fect of ran­king on com­pe­ti­tion and hard work.

Sta­te­ment 15H/ te­achers29 Te­achers Stu­dents To­tal %


Di­sag­ree 4 24 6 34 (13.5)
Un­de­ci­ded 1 4 2 7 (2.8)
Ag­ree 31 80 100 211 (83.0)
To­tal 36 108 108 252 (100)

The spi­rit of com­pe­ti­tion and hard work is cle­ar­ly de­pic­ted by what is hap­pe­ning in most se­
con­da­ry scho­ols whe­re te­achers and stu­dents ha­ve doub­led their ef­forts in or­der to im­pro­ve their
ran­king in the lo­cal le­a­gue tab­les. This has be­en do­ne through bench mar­king, ex­tra te­aching and
re­me­dial les­sons for early com­ple­tion of the syl­la­bus and ri­go­rous re­vi­sion.
When as­ked to show to what ex­tend they ag­re­ed or di­sag­re­ed with the sug­ges­tion that re­sults
could be im­pro­ved by pro­mo­ting te­achers who ex­cel­led in their res­pec­ti­ve sub­ject are­as ir­res­pec­ti­ve
of scho­ol rank, 74 (51.4%) of the res­pon­dents and most of who we­re te­achers di­sag­re­ed. Tho­se who
stron­gly ag­re­ed and most of who we­re he­ad te­achers we­re 65 (45.1%). Tho­se who we­re un­de­ci­ded
we­re on­ly 5 (3.5% tab­le 11).
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

20 Tab­le 11. Im­pro­ve­ment of re­sults de­pen­den­ce on te­achers’ pro­mo­tions.

Sta­te­ment 15H/ te­achers29 Te­achers To­tal %


Di­sag­ree 11 63 74 (51.4)
Un­de­ci­ded 1 4 5 (3.5)
Ag­ree 24 41 65 (45.1)
To­tal 36 108 144 (100)

From the fin­dings, it can be conc­lu­ded that ge­ne­ral­ly, re­sults can­not be im­pro­ved by pro­mo­ting
te­achers who ex­cel in their res­pec­ti­ve sub­ject are­as ir­res­pec­ti­ve of scho­ol rank.
Res­pon­dents we­re al­so as­ked to say to what ex­tend they ag­re­ed or di­sag­re­ed with the fe­e­
ling that pro­mo­tions in the ser­vi­ce we­re ba­sed on the me­an sco­re of ones scho­ol in na­tio­nal exa­
mi­na­tions. Ge­ne­ral­ly res­pon­dents di­sag­re­ed with this ob­ser­va­tion as shown by the fact that 76
(52.8%) di­sag­re­ed and on­ly 50 (34.7%) ag­re­ed but 18 (12.5%) of the res­pon­dents we­re un­de­ci­ded
(Tab­le 12).

Tab­le 12. Ran­king le­ads to pro­mo­tions in the ser­vi­ce.

Sta­te­ment 15H/ te­achers29 Te­achers To­tal %


Di­sag­ree 23 53 76 (52.8)
Un­de­ci­ded 3 15 18 (12.5)
Ag­ree 10 40 50 (34.7)
To­tal 36 108 144 (100)

This shows that pro­mo­tions in te­aching ser­vi­ce are not ne­ces­sa­ri­ly ba­sed on the per­for­man­ce
of ones scho­ol in na­tio­nal exa­mi­na­tions be­cau­se the­re are ot­her fac­tors that co­me in­to play li­ke ex­
pe­rien­ce and num­ber of years in the ser­vi­ce.
Res­pon­dents we­re as­ked to say to what ex­tend they ag­re­ed that re­sults had be­en im­pro­ved by
pro­mo­ting te­achers from top ran­ked scho­ols to he­ad­ship po­si­tions in low ran­ked scho­ols. A to­tal of
96 (66.0%) di­sag­re­ed, whi­le 39 (27.3%) ag­re­ed but 10 (6.0%) we­re ho­we­ver un­de­ci­ded. Half of the
he­ad te­achers di­sag­re­ed whi­le most of the te­achers eit­her di­sag­re­ed (Tab­le 13).

Tab­le 13. Ran­king and he­ad­ship.

Sta­te­ment 15H/ te­achers29 Te­achers To­tal %


Di­sag­ree 23 73 95 (66.0)
Un­de­ci­ded 2 8 10 (6.9)
Ag­ree 12 27 39 (27.1)
To­tal 36 108 144 (100)

That an overw­hel­ming ma­jo­ri­ty re­fu­ted this shows that re­sults had not be­en im­pro­ved by pro­
mo­ting te­achers from top ran­ked scho­ols to he­ad­ship po­si­tions in low ran­ked scho­ols.
Fi­nal­ly, res­pon­dents we­re as­ked to sta­te to what ex­tend they felt re­sults had be­en im­pro­ved
by ran­king scho­ols and stu­dents in na­tio­nal exa­mi­na­tions. A to­tal of 67 (46.5%) res­pon­dents, most
of who we­re te­achers di­sag­re­ed, 69 (47.9%) most of who we­re he­ad te­achers ag­re­ed whi­le on­ly
8 (5.6%) of the res­pon­dents we­re un­de­ci­ded (Tab­le 14).

Tab­le 14. Ran­king and im­pro­ve­ment of re­sults.

Sta­te­ment 15H/ te­achers29 Te­achers To­tal %


Di­sag­ree 14 53 67 (46.5)
Un­de­ci­ded 1 7 8 (5.6)
Ag­ree 21 48 65 (47.9)
To­tal 36 108 144 (100)
Jane K. AMUNGA, Maurice M. AMADALO, Julius K. MAIYO. Ranking of Secondary Schools and Students in Na-
tional Examinations: the Perception of Teachers and Students PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
The dif­fe­ren­ce bet­we­en tho­se who di­sag­re­ed and ag­re­ed is on­ly 2 (1.39%) le­a­ding to the conc­ 21
lu­sion that, the­re is no sig­ni­fi­cant re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en ran­king and per­for­man­ce as the res­pon­dents
are di­vi­ded on whet­her ran­king has ac­tu­al­ly im­pro­ved re­sults.

Dis­cus­sion of Fin­dings

Te­achers and stu­dents are the pri­ma­ry sta­ke­hol­ders in edu­ca­tion and they are mo­re af­fec­ted
by the po­sting of exa­mi­na­tion out­co­mes eit­her po­si­ti­ve­ly or ne­ga­ti­ve­ly mo­re than any­bo­dy el­se.
It was the­re­fo­re found ne­ces­sa­ry to es­tab­lish their per­cep­tions of ran­king and to be­gin with, they
we­re as­ked to as­sess their scho­ols’ po­si­tions in the di­strict in the 2006 KCSE exa­mi­na­tions. Most
of them as­ses­sed their scho­ols’ per­for­man­ce as ave­ra­ge (tab­le 2). On the most im­por­tant fac­tor that
con­tri­bu­ted to the sta­ted scho­ol po­si­tion in 2006, the ma­jo­ri­ty of the res­pon­dents, 37.3%, said the
stu­dent was res­pon­sib­le. They fo­cus­sed on a num­ber of stu­dent fac­tors es­pe­cial­ly their en­try be­ha­
vio­ur. Top ran­ked scho­ols had the pri­ori­ty over low ran­ked scho­ols du­ring form one se­lec­tion and
we­re the­re­fo­re re­gar­ded as ad­mit­ting the cre­am of the stu­dents in the di­strict. In ad­di­tion, they had
bet­ter le­ar­ning and te­aching re­sour­ces. Res­pon­dents felt that the sys­tem of ran­king was the­re­fo­re
un­fair in so far as it did not ta­ke in­to con­si­de­ra­tion the en­try be­ha­vio­ur of the stu­dents and the fa­
ci­li­ties thus con­cur­ring with sen­ti­ments that we­re ex­pres­sed by Nda­go (2004) and Kel­lag­han and
Gre­a­ney (2001b).
Whe­re the scho­ol ad­mi­nist­ra­tion was ra­ted po­si­ti­ve­ly by 59 (23.4%) of the res­pon­dents, it was
in­stru­men­tal in con­tri­bu­ting to the scho­ol po­si­tion through mo­ti­va­tion of te­achers, cre­a­ting te­am
work and a con­du­ci­ve en­vi­ron­ment for te­aching and le­ar­ning. The Re­port of the Pro­vin­cial Wor­king
Com­mit­tee on the Im­pro­ve­ment of Edu­ca­tion in Wes­tern Pro­vin­ce (1998) si­mi­lar­ly no­ted that, the­re
was mo­ti­va­tion in so­me scho­ols by the PTA mem­bers who bought and ga­ve awards to per­for­ming
scho­ol te­achers and stu­dents in or­der to sti­mu­la­te hard work. In Chi­le, the­re was a cle­ar cut mo­ti­va­
tion prac­ti­ce whe­re the scho­ols we­re ran­ked wit­hin each group (stu­dent po­pu­la­tion, so­cio-eco­no­mic
sta­tus of the com­mu­ni­ty whe­re the scho­ol was ba­sed whet­her the scho­ol we­re ru­ral or ur­ban) ac­cor­
ding to the sco­re in­dex and awards gi­ven to te­achers of scho­ols in that or­der to be di­vi­ded among
them­sel­ves ac­cor­ding to hours wor­ked (McMakin, 2000).
The per­cep­tion of the ef­fect of ran­king on self es­te­em re­cei­ved mi­xed re­ac­tions with the ma­
jo­ri­ty of the stu­dents res­pon­ding that it ma­de them fe­el su­pe­rior and the­re­fo­re the bet­ter the scho­ol
rank the hig­her the self es­te­em. On the con­tra­ry, the he­ad te­achers and te­achers felt that their scho­ol
rank ma­de them fe­el ne­it­her su­pe­rior nor in­fe­rior (tab­le 4). Si­mi­lar­ly, the ma­jo­ri­ty of stu­dents felt
that their scho­ol rank de­ter­mi­ned to a gre­at ex­tend whet­her they we­re pro­mo­ted to the next le­vel of
edu­ca­tion. The te­achers felt that it re­al­ly had no ef­fect on their pro­gres­sion (tab­le 5). The ma­jo­ri­ty
of res­pon­dents from all the ca­te­go­ries we­re una­ni­mous in their per­cep­tion of the ef­fect of the scho­ol
rank on their scho­ols’ re­la­tions­hip with ot­her scho­ols. A go­od scho­ol rank earned it res­pect from the
ot­her scho­ols (tab­le 6).
On their views on ran­king, the ma­jo­ri­ty of res­pon­dents (57.9%) ap­pro­ved of it. An equ­al­ly lar­
ge num­ber (42.1%) di­sap­pro­ved of it (tab­le 7). The ma­jo­ri­ty who ap­pro­ved of ran­king felt that it
was the per­fect per­for­man­ce me­a­su­re which al­so sti­mu­la­ted com­pe­ti­tion that led to im­pro­ve­ment
in per­for­man­ce. It kept te­achers and stu­dents on their to­es as it hel­ped them to eva­lu­a­te them­sel­ves
and step up the pres­su­re of hard work. This ag­re­es with Ja­mes (1998), that the is­sue of as­ses­sment
is cri­ti­cal to the func­tio­ning of scho­ols as it ser­ved as a mo­ti­va­tor of stu­dent per­for­man­ce. It al­so
ser­ves the func­tion of pro­vi­ding a fe­ed­back to the te­acher and com­mu­ni­ca­tes to the stu­dents, pa­
rents and ot­hers what had be­en le­arnt. Si­mi­lar­ly, it ag­re­es with So­mer­set (1987) who adds that the
pub­li­ca­tion of me­an per­for­man­ce sta­tis­tics for each scho­ol and for each di­strict in the le­a­gue tab­les
ma­de it pos­sib­le for scho­ols to see whe­re they sto­od with res­pect to ot­her scho­ols in the di­strict and
for di­stricts to com­pa­re them­sel­ves with ot­her di­stricts. Pro­po­nents of ran­king al­so felt that ran­king
of scho­ols and stu­dents pro­vi­ded in­for­med choi­ce to the pa­rents and stu­dents on which scho­ols to
cho­o­se which equ­al­ly ag­re­ed with the fin­dings of Bur­gess at al (2002).
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

22
Tho­se who di­sap­pro­ved of ran­king said that it was un­fair be­cau­se com­pe­ti­tion was ske­wed by
a num­ber of fac­tors. Scho­ols did not ha­ve le­vel pla­y­ing ground as they we­re di­ver­si­fied in terms
of avai­la­bi­li­ty of re­sour­ces and the en­try be­ha­vio­ur of the stu­dents which is in li­ne with Kel­lag­han
(1996) and Nda­go (2004). Ot­her op­po­nents of ran­king al­so felt that in or­der to main­tain or im­pro­ve
their ran­king te­achers we­re over-wor­ked. So­me scho­ols and stu­dents re­sor­ted to unort­ho­dox wa­ys
of achie­ving go­od re­sults li­ke che­a­ting and te­aching exam orien­ted ma­te­rials. This con­curs with
IPAR (2004), that ran­king in na­tio­nal exa­mi­na­tions at the in­di­vi­du­al stu­dent and the scho­ol le­vel
had re­sul­ted in fier­ce com­pe­ti­tion which so­me­ti­mes led to de­par­tu­re from te­aching to pre­pa­ra­tion
for pas­sing exa­mi­na­tions. Ac­cor­ding to Kel­lag­han and Gre­a­ney (1996b), at a ge­ne­ral le­vel, high
sta­kes we­re as­so­cia­ted with mal­prac­ti­ce be­cau­se in their ef­fort to ob­tain high gra­des. Stu­dents and
so­me­ti­mes te­achers re­sor­ted to va­rio­us forms of che­a­ting de­sig­ned to gi­ve a can­di­da­te un­fair ad­van­
ta­ge over ot­hers. This to­ok ma­ny forms inc­lu­ding co­py­ing from ot­her stu­dents du­ring exa­mi­na­tions,
col­lu­sion bet­we­en stu­dents and su­per­vi­sors, use of ma­te­rial smug­gled in­to the exa­mi­na­tion ro­oms
and pur­cha­sing of exa­mi­na­tion pa­pers.
It was found that ran­king ma­de both the te­achers and stu­dents to aban­don low ran­ked scho­ols
for the top ran­ked ones le­a­ding to un­der staf­fing, un­der en­rol­ment and un­der de­ve­lop­ment in tho­se
scho­ols. It cau­sed over staf­fing, over en­rol­ment and go­od de­ve­lop­ment in the re­cei­ving scho­ols.
This ag­re­es with Kel­lag­han (1996) that pub­li­ca­tion of re­sults may le­ad to the trans­fer of mo­re ab­le
te­achers, lo­wer mo­ra­le in in­di­vi­du­al low ran­ked scho­ols and cre­a­te ghet­to scho­ols.
Both tho­se who ap­pro­ved and di­sap­pro­ved of ran­king felt that it should be im­pro­ved upon by
put­ting in­to con­si­de­ra­tion a num­ber of ot­her fac­tors. A to­tal of 19.8% of the res­pon­dents, most of
who we­re stu­dents, re­com­men­ded the use of con­ti­nuo­us as­ses­sment tests (tab­le 8). This sug­ges­tion
ag­re­es with the prac­ti­ce in New South Wa­les whe­re the exa­mi­na­tion sys­tem at the se­con­da­ry scho­ol
le­vel con­sists of con­ti­nuo­us as­ses­sment and fi­nal exa­mi­na­tions (Bo­ard of Stu­dies-NSW, 2008).
The ot­her fac­tors that we­re he­a­vi­ly fa­vou­red we­re the use of co-cur­ri­cu­lar ac­ti­vi­ties (15.5%)
and the use of the KCPE en­try mark and va­lue ad­ded me­a­su­re at the end of form IV (15.5%). This
con­curs with the gra­ding sys­tem in En­gland whe­re be­fo­re 2003, the le­a­gue tab­les we­re ba­sed on­ly
on raw out­put– unad­jus­ted test sco­re­s–and in­for­ma­tion was pro­vi­ded at the scho­ol ave­ra­ge le­vel but
sin­ce then, the le­a­gue tab­les ha­ve al­so inc­lu­ded in­di­ca­tors of the va­lue ad­ded by the scho­ol bet­we­en
key sta­ges. The va­lue ad­ded me­a­su­re is used to desc­ri­be the dif­fe­ren­ce bet­we­en ‘ma­te­rials brought
in and the fi­nis­hed pro­duct’ and thus me­a­su­res the va­lue ad­ded by the pro­duc­tion pro­cess (Wil­son,
2003). This is the me­a­su­re al­so re­com­men­ded by Nda­go (2004) when he sug­ges­ted that that ins­te­ad
of ran­king scho­ols using the per­cen­ta­ge of can­di­da­tes who at­tai­ned a cer­tain le­vel of per­for­man­ce,
we should use de­via­tions (po­si­ti­ve or ne­ga­ti­ve) of the KCSE gra­des from the KCPE mark. This ob­
ser­va­tion is in li­ne with the fin­dings of the stu­dy whe­re 39 (15.5%) of the res­pon­dents sug­ges­ted the
use of en­try marks at KCPE and va­lue ad­ded at the KCSE.
Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, the num­ber of can­di­da­tes, avai­lab­le re­sour­ces, re­gio­nal ran­king, le­vel of was­ta­ge
we­re sug­ges­ted for con­si­de­ra­tion du­ring ran­king stu­dents. This would be in li­ne with what hap­pens
in Chi­le whe­re scho­ols we­re stra­ti­fied in­to ho­mo­ge­ne­ous groups so that com­pe­ti­tion was rough­ly
bet­we­en scho­ols that we­re com­pa­rab­le in terms of stu­dent po­pu­la­tion, so­cio-eco­no­mic sta­tus of the
com­mu­ni­ty whe­re the scho­ol was ba­sed whet­her the scho­ols we­re ru­ral or ur­ban. En­rol­ment in the
win­ning scho­ol ac­coun­ted for 25% of the sco­re (McMakin, 2000).
On the ge­ne­ral as­ses­sment of the ot­her ef­fects of ran­king, most res­pon­dents af­fir­med that it
cre­a­ted com­pe­ti­tion and hard work which again con­curs with So­mer­set (1987). Whi­le ran­king was
high­ly fa­vou­red by the stu­dents, the te­achers felt that it de­stro­y­ed the mo­ra­le of the te­aching for­ce
by cre­a­ting je­a­lou­sy, su­spi­cion and di­strust. The stu­dy al­so found that re­sults could not be im­pro­ved
by pro­mo­ting te­achers who ex­cel­led in their res­pec­ti­ve sub­ject are­as ir­res­pec­ti­ve of scho­ol rank. Si­
mi­lar­ly, re­sults had not be­en im­pro­ved by pro­mo­ting te­achers from top` ran­ked scho­ols to he­ad­ship
po­si­tions in low ran­ked scho­ols. The res­pon­dents’ views on whet­her re­sults had be­en im­pro­ved by
ran­king had a mi­xed re­ac­tion with 46.53% di­sag­re­eing whi­le 47.92% ag­re­ed.
Ge­ne­ral­ly, the te­achers and stu­dents cal­led for a sys­tem of as­ses­sment that en­com­pas­sed all
the as­pects ins­te­ad of fo­cu­sing on aca­de­mic per­for­man­ce on­ly. This view ag­re­es with the ar­gu­ment
Jane K. AMUNGA, Maurice M. AMADALO, Julius K. MAIYO. Ranking of Secondary Schools and Students in Na-
tional Examinations: the Perception of Teachers and Students PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
that the gra­ding sys­tem should cap­tu­re and re­ward eve­ryt­hing that the scho­ol te­aches and nur­tu­res, 23
inc­lu­ding ta­lent (Ma­re­nya, 2007). This would be in li­ne with the prac­ti­ce in En­gland (Wil­son, 2003)
and in Chi­le (MacMakin, 2000).

Re­com­men­da­tions

Scho­ols and stu­dents should be gra­ded on the ba­sis of con­ti­nuo­us as­ses­sment tests, ex­tra-cur­ri­
cu­lar ac­ti­vi­ties, en­try mark and va­lue ad­ded and the can­di­da­tu­re. This will en­su­re that gra­ding do­es
not glo­ri­fy aca­de­mic achie­ve­ment at the ex­pen­se of ta­lent and ot­her vir­tu­es.
Scho­ols and com­mu­ni­ties should be sen­si­ti­zed to the re­a­li­za­tion that a scho­ols’ and stu­dents’
me­an sco­res pro­vi­de a sco­re card upon which scho­ols eva­lu­a­te their per­for­man­ce so as to ar­rest fal­
ling stan­dards and lay down stra­te­gies for im­pro­ve­ment. The­re­fo­re whi­le go­od me­an sco­res should
be ce­leb­ra­ted, a po­or one should in­vi­te con­cer­ted ef­fort from all the sta­ke­hol­ders to im­pro­ve on it.

Re­fe­ren­ces
Akers, J., Mi­go­li, J. & Nzo­mo, J. (2001). Iden­ti­fy­ing and Ad­dres­sing the cau­ses of Dec­li­ning Par­ti­ci­pa­
tion Ra­tes in Ke­ny­an Pri­ma­ry Scho­ols. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Edu­ca­tio­nal De­ve­lop­ment 21, 361–
374.
Bo­ard of Stu­dies; NSW (2008). Stu­dy­ing for New South Wa­les Hig­her Scho­ol Cer­ti­fi­ca­te: An In­for­ma­
tion Bo­ok­let for Year 10 stu­dents. Syd­ney: Bo­ard of Stu­dies; NSW.
Bo­gon­ko, S. N. (1992). A His­to­ry of Mo­dern Edu­ca­tion in Ke­nya (1895–1991). Nai­ro­bi: Evans Brot­
hers.
Bray, M. (2003). Ad­ver­se ef­fects of pri­va­te sup­ple­men­ta­ry tu­to­ring: Di­men­sions, Im­pli­ca­tions and Go­
vern­ment Res­pon­ses. Pa­ris: UNESCO.
Bur­gess, S., Prop­per, C. & Wil­son D. (2002). Will mo­re choi­ce im­pro­ve out­co­mes in edu­ca­tion and He­
alth ca­re? Evi­den­ce from Eco­no­mic Re­se­arch. Bris­tol.
http//www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/CMPO/Choi­ce.pdf Ret­rie­ved 15 Ju­ly, 2007.
Chap­man, D. W. & Syn­der, C. W. (2000). Can High Sta­kes Na­tio­nal Te­sting Im­pro­ve In­struc­tion? Re-
exa­mi­ning Con­ven­tio­nal Wis­dom. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal of Edu­ca­tio­nal De­ve­lop­ment 20, 457–474.
Es­hi­wa­ni, G. (1993). Edu­ca­tion in Ke­nya sin­ce In­de­pen­den­ce 35–189. Nai­ro­bi: East Af­ri­can Pub­lis­
hers.
Evers, W. and Wal­berg, H. (2003). Scho­ol Ac­coun­ta­bi­li­ty, An As­ses­sment of by Ko­vet Task For­ce on
K-12 Edu­ca­tion. Stan­ford, C. A: Ho­o­ver Ins­ti­tu­tion Press.
Hic­kman, J., Hen­rick, C. J. & Smith, J. (2002). The Per­for­man­ce of Per­for­man­ce Stan­dards. Jour­nal of
Hu­man Re­sour­ces, 37(4), 778–881.
Ins­ti­tu­te of Po­li­cy Ana­ly­sis and Re­se­arch (IPAR, 2004). The so­cio­lo­gy of Pri­va­te Tui­tion, 10 (7).
Ja­mes, M. (1998). Using As­ses­sment for Scho­ol Achie­ve­ment. Ox­ford: Hein­man.
Kel­lag­han, T. and Gre­a­ney, V. (2001 b).Using As­ses­sment to Im­pro­ve the Qu­a­li­ty of Edu­ca­tion, 9-29.
Pa­ris: In­ter­na­tio­nal Ins­ti­tu­te for Edu­ca­tio­nal Plan­ning.
Kel­lag­han, T. & Gre­a­ney, V. (1996). The In­teg­ri­ty of Pub­lic Exa­mi­na­tions in De­ve­lo­ping Coun­tries. In.
Gol­da­tein, H and Le­wis, T (Eds.), As­ses­sment: Pro­blems, De­ve­lop­ments and Sta­tis­ti­cal Is­su­es, 167-188.
New York: Wi­ley.
Kel­lag­han, T. & Gre­a­ney, V. (2003). Mo­no­to­ring Per­for­man­ce: As­ses­sment and Exa­mi­na­tions in Af­ri­ca.
Pa­ris: As­so­cia­tion for the De­ve­lop­ment of Edu­ca­tion in Af­ri­ca.
Kel­lag­han, T. (1996). Can Pub­lic Exa­mi­na­tions be used to Pro­vi­de In­for­ma­tion for Na­tio­nal As­ses­
sment? In. Murp­hy, P., Gre­a­ney V., Loch­ha­ed E., and Ro­jas, C. (Eds), Na­tio­nal As­ses­sments: Te­sting
the sys­tem 33–48. Was­hing­ton .D.C: World Bank.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

24
Ma­re­nya, G. (2007, March 13). Ne­eded is an Edu­ca­tion Sys­tem that Re­wards and Va­lu­es all. The Dai­ly
Na­tion, p. 6.
Mu­lu­sa, T. (1990). Eva­lu­a­tion Re­se­arch for Be­gin­ners: A Prac­ti­cal Stu­dy Gui­de. Bonn: Deut­sche Stif­
tung fur in­ter­na­tio­na­le Ent­wic­klung.
McMakin, R. (2000). Com­pe­ti­tion, Pa­ren­tal In­vol­ve­ment and Pub­lic Scho­ol Per­for­man­ce. To­ron­to: Na­
tio­nal Tax As­so­cia­tion Pro­ce­e­dings.
Nda­go, A (2004, Sep­tem­ber 3). Ty­ran­ny of Ran­king Une­ven Scho­ols. Nai­ro­bi: The East Af­ri­can Stan­
dard, p. 4.
Pe­a­bo­dy, Z. and Mar­kley, M (2003). Sta­te may Lo­wer HISD Ra­ting: Al­most 30,000 dro­pouts mis­coun­
ted. Hous­ton Chro­nic­le.
Pol­land, R. J (2005). Es­sen­tials of Edu­ca­tion Re­se­arch and Ana­ly­sis: Met­hods for De­ter­mi­ning Sam­ple Si­ze.
http://www.unf.edu/dept/cirt/works­hops/sur­vey/Po­land Ma­nu­al.pdf.
Re­pub­lic of Ke­nya (1999). To­tal­ly In­teg­ra­ted Qu­a­li­ty Edu­ca­tion and Trai­ning (TIQET). Re­port of the
Com­mis­sion of In­qui­ry in­to the Edu­ca­tion Sys­tem of Ke­nya chai­red by Da­vy Ko­ech. Nai­ro­bi: Go­vern­
ment Prin­ter.
Wes­tern Pro­vin­ce Sec­re­ta­riat (1998). Re­port of Pro­vin­cial Wor­king Com­mit­tee on Im­pro­ve­ment of Edu­
ca­tion Stan­dards in Wes­tern Pro­vin­ce. Un­pub­lis­hed Re­port.
So­mer­set, A. (1987). Exa­mi­na­tion Re­form in Ke­nya. Was­hing­ton D.C: World Bank.
Wil­son, D. (2001). In­for­ma­tion, In­cen­ti­ves and In­su­rer Be­ha­vio­ur: An Ana­ly­sis of Se­lec­tion in He­alth
In­su­ran­ce Mar­ket. Un­pub­lis­hed Ph.D The­sis, Uni­ver­si­ty of Bris­tol.
Wil­son, D. (2003).Which Ran­king? The Use of Al­ter­na­ti­ve Per­for­man­ce In­di­ca­tors in the En­glish Se­con­
da­ry Edu­ca­tion Mar­ket 2–37. Uni­ver­si­ty of Bris­tol.
World Bank (2001). Al­ter­na­ti­ve Scho­ols and Ro­ma Edu­ca­tion; A re­view of al­ter­na­ti­ve Se­con­da­ry Scho­ol
Mo­dels for the Edu­ca­tion of Ro­ma Chil­dren in Hun­ga­ry. Bu­da­pest: Ra­ja Press.

Ac­know­led­ge­ments

We thank the Coun­cil for De­ve­lop­ment of So­cial Scien­ce Re­se­arch in Af­ri­ca (CODESRIA) for
re­cog­ni­zing, ap­pro­ving and fun­ding this stu­dy. Spe­cial thanks al­so go the 252 mem­bers com­pri­sing
He­ad te­achers, te­achers and stu­dents from the 36 se­con­da­ry scho­ols in the di­strict which for­med the
stu­dy sam­ple. Their co­o­pe­ra­tion in fil­ling the qu­es­tion­nai­res is high­ly ap­pre­cia­ted.

Ad­vi­ced by Lai­ma Rai­lie­nė, Uni­ver­si­ty of Šiau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia

Ja­ne K. Amun­ga Lec­tu­rer, Ma­sin­de Mu­li­ro Uni­ver­si­ty of Scien­ce and Tech­no­lo­gy, Ke­nya.
P.O. Box 190 Ka­ka­me­ga, Ke­nya.
Pho­ne: 0722830454.
E-mail: jna­mun­ga@yahoo.com

Mau­ri­ce M. Ama­da­lo Se­nior Lec­tu­rer, Ma­sin­de Mu­li­ro Uni­ver­si­ty of Scien­ce and Tech­no­lo­gy
De­part­ment of Scien­ce and Mat­he­ma­tics Edu­ca­tion, P.O. Box 190, Ka­ka­me­ga, Ke­nya.
Web­si­te: http://www.mmust.ac.ke/

Ju­lius K. Mai­yo Lec­tu­rer at Ma­sin­de Mu­li­ro Uni­ver­si­ty of Scien­ce and Tech­no­lo­gy, De­part­ment of Edu­ca­
tio­nal Plan­ning and Ma­na­ge­ment, Ke­nya.
P.O. Box 190, Ka­ka­me­ga, Ke­nya.
Pho­ne: 254-721-223-154.
E-mail: mai­y­o­kip2004@yahoo.com
Web­si­te: http://www.wust.ac.ke/
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

25

Sta­tis­tics & Pro­ba­bi­li­ty


Edu­ca­tion in South Af­ri­ca:
Const­raints of Le­ar­ning

Anass Ba­y­a­ga
Uni­ver­si­ty of Fort Ha­re, East Lon­don, South Af­ri­ca
E-mail: aba­y­a­ga@ufh.ac.za

Abst­ract

The pur­po­se of this em­pi­ri­cal stu­dy was to in­ves­ti­ga­te the dif­fi­cul­ties of le­ar­ning sta­tis­tics and pro­ba­bi­li­
ty amongst stu­dents pur­suing Po­stgra­du­a­te Cer­ti­fi­ca­te of Edu­ca­tion (PGCE) pro­gram­me in Uni­ver­si­ty
of Fort Ha­re in South Af­ri­ca.
The ap­pro­ach was a mi­xed met­hod, sam­pling 43 stu­dents, in which ca­se a qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve ana­ly­sis (RM-
ANOVA, RM-MANOVA & ANCOVA) do­mi­na­ted to test four pro­po­si­tions.
The fin­dings re­ve­a­led four conc­lu­sions: (1) stu­dents re­cei­ving de­li­be­ra­te in­struc­tion in how to sol­ve pro­
blems do be­co­me bet­ter and are ab­le to ‘think sta­tis­ti­cal­ly’ (2) the­re was go­od re­a­son to sug­gest that stu­
dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills im­pact on their sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty (3) in con­trast, the­re was not
enough sup­por­ting evi­den­ce to sug­gest that stu­dents’ in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty do­es get stron­ger
with age and last­ly (4) ef­fi­ca­cy of com­pu­ters in gui­ding de­sign of in­struc­tion is an im­por­tant com­po­nent
of sta­tis­ti­cal le­ar­ning.
Most im­por­tant im­pli­ca­tion of the stu­dy was that the use of stra­te­gies to im­pro­ve stu­dents’ ra­tio­nal
num­ber con­cepts and ra­tio/pro­por­tion re­a­so­ning as­sists to re­cog­ni­se and con­front com­mon er­rors in
stu­dents’ sta­tis­ti­cal and pro­ba­bi­li­ty thin­king.
Key words: sta­tis­tics, pro­ba­bi­li­ty, mat­he­ma­tics le­ar­ning, South Af­ri­can edu­ca­tion.

1. Bac­kground of the Stu­dy

The pur­po­se of this em­pi­ri­cal stu­dy was to in­ves­ti­ga­te the dif­fi­cul­ties of le­ar­ning sta­tis­tics and
pro­ba­bi­li­ty (S&P) amongst stu­dents pur­suing Po­stgra­du­a­te Cer­ti­fi­ca­te of Edu­ca­tion (PGCE) pro­
gram­me in Uni­ver­si­ty of Fort Ha­re in South Af­ri­ca.The PGCE is a one-year cour­se in on­ly the de­
part­ment of edu­ca­tion in the Uni­ver­si­ty of Fort Ha­re. Ge­ne­ral­ly in South Af­ri­can edu­ca­tion, a PGCE
cour­se main­ly fo­cu­ses on de­ve­lo­ping te­aching skills, and not on the sub­ject a can­di­da­te te­acher in­
tends to te­ach. For this re­a­son, the can­di­da­te te­acher is ex­pec­ted to ha­ve a go­od un­ders­tan­ding of a
cho­sen sub­ject(s), but mat­he­ma­tics com­pul­so­ry – usu­al­ly to de­gree le­vel – be­fo­re star­ting trai­ning.
The stu­dy dis­cus­ses the na­tu­re of the dis­cip­li­ne in South Af­ri­ca; which sub­se­qu­ent­ly ne­ces­si­ta­ted
the test of four hy­pot­he­ses. But, first the ge­ne­ral con­sen­sus re­gar­ding le­ar­ning and for that mat­ter
te­aching of S & P is as dis­cus­sed.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

26
Fol­lo­wing the in­cep­tion of the Re­vi­sed Na­tio­nal Cur­ri­cu­lum Sta­te­ment-RNCS (2002) for mat­
he­ma­tics, the­re has be­en a gro­wing con­cern to im­pro­ve le­ar­ning and te­aching of S & P in both Ge­ne­
ral Edu­ca­tion Trai­ning (GET) and Furt­her Edu­ca­tion Trai­ning (FET) bands, as part of ba­sic li­te­ra­cy
in mat­he­ma­tics in South Af­ri­can edu­ca­tion. One of the main re­a­sons as aut­hors (North & Ze­wo­tir,
2006:1) main­tai­ned is that it can:

…be at­tri­bu­ted to the fact that sta­tis­tics vir­tu­al­ly pla­y­ed no ro­le in the South
Af­ri­can scho­ol edu­ca­tion sys­tem at that ti­me. The As­so­cia­ted Mat­he­ma­tics
Te­achers of South Af­ri­ca (AMESA) and the South Af­ri­can Sta­tis­ti­cal As­so­
cia­tion (SASA) in­de­pen­dent­ly held an­nu­al se­mi­nars, works­hops, think tanks
and con­fe­ren­ces with no in­te­rac­tion bet­we­en them. It was on­ly in 1998, when
South Af­ri­ca won the bid to host the Sixth In­ter­na­tio­nal Con­fe­ren­ce on the Te­
aching of Sta­tis­tics (ICOTS-6), that the Edu­ca­tion com­mit­tee of SASA was
tas­ked with re­a­ching out to AMESA, with the in­ten­tion of inc­lu­ding scho­ol
te­achers in so­me of the pro­po­sed ICOTS-6 ini­tia­ti­ves. The hos­ting of ICOTS-
6 in South Af­ri­ca thus do­ve-tai­led be­au­ti­ful­ly with in­tro­duc­tion of sta­tis­tics
in­to the scho­ol cur­ri­cu­lum as na­tio­nal and in­ter­na­tio­nal at­ten­tion was fo­cu­sed
on this ini­tia­ti­ve.

Iro­ni­cal­ly, alt­hough ma­ny ar­tic­les in the edu­ca­tion li­te­ra­tu­re re­com­mend how to te­ach mat­he­
ma­tics bet­ter, the­re is lit­tle pub­lis­hed re­se­arch on how stu­dents ac­tu­al­ly le­arn S & P con­cepts as
li­te­ra­tu­re (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006:1) main­tai­ned is that in South Af­ri­ca,

scho­lars we­re pro­mo­ted on the ba­sis of a com­bi­na­tion of class work and for­
mal sum­ma­ti­ve te­sting (con­tent-ba­sed te­sting pla­y­ed a pro­gres­si­ve­ly lar­ger
ro­le in the hig­her gra­des). Du­ring their twel­ve years of scho­o­ling, stu­dents
we­re in­tro­du­ced to grap­hi­cal met­hods of da­ta rep­re­sen­ta­tion in the earlier gra­
des (bar graphs, pic­tog­rams, etc.), but this was ne­ver de­ve­lo­ped to the next
le­vel! Af­ter this ve­ry early in­tro­duc­tion to grap­hi­cal dis­pla­ys of da­ta, it was
on­ly in the gra­de 9 mat­he­ma­tics syl­la­bus that so­me sta­tis­tics was men­tio­ned
again! He­re a small sec­tion was de­vo­ted to ba­sic sta­tis­ti­cal me­a­su­res such as
me­an, me­dian, mo­de, ran­ge, va­rian­ce and stan­dard de­via­tion.

Ho­we­ver, the­re are two main re­a­sons for the gro­wing con­cerns as no­ted by cur­rent stu­dies
(Stohl, 2005). The first re­a­son is that the ex­pe­rien­ce of psy­cho­lo­gists, mat­he­ma­tics edu­ca­tors, and
sta­tis­ti­cians ali­ke is that a lar­ge pro­por­tion of stu­dents, even in Uni­ver­si­ty, do not un­ders­tand ma­
ny of the ba­sic S & P con­cepts they stu­dy le­a­ding to ina­de­qu­a­cies in pre­re­qui­si­te sta­tis­ti­cal skills
(Stohl, 2005). In sup­port of ina­de­qu­a­cies in pre­re­qui­si­te sta­tis­ti­cal skills, sur­vey of li­te­ra­tu­re sug­
gests that at any le­vel, stu­dents ap­pe­ar to ha­ve dif­fi­cul­ties de­ve­lo­ping cor­rect in­tui­tion about fun­da­
men­tal ide­as of S & P, es­pe­cial­ly pro­ba­bi­li­ty/chan­ce (Stohl, 2005). The dif­fi­cul­ty as im­plied by the
li­te­ra­tu­re was that stu­dents ha­ve an un­der­ly­ing troub­le with ra­tio­nal num­ber con­cepts and pro­por­
tio­nal re­a­so­ning, which are used in cal­cu­la­ting, re­por­ting, and in­ter­pre­ting pro­ba­bi­li­ties (North &
Ze­wo­tir, 2006). Even past stu­dies (DeWet, 2002; Rus­so & Pas­san­nan­te, 2001; Kent, Ho­y­les, Noss
& Gui­le, 2004; Er­nest, 1984) ha­ve long in­di­ca­ted that stu­dents are ge­ne­ral­ly we­ak in ra­tio­nal/ir­ra­
tio­nal num­ber con­cepts and ha­ve dif­fi­cul­ties with ba­sic con­cepts in­vol­ving frac­tions, de­ci­mals, and
per­cen­ta­ges.
The se­cond con­cern as as­ser­ted by both lo­cal and in­ter­na­tio­nal stu­dies (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006;
Stohl, 2005) was at­tri­bu­tab­le to abst­ract re­a­so­ning as part of the pro­blem. Con­sis­tent with this se­
cond view, re­se­arch stu­dies (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006) as­sert that stu­dents ha­ve al­re­a­dy de­ve­lo­ped
dis­tas­te for S & P through ha­ving be­en ex­po­sed to its stu­dy in a high­ly abst­ract and for­mal way.
For this re­a­son, a past stu­dy (Freu­dent­hal, 1973) cau­tio­ned against te­aching any tech­ni­que of ‘mat­
Anass BAYAGA. Statistics & Probability Education in South Africa: Constraints of Learning
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
he­ma­ti­cal sta­tis­tics’ even to Uni­ver­si­ty first years. This se­cond key re­a­son is con­sis­tent with ot­her 27
re­se­arch stu­dies in cog­ni­ti­ve scien­ce, which la­men­ted that the­re is pre­va­len­ce of so­me ‘in­tui­ti­ve’ wa­
ys of thin­king that in­ter­fe­res with the le­ar­ning of cor­rect S & P re­a­so­ning (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006).
This in­ter­fe­ren­ce of in­tui­ti­ve as ar­gu­ed by re­cent stu­dy (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006) sug­ges­ted that
ina­bi­li­ty of both te­achers and le­ar­ners in tran­sla­ting ver­bal pro­blem sta­te­ments pla­gu­es S & P. Thus
ide­as of S &P of­ten ap­pe­ar to con­flict with stu­dents’ ex­pe­rien­ces and how they view the world.
In a sharp con­trast though, ele­ments of S & P ha­ve be­co­me re­qui­si­te for a wi­de ran­ge of fields
of stu­dy. This is re­flec­ted in both print and elec­tro­nic me­dia, whe­re or­di­na­ry re­a­ders al­most dai­ly
find re­ports of me­di­cal, eco­no­mic, or psy­cho­lo­gi­cal re­ports that ne­ed to be un­ders­to­od and eva­lu­a­
ted on­ly with so­me un­ders­tan­ding of S & P prin­cip­les.
In the Uni­ted Sta­tes (US), S & P we­re ma­jor the­mes in pub­li­ca­tions of the US Na­tio­nal Coun­cil
of Te­achers of Mat­he­ma­tics (NCTM). The Ame­ri­can Sta­tis­ti­cal As­so­cia­tion (ASA) and the NCTM,
through their Joint Com­mit­tee on the Cur­ri­cu­lum in S & P, al­so ha­ve emp­ha­si­sed the de­si­ra­bi­li­ty
of such a cur­ri­cu­lum. The ASA-NCTM Joint Com­mit­tee has pub­lis­hed a do­cu­ment with re­com­
men­ded gui­de­li­nes for te­aching sta­tis­tics wit­hin the K-12 mat­he­ma­tics cur­ri­cu­lum, which inc­lu­des
ru­di­men­ta­ry sta­tis­tics ac­ti­vi­ties as early as Gra­des 1 to 3. This is an in­di­ca­tion that the ent­hu­siasm
for S & P in the cur­ri­cu­lum among US spe­cia­lists in both sta­tis­tics and mat­he­ma­tics edu­ca­tion is
ge­ne­ral­ly en­dor­sed.
In the Uni­ted King­dom (UK), the Scho­ols Coun­cil Pro­ject on Sta­tis­ti­cal Edu­ca­tion (SCPSE)
has pub­lis­hed ma­te­rials for se­con­da­ry stu­dents co­ve­ring to­pics that il­lust­ra­te how S & P are used in
me­a­ning­ful con­texts in dif­fe­rent sub­ject are­as. The emp­ha­sis of the­se ma­te­rials was on de­ve­lo­ping
con­cepts rat­her than car­ry­ing out cal­cu­la­tions.
Abo­ve ac­counts from US and UK sug­gest that S & P cur­ri­cu­la de­ve­lop­ment pro­jects are being
at­temp­ted to pro­du­ce and test sets of ma­te­rials for stu­dents and te­achers. Im­ply­ing that S & P to­
pics are im­por­tant, thus emp­ha­si­ses should be pla­ced as early as the pri­ma­ry scho­ol cur­ri­cu­lum.
The be­low sub sec­tion ela­bo­ra­tes the na­tu­re of S & P in South Af­ri­ca and mo­ti­va­tion for re­se­arch
hy­pot­he­ses.

Sta­tis­tics and Pro­ba­bi­li­ty Edu­ca­tion in South Af­ri­ca: Mo­ti­va­tion for Re­se­arch


Hy­pot­he­ses

Da­ta hand­ling as a scien­ti­fic dis­cip­li­ne is usu­al­ly first taught at the Ge­ne­ral Edu­ca­tion Trai­ning
(GET) Band le­vel in South Af­ri­ca (the pa­per uses the term ‘da­ta hand­ling’ to re­fer to the stu­dy of
S & P, as is com­mon in South Af­ri­ca). The in­tro­duc­to­ry cour­se is usu­al­ly di­vi­ded in­to three pha­
ses: foun­da­tion, in­ter­me­dia­te and se­nior pha­ses. The to­pics ty­pi­cal­ly inc­lu­ded in pha­se are lis­ted in
Tab­le 1.

Tab­le 1. Da­ta Hand­ling fo­cus are­as in each of the pha­ses of Cur­ri­cu­lum


2005 (C2005): Sour­ce (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006:3).

GET: Foun­da­tion Pha­se: Gra­de R (re­cep­tion year), Gra­des 1 to 3

At the end of this pha­se, it is ex­pec­ted that a scho­lar is ab­le to


Sort ob­jects and da­ta in dif­fe­rent wa­ys, ba­sed on their fe­a­tu­res (co­lour, sha­pe, etc.)
Rep­re­sent da­ta or ob­jects in dif­fe­rent forms (Bar graphs, pic­tog­raghs, etc.)
In­ter­pret the rep­re­sen­ta­tion of da­ta or ob­jects
The­re must be awa­re­ness that the se­lec­tion of at­tri­bu­tes used for sor­ting will in­flu­en­ce how the da­ta is rep­re­sen­
ted.


Re­a­ders are re­qu­es­ted to re­ad Cur­ri­cu­lum 2005 (C2005) of the South Af­ri­can Re­vi­sed Na­tio­nal Cur­ri­cu­lum Sta­te­
ment (RNCS) for mat­he­ma­tics or North & Ze­wo­tir (2006) on dif­fe­rent bands of Edu­ca­tion in South Af­ri­ca.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

28 Continued to Tab­le 1

GET: In­ter­me­dia­te Pha­se: Gra­des 4 to 6

Dif­fe­rent qu­es­tions re­ve­al dif­fe­rent fe­a­tu­res of a si­tu­a­tion


Dif­fe­rent forms of rep­re­sen­ta­tion high­light so­me as­pects of da­ta, whi­le hi­ding ot­hers
In­tro­duc­tion to the idea of chan­ce (Pro­ba­bi­li­ty):
De­ve­lo­ping an awa­re­ness of cer­tain­ty/un­cer­tain­ty
Ran­dom ex­pe­ri­ments and as­so­cia­ted events
No cal­cu­la­tion of pro­ba­bi­li­ties, just an awa­re­ness of the fact that so­me events might be mo­re
li­ke­ly to oc­cur than ot­hers, i.e., gra­ding of le­vels of un­cer­tain­ty of out­co­mes of grou­pings the­re­of

GET: Se­nior Pha­se: Gra­des 7 to 9

Ap­pli­ca­tion of to­ols and tech­ni­qu­es al­re­a­dy le­arnt to in­ves­ti­ga­te and sol­ve pro­blems
(inc­lu­ding de­sign of qu­es­tion­nai­res)
Cri­ti­cal awa­re­ness of use/abu­se of da­ta rep­re­sen­ta­tions and in­ter­pre­ta­tions
Furt­her de­ve­lop­ment of pro­ba­bi­li­ty con­cepts in or­der to en­ga­ge with ex­pres­sions of
chan­ge in their dai­ly li­ves (e.g., true un­ders­tan­ding of un­cer­tain in we­at­her pre­dic­tions, etc.)

Sin­ce the year 2002, much of the li­te­ra­tu­re on le­ar­ning and te­aching da­ta hand­ling in South
Af­ri­ca has be­en at the Uni­ver­si­ty le­vel (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006). It is on­ly in re­cent ti­mes that da­ta
hand­ling has be­en in­tro­du­ced in­to the mat­ri­cu­la­tion exams of the Furt­her Edu­ca­tion and Trai­ning
(FET) Band (Re­vi­sed Na­tio­nal Cur­ri­cu­lum Sta­te­ment for mat­he­ma­tics – RNCS, 2002). The cur­rent
li­te­ra­tu­re has be­en fil­led with com­ments by in­struc­tors about both stu­dents and te­achers not at­tai­
ning an ade­qu­a­te un­ders­tan­ding of ba­sic da­ta hand­ling con­cepts and not being ab­le to sol­ve ap­plied
S & P pro­blems. In fact aut­hors (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006:2) ar­gu­ed that:

…re­a­li­ty was that stu­dents en­te­red ter­tia­ry ins­ti­tu­tions with no prior ex­po­su­re
to sta­tis­tics. Sta­tis­tics, at South Af­ri­can ter­tia­ry ins­ti­tu­tions, ve­ry much mir­
rors what is the ca­se in ma­ny coun­tries – a small num­ber of stu­dents opt to stu­
dy sta­tis­tics as a three year ma­jor, pos­sib­ly fol­lo­wed by furt­her post gra­du­a­te
stu­dies in sta­tis­tics. The ma­jo­ri­ty of stu­dents, re­gis­te­ring for sta­tis­tics cour­ses
at ter­tia­ry ins­ti­tu­tions, re­gis­ter for one of the ma­ny, va­ried in­tro­duc­to­ry sta­
tis­tics ser­vi­ce cour­ses which are com­pul­so­ry to stu­dents from En­gi­ne­e­ring,
Com­mer­ce, Me­di­ci­ne, Phar­ma­cy, etc. The­se ser­vi­ce cour­ses in sta­tis­tics are
of­ten taught by the re­le­vant fa­cul­ty mem­bers them­sel­ves and not by sta­tis­ti­
cians. The re­sult is that the­se cour­ses are ge­ne­ral­ly taught using the clas­sic
for­mu­la-ba­sed ap­pro­ach, as the­se lec­tu­rers ha­ve not kept up with de­ve­lop­
ments in sta­tis­tics edu­ca­tion, and thus te­ach in the way that they we­re clas­si­
cal­ly taught. It is thus not sur­pri­sing that Sta­tis­tics has a ve­ry ne­ga­ti­ve ima­ge
amongst the ma­jo­ri­ty of stu­dents at ter­tia­ry ins­ti­tu­tions in South Af­ri­ca.

The abo­ve ci­ted stu­dies sug­gest that uni­ver­si­ty stu­dents in edu­ca­tion (can­di­da­te te­achers),
so­cial and exact scien­ces in in­tro­duc­to­ry da­ta hand­ling cour­ses do not un­ders­tand ma­ny of the con­
cepts they stu­dy. This im­plies that stu­dents of­ten tend to res­pond to pro­blems in­vol­ving S & P in
ge­ne­ral by fal­ling in­to a ‘num­ber crun­ching’ mo­de, plug­ging qu­an­ti­ties in­to a for­mu­la or pro­ce­du­re
wit­hout for­ming an in­ter­nal rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the pro­blem. Thus, they (stu­dents and te­achers ali­ke)
may be ab­le to me­mo­ri­ze for­mu­las and the steps to fol­low in fa­mi­liar, well-de­fi­ned pro­blems, but
on­ly sel­dom ap­pe­ar to get much sen­se of what the ra­tio­na­le is or how con­cepts can be ap­plied in
new si­tu­a­tions. Con­se­qu­ent­ly, wit­hin the con­cep­tu­al un­der­pin­nings, the de­tails they ha­ve le­ar­ned or
me­mo­ri­sed, for wha­te­ver use they might be, so­on fa­de.
With re­fe­ren­ce to the South Af­ri­can mat­he­ma­tics edu­ca­tion li­te­ra­tu­re in ge­ne­ral, at­ten­tion has
not fo­cu­sed on the pro­ces­ses in­vol­ved in sol­ving S & P pro­blems and the ne­ed for ba­sing sta­tis­tics
cour­ses on pro­blem sol­ving (Stohl, 2005; Vit­hal, Ad­ler & Kei­tel, 2005; Mul­lis, Mar­tin, Gon­za­lez
Anass BAYAGA. Statistics & Probability Education in South Africa: Constraints of Learning
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
& Chros­tow­ski, 2004; Red­dy, 2004). This is sup­por­ted by aut­hors (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006:5), who 29
la­men­ted that in South Af­ri­ca, “cur­ri­cu­lum 2005 re­cog­ni­ses the cross-cur­ri­cu­lar ne­ed for sta­tis­tics
li­te­ra­cy and da­ta ana­ly­sis skills as an an­ti­ci­pa­ted out­co­me, thus lar­ge amounts of sta­tis­ti­cal ma­te­rial
is pre­sent in the syl­la­bus. This con­tent ho­we­ver has to be taught by te­achers with lit­tle or no trai­ning
in Sta­tis­tics”. Most mat­he­ma­tics edu­ca­tion re­se­arch in South Af­ri­ca cur­rent­ly fo­cus at­ten­tion on le­
ar­ning out­co­mes 1-4 in the mat­he­ma­tics Re­vi­sed Na­tio­nal Cur­ri­cu­lum Sta­te­ment-RNCS (RNCS,
2002).
The­re do­es not ap­pe­ar to be sub­stan­tial evi­den­ce yet for im­pro­ved prac­ti­ce in pre-uni­ver­si­ty le­
vel in SA. Most of the re­cent li­te­ra­tu­re about pre-uni­ver­si­ty da­ta hand­ling in­struc­tion falls in­to two
ca­te­go­ries of Re­vi­sed Na­tio­nal Cur­ri­cu­lum Sta­te­ment (RNCS, 2002): (1) sta­te­ments con­cer­ning
the ne­ed for in­struc­tion at the pre-uni­ver­si­ty le­vel (Stohl, 2005) and (3) desc­rip­tions of the ro­le of
sta­tis­tics cur­ri­cu­lar (Stohl, 2005).
On­ly the last ca­te­go­ry is of in­te­rest he­re, re­se­arch on stu­dents’ un­ders­tan­ding of sta­tis­tics is
mo­re ex­ten­si­ve than re­se­arch on pro­ba­bi­li­ty and has de­ve­lo­ped as an area se­pa­ra­te­ly. The­re has be­
en one dis­tinct li­ne of re­se­arch on sta­tis­tics un­ders­tan­ding; one that fo­cu­ses on uni­ver­si­ty stu­dents
(North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006). Des­pi­te the ent­hu­sias­tic de­ve­lop­ment of new in­struc­tio­nal ma­te­rials for
le­ar­ning and te­aching of S & P in En­gland and the US, lit­tle se­ems to be known about how to te­ach
and le­arn S & P ef­fec­ti­ve­ly in South Af­ri­ca. For exam­ple, in the in­tro­duc­tion of the RNCS, it was
no­ted that so­me pro­blems still re­main in le­ar­ning out­co­me 5 (LO5) in the RNCS; the­se inc­lu­de the
le­ar­ning and te­aching of S & P. Re­se­arch (Stohl, 2005) sug­gest that in­struc­tio­nal met­hods con­tain
dif­fe­rent mi­xes of lo­gi­cal ar­gu­ment on sta­tis­tics to­pics in scho­o­ling. Thus, S & P le­ar­ning and te­
aching is al­most en­ti­re­ly taught on ex­pe­rien­ce of what has not wor­ked and spe­cu­la­tion about what
might work. What may be ne­eded is si­mi­lar re­se­arch on sta­tis­ti­cal in­struc­tion and stu­dents’ abi­li­ty
to ‘think sta­tis­ti­cal­ly’.
Hen­ce, it is the in­tent of this pa­per via pro­blem sol­ving tech­ni­que to test the first pro­po­si­tion
that stu­dents re­cei­ving de­li­be­ra­te in­struc­tion in how to sol­ve pro­blems do be­co­me bet­ter pro­blem
sol­vers and are bet­ter ab­le to ‘think sta­tis­ti­cal­ly’. Anot­her pro­po­si­tion inc­lu­des a stu­dents’ ge­ne­ral
men­tal ma­tu­ri­ty, thus im­pact of age and le­ar­ning of da­ta hand­ling. This pro­po­si­tion ste­ams from the
se­cond NAEP mat­he­ma­tics as­ses­sment, which pro­du­ced sub­jec­ti­ve evi­den­ce that stu­dents’ in­tui­ti­
ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty gets stron­ger with age, but we­re not ne­ces­sa­ri­ly cor­rect as sug­ges­ted by
(Stohl, 2005). Con­sis­tent­ly, a test of hy­pot­he­sis of, spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills and un­ders­tan­ding
of S & P will be con­duc­ted.
Alt­hough strong ar­gu­ments ha­ve be­en ma­de tho­se stu­dents le­arn best when in­struc­tion is cou­
ched in the con­text of stu­dents’ ‘re­al world’ know­led­ge (Stohl, 2005), the­re is still on­ly a lit­tle pub­lis­
hed re­se­arch on the ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of this ap­pro­ach or any ot­her. This lack of re­se­arch is per­haps due,
as re­se­arch (Stohl, 2005) be­lie­ves, to the dif­fi­cul­ty of con­duc­ting this ty­pe of em­pi­ri­cal re­se­arch.
The aut­hor (Stohl, 2005) pro­vi­des a ca­ta­lo­gue of pro­blems that ha­ve li­mi­ted the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of
em­pi­ri­cal re­se­arch on pro­ba­bi­lis­tic con­cepts. A re­la­ted pro­blem is a lack of re­se­arch on the de­sign
and use of in­stru­ments to me­a­su­re sta­tis­ti­cal un­ders­tan­ding (Stohl, 2005). A few in­stru­ments ha­ve
be­en de­sig­ned to me­a­su­re stu­dents’ at­ti­tu­des and an­xie­ty to­ward sta­tis­tics and so­me re­se­arch has
ap­pe­a­red that shows the ro­le of fac­tors in­flu­en­cing ge­ne­ral achie­ve­ment in a sta­tis­tics cour­se (Stohl,
2005).
The afo­re­men­tio­ned past and pre­sent stu­dies ma­ke it cle­ar that far mo­re re­se­arch has be­en do­ne
on the psy­cho­lo­gy of sta­tis­ti­cal than on ot­her pro­ba­bi­li­ty con­cepts. In spi­te of this re­se­arch, le­ar­ning
and te­aching a con­cep­tu­al grasp of S&P still ap­pe­ars to be a ve­ry dif­fi­cult task, fraught with am­bi­
gui­ty and il­lu­sion as no­ted abo­ve.
In conc­lu­sion, the hy­pot­he­ti­cal li­te­ra­tu­re has ex­plai­ned the re­la­tions­hips of va­rio­us va­riab­les
and S&P con­cepts. In­de­ed, it is dif­fi­cult to dri­ve and sub­stan­tia­te such ide­as wit­hout test of hy­pot­he­
ses. The­se and ot­her re­se­arch con­tes­ta­tions form the ba­sis of for­mu­la­ting the re­se­arch hy­pot­he­ses.

For de­tails see Cur­ri­cu­lum 2005 (C2005) of the South Af­ri­can Re­vi­sed Na­tio­nal Cur­ri­cu­lum Sta­te­ment (RNCS)
for mat­he­ma­tics.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

30 Re­se­arch Hy­pot­he­ses

Be­low are the lists of the main hy­pot­he­ses to be tes­ted. The­se inc­lu­de the test of the im­pact of
in­struc­tions (pro­blem sol­ving tech­ni­qu­es), le­vel of mat­he­ma­ti­cal skills, in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­
bi­li­ty (ma­tu­ri­ty) and last­ly com­pu­te­ri­sa­tion of sta­tis­tics on le­ar­ning of da­ta hand­ling. With re­gards
to hy­pot­he­sis 1, stu­dies (DeWet, 2002; Rus­so & Pas­san­nan­te, 2001) ha­ve sho­wed that stu­dents
re­cei­ving de­li­be­ra­te in­struc­tion in how to sol­ve pro­blems do not be­co­me sta­tis­ti­cal­ly bet­ter. Thus it
con­tra­dicts with what ha­ve be­en re­ve­a­led by ot­her li­te­ra­tu­re (Kent, et al., 2004) who sug­ges­ted the
con­ver­se is true. For this re­a­son if Ho is pro­ven to be cor­rect then it sug­gest that stu­dents re­cei­ving
de­li­be­ra­te in­struc­tion in how to sol­ve pro­blems do not be­co­me sta­tis­ti­cal­ly bet­ter, if not Ha which
is con­ver­se of Ho is ac­cep­ted.
Fol­lo­wing hy­pot­he­sis 2, Ho is in tan­dem with stu­dies (Stohl, 2005) which in­di­ca­ted that stu­
dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills do­es not im­pact on S&P abi­li­ty. The aut­hor (Stohl, 2005)
emp­ha­si­sed that spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills do­es not im­pact on S & P abi­li­ty, but this is op­po­sed by
ot­her li­te­ra­tu­re (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006). In thid con­nec­tion if Ho is pro­ven to be cor­rect then it sug­
gest that spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills do­es not im­pact on S & P abi­li­ty, if not, Ha which is con­ver­se of
Ho is ac­cep­ted. Hy­pot­he­ses 3 and 4 as con­tes­ted by both past and pre­sent li­te­ra­tu­re ha­ve op­po­sing
views, the­se hy­pot­he­ses for the sa­me pro­ce­du­re as in the ca­se of hy­pot­he­ses 1 and 2.

Hy­pot­he­sis 1
Ho= Stu­dents re­cei­ving de­li­be­ra­te in­struc­tion in how to sol­ve pro­blems do not be­co­me sta­tis­
ti­cal­ly bet­ter.
Ha= Stu­dents re­cei­ving de­li­be­ra­te in­struc­tion in how to sol­ve pro­blems do be­co­me bet­ter sta­
tis­ti­cal­ly
Hy­pot­he­sis 2
Ho= Stu­dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills do­es not im­pact on S&P abi­li­ty.
Ha= Stu­dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills im­pacts on their S&P abi­li­ty.
Hy­pot­he­sis 3
Ho= Stu­dents’ in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty do­es not get stron­ger with age.
Ha= Stu­dents’ in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty do­es get stron­ger with age.
Hy­pot­he­sis 4
Ho= Sta­tis­ti­cal ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion with the ro­le of com­pu­ters do­es not im­pro­ve le­ar­ning of
S&P.
Ha= Sta­tis­ti­cal ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion with the ro­le of com­pu­ters do­es im­pro­ve le­ar­ning of S&P.

2. Met­ho­do­lo­gy of Re­se­arch

The pur­po­se of the stu­dy was to in­ves­ti­ga­te whet­her the­re are any sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ces in
the me­cha­nisms of stu­dents sta­tis­ti­cal le­ar­ning abi­li­ty among PGCE (43) stu­dents over a pe­riod of
two-years. Fol­lo­wing the con­text of the stu­dy and the hy­pot­he­ses, the pa­per in­ves­ti­ga­ted in­di­vi­du­al
dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en gen­ders and their in­te­rac­ti­ve na­tu­re with the cor­res­pon­ding aca­de­mic tracks of
da­ta hand­ling. Four dis­tinct aca­de­mic tracks we­re mo­ni­to­red thus; in­struc­tions (pro­blem sol­ving
tech­ni­qu­es), le­vel of mat­he­ma­ti­cal skills, in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty, and last­ly com­pu­te­ri­sa­tion
of sta­tis­tics.
The ap­pro­ach was a mi­xed met­hod (qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve and qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve) in which ca­se a qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve
pro­ce­du­re do­mi­na­ted due to the hy­pot­he­ses. The re­se­arch de­sign was a ca­se stu­dy, fol­lo­wing the hy­
pot­he­ses, a qu­es­tion­nai­re was used to sam­ple 43 stu­dents pur­suing po­stgra­du­a­te cer­ti­fi­ca­te of edu­ca­
tion pro­gram­me in Uni­ver­si­ty of Fort Ha­re in the Eastern Ca­pe of South Af­ri­ca over a pe­riod of two
aca­de­mic years. Me­anw­hi­le, an in­ter­view sche­du­le was pre­pa­red for the pur­po­se of in-depth ana­ly­
sis of res­pon­ses of the unit of ana­ly­sis. Da­ta ana­ly­sis was con­duc­ted using mul­ti­va­ria­te ana­ly­sis of
Anass BAYAGA. Statistics & Probability Education in South Africa: Constraints of Learning
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
va­rian­ce (MANOVA) and re­pe­a­ted-me­a­su­res ana­ly­sis of va­rian­ce (ANOVA) inc­lu­ding ana­ly­sis of 31
co­va­rian­ce (ANCOVA). No­ting that a re­lia­bi­li­ty test con­duc­ted re­ve­a­led a 0.85 Cron­bach’s alp­ha,
con­fi­dent­ly sug­ges­ting a high re­lia­bi­li­ty of in­stru­ment (Ta­bach­nick & Fi­dell, 2001).
The re­a­son for the abo­ve da­ta ana­ly­sis (MANOVA, ANOVA and ANCOVA) is for the pur­po­se
of re­ve­a­ling any dif­fe­ren­ce bet­we­en se­lec­ted so­cio-de­mog­rap­hy fac­tor and sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty, in­fe­ren­
tial ana­ly­ses such as ANOVA and MANOVA we­re uti­li­sed for de­ter­mi­ning any re­la­tions­hip bet­we­
en se­lec­ted so­cio­de­mog­rap­hic fac­tor and sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty (Ta­bach­nick & Fi­dell, 2001).

2.1 Pro­ce­du­res

Scho­ol of Ini­tial Te­acher Edu­ca­tion (GET) of fa­cul­ty of edu­ca­tion: Uni­ver­si­ty of Fort Ha­re was
used in this stu­dy, with a to­tal num­ber of 43 PGCE stu­dents ad­mit­ted in the aca­de­mic years of 2007
and 2009. The per­for­man­ce was ba­sed on a com­bi­na­tion of the class tests and as­sign­ment con­duc­ted
over the two years. Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, ano­ny­mous qu­es­tion­nai­res we­re gi­ven to the can­di­da­te te­achers
re­la­ted to the four dis­tinct aca­de­mic tracks which we­re in­struc­tions (pro­blem sol­ving tech­ni­qu­es),
le­vel of mat­he­ma­ti­cal skills, in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty, and last­ly com­pu­te­ri­sa­tion of S&P.
The qu­es­tion­nai­re, de­sig­ned for the pur­po­se of this stu­dy, was ba­sed on the re­la­ti­ve in­ter­na­tio­
nal li­te­ra­tu­re (cres­wel, 2007; Stohl, 2005; Vit­hal, Ad­ler & Kei­tel, 2005; Mul­lis, Mar­tin, Gon­za­lez
& Chros­tow­ski, 2004; Red­dy, 2004) (cf. con­text of stu­dy and hy­pot­he­ses) and it was ad­jus­ted to
the spe­cial cha­rac­te­ris­tics of the sam­ple of can­di­da­te te­achers as well as the fo­cal point (pur­po­se),
thus te­aching and le­ar­ning of sta­tis­tics. The qu­es­tion­nai­re al­so inc­lu­ded de­mog­rap­hic qu­es­tions
(cross re­fe­ren­ce to sec­tion 3.1 for de­tails). The last unit was com­po­sed of open qu­es­tions. The rest
of units con­sis­ted of clo­sed qu­es­tions with a 5-point Li­kert- ty­pe (Cres­wel, 2007; Ta­bach­nick, & Fi­
dell, 2001) sca­le and the par­ti­ci­pants we­re as­ked to in­di­ca­te how much each item cha­rac­te­ri­ses the
te­aching and le­ar­ning of sta­tis­tics. Due to the in­stru­ment used and the sca­le of me­a­su­re­ment used, it
ne­ces­si­ta­ted the use of re­pe­a­ted-me­a­su­res Ana­ly­sis of Va­rian­ce (RM-ANOVA) and RM-MANOVA
fol­lo­wing spe­ci­fic as­sump­tions (cross re­fe­ren­ce to sec­tion 3 for de­tails).

3. Re­sults of Re­se­arch

Ba­sed on the re­se­arch hy­pot­he­ses and sca­le of me­a­su­re­ment (or­di­nal/ran­ked sca­le), the ana­
ly­sis of the re­sults we­re in two hal­ves. Whi­le, one-half of the ana­ly­sis to­ok re­pe­a­ted-me­a­su­res
ana­ly­sis of va­rian­ce (RM-ANOVA)- a uni­va­ria­te ap­pro­ach that is most com­mon­ly re­cog­ni­sed and
su­itab­le for this ana­ly­sis, the se­cond half fo­cu­sed on the mul­ti­va­ria­te ge­ne­ra­li­sa­tion ap­ply­ing a
RM-MANOVA ap­pro­ach to the sa­me da­ta (Ta­bach­nick, & Fi­dell, 2001). The main pur­po­se was to
ana­ly­se and rep­re­sent the re­sults of the re­se­arch. Whi­le the ge­ne­ral ap­pro­a­ches are fair­ly si­mi­lar the­
re are fun­da­men­tal dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en the as­sump­tions as well as the sub­se­qu­ent fol­low-up tests
(as­sump­tions) ne­eded to be con­duc­ted. This sec­tion desc­ri­bes the va­rio­us sta­tis­tics used and so­me
of as­sump­tions. But first the so­cio-de­mog­rap­hic fin­dings are as desc­ri­bed be­low.

3.1 So­cio-de­mog­rap­hic fin­dings: Desc­rip­ti­ve Sta­tis­tics

The ave­ra­ge age of par­ti­ci­pants was 24.5 years. The age of par­ti­ci­pants ran­ged from 23 to 41
years (M = 24.5, SD = 5.02). The re­sults sug­ges­ted that age was non-nor­mal­ly di­stri­bu­ted, with
skew­ness of 1.69 (SE = 0.05) and kur­to­sis of 3.80 (SE = 0.11).
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

32 3.2 Test of As­sump­tions

Mul­ti­va­ria­te nor­ma­li­ty of the da­ta was in­ves­ti­ga­ted using in­for­ma­tion from two sour­ces. First,
the mul­ti­va­ria­te in­ter­re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en all res­pon­se va­riab­les was as­ses­sed using in­di­vi­du­al fac­to­
rial group by-ca­se com­pu­ted le­ve­ra­ge va­lu­es. Cri­ti­cal cut-off va­lu­es for the­se we­re com­pu­ted ba­sed
on the cor­res­pon­ding Ma­ha­lo­no­bis Dis­tan­ce cri­ti­cal chi-squ­a­re va­lu­es with the ap­prop­ria­te group
sam­ple si­ze and an alp­ha le­vel of .01. The re­sults sug­ges­ted that no­ne of the group’s ma­xi­mal le­ve­
ra­ge va­lu­es ex­ce­e­ded the cri­ti­cal cut-off. From this, the re­se­ar­cher could in­fer that gi­ven the da­ta,
the­re we­re no mul­ti­va­ria­te out­liers in the da­ta­set for this hy­pot­he­sis (cross re­fe­ren­ce sec­tion 3.1 for
de­tails). Se­cond­ly, the mul­ti­va­ria­te skew­ness and kur­to­sis we­re in­ves­ti­ga­ted using nor­mal di­stri­bu­
tion. Again, the two groups sho­wed no de­via­tion from an as­su­med mul­ti­va­ria­te nor­mal di­stri­bu­tion.
Thus, no­ne of the di­stri­bu­tio­nal co­ef­fi­cients we­re sig­ni­fi­cant, sug­ges­ting a mul­ti­va­ria­te nor­mal di­stri­
bu­tion of the da­ta. With this par­ti­cu­lar as­ses­sment it was ap­prop­ria­te to pro­ce­ed with the ana­ly­sis.

3.3. Hy­pot­he­sis 1

The first in­ves­ti­ga­tion of the da­ta re­ve­a­led the se­pa­ra­te me­ans (M = 65.3, SD = 8.15; M = 64.5,
SD = 9.4 and M = 65.1, SD = 9.6) on the pro­blem sol­ving tech­ni­que (PST) me­a­su­re for each of the
groups res­pec­ti­ve­ly; go­al of S&P (SP); na­tu­re of mat­he­ma­ti­cal ac­ti­vi­ty (NMA); ori­gin of mat­he­
ma­ti­cal know­led­ge (OMK) res­pec­ti­ve­ly as se­en in Tab­le 1. It fol­lo­wed that the­re was a sig­ni­fi­cant
chan­ge in the PST sco­res ac­ross the groups, F (3, 729) = 29.03, p < .05. Both the F and p va­lu­es
sug­ges­ted and con­fir­med that the­re was a sig­ni­fi­cant chan­ge bet­we­en PST and the ot­her groups as
afo­re­men­tion, no­ting that in this in­tan­ce so­cio-de­mog­rap­hi­cal da­ta was ex­clu­ded (this is con­si­de­red
in hy­pot­he­ses 2 and 3.
Fol­lo­wing the abo­ve re­sults, the stu­dy conc­lu­si­ve­ly re­jec­ted the null hy­pot­he­sis and ac­cep­ted
that stu­dents re­cei­ving de­li­be­ra­te in­struc­tion in how to sol­ve pro­blems do be­co­me bet­ter ab­le to
think sta­tis­ti­cal­ly.

Tab­le 1. Me­ans and Stan­dard de­via­tions of groups.

Groups Me­an(M) Stan­dard de­via­tion (SD)


1. go­al of S&P (SP) 65.30 8.15
2. na­tu­re of mat­he­ma­ti­cal ac­ti­vi­ty (NMA) 64.50 9.40
3. ori­gin of mat­he­ma­ti­cal know­led­ge (OMK) 65.10 9.60

3.4 Hy­pot­he­sis 2

The li­te­ra­tu­re (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006) sug­ges­ted that stu­dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics
skills im­pacts on sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty. In this ana­ly­sis, the re­sults we­re sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­ni­fi­cant. Sin­ce
the F ra­tio for this hy­pot­he­sis was ve­ry lar­ge [F (2, 143) = 3772.3, p = .0001, η2 = .56], the stu­dy
could con­fi­dent­ly re­ject the null hy­pot­he­sis and conc­lu­de that stu­dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­
tics skills im­pacts on sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty, with a sig­ni­fi­cant le­vel of ef­fect (η2 = .56). The va­lue of η2
ex­plains the strength of the sig­ni­fi­can­ce le­vel, in this ca­se abo­ve 0.5 sug­ges­ting mo­de­ra­te ef­fect and
F ra­tio ve­ry lar­ge, in­di­ca­ting a sig­ni­fi­can­ce le­vel (Ta­bach­nick, & Fi­dell, 2001). This im­plies that
the­re is suf­fi­cient re­a­son to en­cou­ra­ge te­achers that stu­dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills
im­pacts on sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty. This sug­gest that it is im­por­tant stu­dents mat­he­ma­ti­cal skills are at par
with their sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty which is con­sis­tent with pre­vio­us stu­dies (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006).
Anass BAYAGA. Statistics & Probability Education in South Africa: Constraints of Learning
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
3.5 Hy­pot­he­sis 3 33
The NAEP mat­he­ma­tics as­ses­sment pro­du­ced evi­den­ce that stu­dents’ in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of S&P
get stron­ger with age. Da­ta was ana­ly­sed using a mi­xed-de­sign ANOVA with a wit­hin-sub­jects
fac­tor of sub­sca­le of ages (23–26 yrs; 27–31 yrs; 32 yrs and mo­re) and a bet­we­en-sub­ject fac­tor of
sex (ma­le, fe­ma­le). The pre­dic­ted main ef­fect of age was not sig­ni­fi­cant, F (1, 732) = 2.00, p = .16,
η2 = .003, nor was the pre­dic­ted main ef­fect of in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty, F (1, 732) = 3.25,
p = .072, η2 = .004.
An ANCOVA [bet­we­en-sub­jects fac­tor: sex (ma­le, fe­ma­le); co­va­ria­te: age] re­ve­a­led no main
ef­fects of in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty, F (1, 732) = 2.00, p = .16, η2 = .003. Thus, the stu­dy conc­
lu­ded that stu­dents’ in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty do not get stron­ger with age. The va­lue of η2
ex­plains the strength of the sig­ni­fi­can­ce le­vel, in this ca­se abo­ve 0.5 sug­ges­ting mo­de­ra­te ef­fect and
F ra­tio ve­ry lar­ge, in­di­ca­ting a sig­ni­fi­can­ce le­vel (Ta­bach­nick, & Fi­dell, 2001).
What the re­sult sug­gests is that the stu­dy ac­cep­ted the null hy­pot­he­sis and conc­lu­ded that stu­
dents’ in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty se­e­med not to get stron­ger with age. The abo­ve sug­gest that
for ma­ny stu­dents, a con­si­de­rab­le im­pro­ve­ment of skills in de­a­ling with abst­rac­tions may be ne­ces­
sa­ry be­fo­re they are re­a­dy for much of the S&P re­a­so­ning and thus le­a­ding to hy­pot­he­sis te­sting
that un­der­lie ba­sic sta­tis­ti­cal in­fe­ren­ce. For so­me stu­dents, te­achers may ha­ve to be con­tent to for­go
abst­rac­tion and to con­vey what sta­tis­ti­cal ide­as they can in sim­pler and in conc­re­te terms.

3.6 Hy­pot­he­sis 4

Next, the stu­dy turn at­ten­tion to the null hy­pot­he­sis that; in an at­tempt to help stu­dents think
sta­tis­ti­cal­ly the­re should not be ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion with the ro­le of com­pu­ters in le­ar­ning da­ta hand­
ling. In this re­gard, se­ve­ral exer­ci­ses we­re gi­ven out be­fo­re and af­ter com­pu­te­ri­sing the te­aching
of da­ta hand­ling. The­se exer­ci­ses we­re in two forms; first­ly this inc­lu­ded rep­re­sen­ting da­ta or ob­
jects in dif­fe­rent forms using graphs (bar graphs, pic­tog­raphs, fre­qu­en­cy po­ly­gon, his­tog­raph etc)
and se­cond­ly exer­ci­ses re­la­ted to me­a­su­res of cen­tral ten­den­cies and lo­ca­tions. By exa­mi­ning the
Wilks’ va­lue for this test (.976) (Ta­bach­nick & Fi­dell, 2001), its as­so­cia­ted F va­lue, and p va­lue
[F (2, 286) = .859, p< .001, η2= .81], the stu­dy conc­lu­ded that any sta­tis­ti­cal ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion with
the ro­le of com­pu­ters to a lar­ge ef­fect (η2 = .81) im­pro­ves le­ar­ning of da­ta hand­ling. The va­lue of
η2 ex­plains the strength of the sig­ni­fi­can­ce le­vel, in this ca­se well abo­ve 0.5 sug­ges­ting high ef­fect
and F ra­tio ve­ry lar­ge, in­di­ca­ting a sig­ni­fi­can­ce le­vel (Ta­bach­nick, & Fi­dell, 2001).
Hen­ce the null hy­pot­he­sis was re­jec­ted. An in­te­rac­tion with a res­pon­dent (Se­nior) no­ted that:

…the inc­re­a­sing pre­va­len­ce of com­pu­ters in scho­ols has al­re­a­dy had so­me


in­flu­en­ce on le­ar­ning and te­aching and is pro­du­cing its own sta­tis­tics stu­dents
es­pe­cial­ly da­ta ana­ly­sis. Com­pu­ters ha­ve be­en used in se­ve­ral wa­ys to aid in
the te­aching of in­tro­duc­to­ry cour­ses.

This is an in­di­ca­tion that stu­dents may ac­cess com­pu­ters and use sta­tis­ti­cal pac­ka­ges, such as
Ex­cel to do the num­ber-crun­ching ope­ra­tions for them (stu­dents). No­ting that ad­van­ce forms such
as SPSS, SAS or MINITAB could al­so be used, but ne­eds cau­tion due to the com­ple­xi­ties in­vol­
ved.

4. Dis­cus­sion of Stu­dy

With re­fe­ren­ce to the re­sults and the hy­pot­he­ses; first­ly, stu­dents re­cei­ving in­struc­tion in how
to sol­ve pro­blems do be­co­me bet­ter to think sta­tis­ti­cal­ly. Thus, it gi­ves a pre­dic­tion that to im­pro­ve
le­ar­ning of sta­tis­tics and pro­ba­bi­li­ty; stu­dents should re­cei­ve in­struc­tion in how to sol­ve pro­blems.
This me­ans that te­achers should pro­vi­de mo­re pro­blem sol­ving op­por­tu­ni­ties for stu­dents in S & P.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

34
Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, stu­dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills was pro­ven to im­pact on sta­tis­ti­cal abi­
li­ty. The da­ta gai­ned pro­ved that stu­dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills cor­re­la­tes with S&P
le­ar­ning.
In con­trast though, the­re was no sup­por­ting evi­den­ce to sug­gest that stu­dent’s in­tui­ti­ve no­tions
of sta­tis­tics and pro­ba­bi­li­ty do­es get stron­ger with age. This re­sult sug­gests that at­ten­tion should be
con­cen­tra­ted mo­re in terms of streng­the­ning their know­led­ge, and skills as emp­ha­si­sed by aut­hor
(North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006). They (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006) to­get­her with this stu­dy sug­gest that the
ol­der the stu­dents to be, it do­es not ne­ces­sa­ri­ly im­pact on S&P per­for­man­ce. Pre­vio­us stu­dy (Stohl,
2005) sho­wed that age do­es not af­fect sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty, thus it is con­sis­tent with what ha­ve be­en
re­ve­a­led by this stu­dy, whic sug­gests that dif­fe­ren­ce of age could not be a po­ten­tial fac­tor for sta­tis­
ti­cal abi­li­ty.
Last­ly, ef­fi­ca­cy of com­pu­ters in gui­ding the de­sign of in­struc­tion is an im­por­tant com­po­nent in
sta­tis­ti­cal le­ar­ning. This is in tan­dem with pre­vio­us stu­dy (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006) which in­di­ca­ted
that the­re we­re sig­ni­fi­cant as­so­cia­tion bet­we­en com­pu­ters usa­ge and sta­tis­ti­cal te­aching. Con­sis­tent
with the pre­vio­us stu­dy (North & Ze­wo­tir, 2006), this re­se­arch has sho­wed that im­pro­ve­ment of
sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty could be im­pro­ved through the use of com­pu­te­ri­sa­tion.

5. Conc­lu­sion and Im­pli­ca­tion

From this stu­dy, the are four conc­lu­sions that are ma­de, thus the re­sults re­ve­a­led: (1) stu­dents
re­cei­ving in­struc­tion in how to sol­ve pro­blems do be­co­me bet­ter to think sta­tis­ti­cal­ly (2) ad­di­tio­nal­
ly, stu­dents’ le­vel of spe­ci­fic mat­he­ma­tics skills im­pact on sta­tis­ti­cal abi­li­ty (3) in con­trast though,
the­re was no sup­por­ting evi­den­ce to sug­gest that stu­dents’ in­tui­ti­ve no­tions of pro­ba­bi­li­ty do­es not
get stron­ger with age (4) ef­fi­ca­cy of com­pu­ters in gui­ding the de­sign of in­struc­tion is an im­por­tant
com­po­nent in sta­tis­ti­cal le­ar­ning. Thus, the stu­dy found that any sta­tis­ti­cal ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion with
com­pu­ters im­pro­ves le­ar­ning of sta­tis­tics.
Whi­le, so­me of the­se re­sults are con­sis­tent with pre­vio­us li­te­ra­tu­re, ot­hers (H3) we­re in­con­sis­
tent with the ge­ne­ral no­tion. No­net­he­less, the four conc­lu­sions im­plied that te­achers should in­tro­du­
ce to­pics through ac­ti­vi­ties and si­mu­la­tions, not abst­rac­tions. Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, S & P te­achers should
try to arou­se in stu­dents the fe­e­ling that mat­he­ma­tics re­la­tes use­ful­ly to re­a­li­ty and is not just sym­
bols, ru­les, and con­ven­tions. A pro­po­sal of this kind may inc­lu­de using the sa­me class’s po­pu­la­tion,
height, age or ra­ce in te­aching mat­he­ma­tics, sta­tis­ti­cal and pro­ba­bi­li­ty con­cepts and as well use
them for in­ter­pre­ta­tions. This should be lin­ked with the use of vi­su­al il­lust­ra­tion and emp­ha­si­se ex­
plo­ra­to­ry da­ta met­hods with com­pu­ters. Sug­ges­ting that S & P te­achers should point out to stu­dents
com­mon uses of sta­tis­tics (for ins­tan­ce, in news sto­ries and ad­ver­ti­se­ments). Im­por­tant­ly, the­re is
the ne­ed to use stra­te­gies to im­pro­ve stu­dents’ ra­tio­nal num­ber con­cepts be­fo­re ap­pro­a­ching pro­por­
tio­nal re­a­so­ning. This could as­sist to re­cog­ni­se and con­front com­mon er­rors in stu­dents’ sta­tis­ti­cal
and pro­ba­bi­li­ty thin­king and hen­ce cre­a­te si­tu­a­tions re­qui­ring S & P re­a­so­ning that cor­res­pond to
the stu­dents’ views of the world.

Re­fe­ren­ces

Ad­ler, J. & Re­ed, Y. (Eds). (2003). Chal­len­ges of te­acher de­ve­lop­ment: An in­ves­ti­ga­tion of ta­ke-up in
South Af­ri­ca. Pre­to­ria: Van Schaik Pub­lis­hers.

Cres­well, J.W. (2007). Qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve in­qui­ry and re­se­arch de­sign: cho­o­sing among fi­ve tra­di­tions, 2nd ed:
Thou­sand Oaks: Sa­ge.

DeWet, J. I. (2002). Te­aching of sta­tis­tics to his­to­ri­cal­ly di­sad­van­ta­ged stu­dents: The South Af­ri­can
ex­pe­rien­ce. In B. Phil­lips (Ed.), Pro­ce­e­dings of the Sixth In­ter­na­tio­nal Con­fe­ren­ce on Te­aching of Sta­tis­
tics, Ca­pe Town. Vo­or­burg: The Net­her­lands: In­ter­na­tio­nal Sta­tis­ti­cal Ins­ti­tu­te.
Anass BAYAGA. Statistics & Probability Education in South Africa: Constraints of Learning
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Er­nest, P. (1984). In­tro­du­cing the con­cept of pro­ba­bi­li­ty. Mat­he­ma­tics Te­acher, 77, 524–525. 35

Fitz, G.E. (2005). Nu­me­ra­cy and Aust­ra­lian work­pla­ces: Fin­dings and im­pli­ca­tions. Aust­ra­lian Se­nior
Mat­he­ma­tics Jour­nal, 19(2), 27–40.

Freu­dent­hal, H. (1973). Mat­he­ma­tics as an edu­ca­tio­nal task. Dor­drecht, The Net­her­lands: Rei­del.

Joh­nson, R. A. & Wi­chern, D. W. (2007). Ap­plied mul­ti­va­ria­te sta­tis­ti­cal ana­ly­sis. Up­per Sad­dle Ri­ver,
NJ: Pren­ti­ce Hall.

Kent, P., Ho­y­les, C., Noss, R., & Gui­le, D. (2004). Tech­no-mat­he­ma­ti­cal Li­te­ra­cy in Work­pla­ce Ac­ti­vi­
ty: In­ter­na­tio­nal Se­mi­nar on Le­ar­ning and Tech­no­lo­gy at Work, Ins­ti­tu­te of Edu­ca­tion, Lon­don. www.
ioe.ac.uk/tlrp/tech­no­maths/Kent-LTWseminar. Ret­rie­ved March 17, 2009.

Mul­lis, I.V.S., Mar­tin, M.O., Gon­za­lez, E.J., & Chros­tow­ski, S.J. (2004). TIMSS & PIRLS In­ter­na­tio­nal
Stu­dy Cen­tre. http://timss.bc.edu/timss2003i/mathD.html. Ret­rie­ved Ap­ril 27 2008.

North, D. & Ze­wo­tir, T. (2006) In­tro­du­cing sta­tis­tics at scho­ol le­vel in South Af­ri­ca. In A. Ros­sman &
B. Chan­ce (Ed), Pro­ce­e­dings of the se­venth In­ter­na­tio­nal Con­fe­ren­ce on Te­aching Sta­tis­tics. Sal­va­do,
Bra­zil: In­ter­na­tio­nal Sta­tis­ti­cal Ins­ti­tu­te and In­ter­na­tio­nal As­so­cia­tion for Sta­tis­ti­cal Edu­ca­tion. www.
Stat.auc­kland.ac.nz/ia­se/pub­li­ca­tions. Ja­nu­a­ry 27 2009.

Red­dy, V. (2004). Per­for­man­ce sco­res in in­ter­na­tio­nal math and scien­ce stu­dy re­flec­ti­ve of South Af­ri­
can Ine­qu­a­li­ties (TIMSS Me­dia Re­le­a­se). Hu­man Scien­ces Re­se­arch Coun­cil: Pre­to­ria.

Re­vi­sed Na­tio­nal Cur­ri­cu­lum Sta­te­ment – RNCS (2002). Mat­he­ma­tics, Gra­de R-9. Pre­to­ria: De­part­ment
of edu­ca­tion.

Rus­so, L.M & Pas­san­nan­te, M. R. C. (2001). Sta­tis­tics fe­ver. Mat­he­ma­tics Te­aching in the Mid­dle Scho­
ol, 6(6), p. 370–376.

Stohl, H. (2005). Pro­ba­bi­li­ty in Te­acher edu­ca­tion and de­ve­lop­ment. In G. Jo­nes (Ed) Ex­plo­ring pro­ba­
bi­li­ty in scho­ols: chal­len­ges for te­aching and le­a­ning. New York: Sprin­ger.

Ta­bach­nick, B. G., & Fi­dell, L. S. (2001). Using mul­ti­va­ria­te sta­tis­tics. (4th ed). Ne­ed­ham Heights, MA:
Al­lyn & Ba­con.

Vit­hal, R., Ad­ler, J. & Kei­tel, C. (2005). Re­se­ar­ching mat­he­ma­tics Edu­ca­tion in South Af­ri­ca: Per­spec­
ti­ves, prac­ti­ces and pos­si­bi­li­ties. Pre­to­ria: Hu­man Scien­ces Re­se­arch Coun­cil.

Ad­vi­ced by Lai­ma Rai­lie­nė, Uni­ver­si­ty of Šiau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia

Anass Ba­y­a­ga Lec­tu­rer, Uni­ver­si­ty of Fort Ha­re, Sa­xil­by Court 15, Ama­lin­da, East Lon­don, South Af­ri­ca.
Pho­ne: 027 43 704 7020.
E-mail: aba­y­a­ga@ufh.ac.za
Web­si­te: http://www.ufh.ac.za
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

36

TWO EUROPEAN RESPONSES TO ASSURE


QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

An­drea Bern­hard
Uni­ver­si­ty of Graz, Aust­ria
E-mail: an­drea.bern­hard@uni-graz.at

Abst­ract

Lo­o­king at the “Eu­ro­pe­an Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Area” in terms of their dif­fe­rent qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tems
one can cle­ar­ly iden­ti­fy a gre­at di­ver­si­ty. This si­tu­a­tion re­flects the cre­a­ti­vi­ty of all coun­tries to es­tab­
lish a sys­tem com­pa­tib­le with their own cul­tu­ral, eco­no­mic and so­cial bac­kground. This ar­tic­le shall
high­light exam­ples of two Eu­ro­pe­an coun­tries, Ger­ma­ny and the Uni­ted King­dom, and their ef­forts to
de­ve­lop a com­pre­hen­si­ve qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tem. A sys­te­ma­tic and his­to­ri­cal ap­pro­ach of the­se two
na­tions will be ba­sed on li­te­ra­tu­re re­se­arch, scien­ti­fic stu­dies and per­so­nal ex­pe­rien­ce. The ar­tic­le will
pro­vi­de a ge­ne­ral per­spec­ti­ve on two dif­fe­rent na­tio­nal qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tems as well as their cur­rent
po­li­ti­cal dis­cus­sions drawn from an Aust­rian per­spec­ti­ve. The ex­ter­nal view but no­net­he­less Eu­ro­pe­an
per­spec­ti­ve shall main­tain a mo­re ob­jec­ti­ve re­view and as­ses­sment of the­se coun­tries. Alt­hough the­re are
di­ver­si­fied qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tems all over Eu­ro­pe, the­re is a ne­ed and a will to co­o­pe­ra­te bet­we­en
this di­ver­si­ty whi­le still ke­e­ping the in­di­vi­du­a­li­ty of the own coun­try. Thus, I am in­te­res­ted in the de­ve­lop­
ment, the chal­len­ges as well as pro­blems of the­se sys­tems and pos­sib­le wa­ys for im­pro­ve­ment.
Key words: Eu­ro­pe­an Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Area, qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce, di­ver­si­ty, com­pa­ra­ti­ve re­se­arch.

The Ri­se of Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce in Eu­ro­pe­an Hig­her Edu­ca­tion

Qu­a­li­ty was a cen­tral con­cern in Eu­ro­pe sin­ce the emer­gen­ce of uni­ver­si­ties (Ne­ave, 1994,
p. 116) but the re­a­sons for and ro­ots of to­da­y’s qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce pro­ce­du­res pri­ma­ri­ly da­te back to
the last cen­tu­ry. Uni­ver­si­ties around the world are stron­gly in­flu­en­ced by two Eu­ro­pe­an mo­dels: (1)
the Ger­man mo­del which was ba­sed on the ide­as of Wil­helm von Hum­boldt with the prin­ci­pals of
aca­de­mic fre­e­dom, the uni­ty of te­aching and re­se­arch, the au­to­no­my of ins­ti­tu­tion and the fre­e­dom
of le­ar­ning, and (2) the Bri­tish mo­del with a clo­se te­acher-stu­dent re­la­tions­hip and an emp­ha­sis on
per­so­na­li­ty de­ve­lop­ment through li­be­ral edu­ca­tion (Gel­lert, 1993, pp. 237f). Ho­we­ver, uni­ver­si­ties
chan­ged over ti­me, lost their mo­no­po­le po­si­tion to­wards a much mo­re di­ver­si­fied hig­her edu­ca­tion
sys­tem and had to re­act on mas­si­ve ex­pan­sion pro­ces­ses in terms of stu­dent num­bers and hig­her
edu­ca­tion pro­vi­ders (Trow, 1973). Con­se­qu­ent­ly, mi­nis­te­rial con­trol and fun­ding ha­ve re­a­ched their
li­mits fol­lo­wed by eco­no­mic dep­res­sions in the 1970s and 1980s which led to nu­me­rous re­forms
of the ste­e­ring me­cha­nisms of Eu­ro­pe­an hig­her edu­ca­tion sys­tems. Hen­ce, in the 1980s and 1990s
Andrea BERNHARD. Two European Responses to Assure Quality in Higher Education
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce has be­co­me as a ve­ry im­por­tant is­sue in Eu­ro­pe and coun­tries star­ted to cre­a­te and 37
es­tab­lish qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tems (Wes­ter­heij­den et al., 2006, p. 2) to go in li­ne with “the de­mands
of a mo­der­ni­sing sta­te” (Ne­ave, 1994, p. 119).
In Eu­ro­pe the first for­mal na­tio­nal qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce po­li­cies da­te back to the mid 1980s with
na­tio­nal ini­tia­ti­ves in Fran­ce (1984), in the Uni­ted King­dom (1985) and in The Net­her­lands (1985)
main­ly be­cau­se of fi­nan­cial short­co­mings. The­se first qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sche­mes in­flu­en­ced ot­her
Eu­ro­pe­an coun­tries and ab­ro­ad. The star­ting point for sys­te­ma­tic qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce at hig­her edu­ca­
tion ins­ti­tu­tions in Eu­ro­pe tra­ce back to an ad hoc wor­king group by the Eu­ro­pe­an Union in 1991
and was fol­lo­wed by a pi­lot EU-pro­ject on Eva­lu­a­ting Qu­a­li­ty in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion in 1994 (Wes­ter­
heij­den et al., 2006, pp. 2f). Di­ver­se ex­ter­nal dy­na­mics de­ter­mi­ned the de­sign of a next ge­ne­ra­tion of
qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce to gain mo­re trans­pa­ren­cy and le­gi­ti­ma­cy in Eu­ro­pe­an hig­her edu­ca­tion sys­tems
through inc­re­a­sed in­ter­na­tio­na­li­sa­tion. Con­se­qu­ent­ly a Eu­ro­pe­an Net­work of Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce
Agen­cies was es­tab­lis­hed in 2000 to bet­ter Eu­ro­pe­an co­o­pe­ra­tion in terms of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce. The
net­work was re­na­med in 2004 in­to the Eu­ro­pe­an As­so­cia­tion for Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce in Hig­her Edu­
ca­tion (ENQA). The claim for a Eu­ro­pe­an Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce Re­gis­ter for qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce bo­dies
aro­se in the last years to high­light com­pa­rab­le cri­te­ria and met­ho­do­lo­gies. This pro­cess is cur­rent­ly
on the way and the re­gis­ter al­re­a­dy com­pri­ses se­ven­te­en Eu­ro­pe­an qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce agen­cies.
All the­se ini­tia­ti­ves hap­pe­ned wit­hin the sco­pe of the Bo­log­na Dec­la­ra­tion of the Eu­ro­pe­an
Union Mi­nis­ters of Edu­ca­tion in 1999. The so-cal­led Bo­log­na Pro­cess cre­a­ted a com­ple­te­ly new
si­tu­a­tion and is the star­ting point for lots of trans­for­ma­tions in Eu­ro­pe. One of the main go­als of
the Bo­log­na Pro­cess is to cre­a­te a Eu­ro­pe­an Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Area and as one cor­ners­to­ne to
pro­mo­te Eu­ro­pe­an co-ope­ra­tion in qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce, stres­sing the ne­ces­sa­ry links bet­we­en qu­a­li­ty
as­su­ran­ce and re­cog­ni­tion and the ne­ed for clo­ser co-ope­ra­tion bet­we­en ac­tors in the­se two fields
at ins­ti­tu­tio­nal, na­tio­nal and Eu­ro­pe­an le­vels. This pro­cess in­flu­en­ces na­tio­nal po­li­cies, f.e., to es­
tab­lish a struc­tu­re for qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce and ac­cre­di­ta­tion at a Eu­ro­pe­an-le­vel. An im­por­tant pro­ject
at Eu­ro­pe­an le­vel is the Joint Qu­a­li­ty Ini­tia­ti­ve (JQI) with se­ve­ral im­por­tant go­als: to col­la­bo­ra­te
and dis­se­mi­na­te go­od prac­ti­ces in terms of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce and sce­na­rios of mu­tu­al eva­lu­a­tion, to
ac­cept of dif­fe­rent ac­cre­di­ta­tion/cer­ti­fi­ca­tion me­cha­nisms and to es­tab­lish of a com­mon fra­me­work
for the Ba­che­lor/Mas­ter-struc­tu­re in the Bo­log­na mo­del. Furt­her­mo­re, the­re is a net­work so­le­ly res­
pon­sib­le for ma­na­ge­ment stu­dies on hig­her and furt­her edu­ca­tion cal­led the Eu­ro­pe­an Qu­a­li­ty Link
(EQUAL) and the Eu­ro­pe­an Qu­a­li­ty Im­pro­ve­ment Sys­tem (EQUIS) which ope­ra­tes in Eu­ro­pe as an
ac­cre­di­ta­tion agen­cy. To re­cog­ni­se edu­ca­tio­nal and vo­ca­tio­nal qu­a­li­fi­ca­tions at na­tio­nal/Eu­ro­pe­an
le­vel Na­tio­nal Aca­de­mic Re­cog­ni­tion Cen­tres (NARIC) and the Eu­ro­pe­an Net­work of In­for­ma­tion
Cen­tre (ENIC) ha­ve be­en foun­ded.
Till the end of the 20th cen­tu­ry most of Wes­tern Eu­ro­pe­an coun­tries ha­ve cre­a­ted for­mal qu­a­li­ty
as­su­ran­ce sys­tems and es­tab­lis­hed a na­tio­nal qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce bo­dy but on­ly a small num­ber al­so
inc­lu­ded Eu­ro­pe­an co-ope­ra­tion in qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce. No­wa­da­ys qu­a­li­ty is an im­por­tant task at ins­
ti­tu­tio­nal and po­li­ti­cal agen­das of hig­her edu­ca­tion po­li­cies but with di­ver­si­fied so­lu­tions of each
sin­gle Eu­ro­pe­an coun­try. In this re­gard I want do emp­ha­sis on two Eu­ro­pe­an hig­her edu­ca­tion sys­
tems that ha­ve a long his­to­ry in hig­her edu­ca­tion Ger­ma­ny and the Uni­ted King­dom and a dif­fe­rent
ap­pro­ach on qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce. With the per­spec­ti­ve of an Aust­rian re­se­ar­cher in the field of hig­her
edu­ca­tion I will fi­gu­re out the dif­fe­ren­ces and pos­sib­le si­mi­la­ri­ties of the­se two coun­tries.

Sys­tem Ap­pro­ach: Ger­ma­ny

Ger­ma­ny is the lar­gest coun­try wit­hin the Eu­ro­pe­an Union con­cer­ning the num­ber of in­ha­bi­
tants (about 80 mil­lion) and ac­counts for ap­pro­xi­ma­te­ly 20% of the GDP of the EU-25. Ger­ma­ny
com­pri­ses 16 fe­de­ral sta­tes (Länder) which are in char­ge of their in­di­vi­du­al hig­her edu­ca­tion sys­
tem as a prin­cip­le of so­ve­reign­ty. The wi­de ran­ge of hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions are go­ver­ned un­
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

38
der the Fra­me­work Act for Hig­her Edu­ca­tion (Hoch­schul­rah­men­ge­setz) and ad­di­tio­nal­ly all Länder
adop­ted their own acts on hig­her edu­ca­tion (Wit­te, 2006, p. 135).
As per Feb­ru­a­ry 2010, Ger­ma­ny coun­ted ne­ar­ly two mil­lion stu­dents with the ma­jo­ri­ty of stu­
dents en­rol­led at pub­lic ins­ti­tu­tions (95%) next to small num­bers in the church and pri­va­te sec­tors.
Cur­rent­ly the­re are 370 sta­te and sta­te-ap­pro­ved hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions with their dif­fe­rent
pro­fi­les: 110 uni­ver­si­ties, 205 Fach­hoch­schu­len (uni­ver­si­ties of ap­plied scien­ces), and 55 col­le­ges
of art and mu­sic (HRK, 2010). Hig­her edu­ca­tion is main­ly pub­lic­ly fun­ded through the in­di­vi­du­al
bud­get sys­tem of the Länder whi­le so­me ex­pen­di­tu­re is al­so pro­vi­ded by the fe­de­ral go­vern­ment.
As hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions are au­to­no­mous and fle­xib­le in terms of bud­ge­ting they gain mo­re
op­por­tu­ni­ties to de­po­sit ac­cru­ed re­ser­ves and re­ve­nu­es but al­so ne­ed to set up su­itab­le ma­na­ge­ment
in­stru­ments and new ty­pes of re­por­ting. So­me Länder in­tro­du­ced lump sum bud­gets and for­mu­la-ba­
sed fun­ding. The­re­fo­re, va­rio­us met­hods to as­sess the bud­get are im­ple­men­ted, such as per­for­man­ce
cri­te­ria or tar­get ag­re­e­ments (Hart­wig, 2004, p. 13). The pri­va­te hig­her edu­ca­tion sec­tor is pri­ma­ri­ly
fi­nan­ced through pri­va­te funds but oc­ca­sio­nal­ly pri­va­te pro­jects are al­so pub­lic­ly fun­ded as so­me
re­form go­als are mo­re easi­ly to re­a­li­se than in the pub­lic sec­tor (Pe­char, 2001, p. 261).
With the up­co­ming of a mo­dern bu­re­auc­ra­cy the first qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce me­cha­nisms de­ve­lo­ped
and they can be found to a lar­ge ex­tent till the la­te 20th cen­tu­ry (Ne­ave, 1994, p. 116). Then in the
1970s and 1980s the­re ha­ve al­re­a­dy be­en de­ba­tes on re­forms when the Scien­ce Coun­cil star­ted pe­
ri­odi­cal eva­lu­a­tions to streng­then te­aching (Ser­ra­no-Ve­lar­de, 2008, p. 39). No­net­he­less, Bren­nan
et al. (1992, p. 9) sta­ted in a com­pa­ra­ti­ve pi­lot stu­dy on eco­no­mics: “With not much mo­re than
ap­prop­ria­te exag­ge­ra­tion it can be said that the com­pa­ra­ti­ve qu­a­li­ty is­sue do­es not exist in hig­her
edu­ca­tion in Ger­ma­ny”. One can even say that till the 1990s the term qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce con­cer­ning
hig­her edu­ca­tion was ra­re­ly used in scien­ti­fic de­ba­tes. In the po­li­ti­cal con­text it was on­ly men­tio­ned
be­cau­se of doubts in the ef­fi­cien­cy and ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of hig­her edu­ca­tion per­for­man­ce be­cau­se po­li­
ti­cians we­re mo­re con­cer­ned about a way of uni­fi­ca­tion of hig­her edu­ca­tion than about the qu­a­li­ty
pro­blem. The main re­a­sons for the ab­sen­ce of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce dis­cus­sions ha­ve be­en (de Rud­der,
1994, p. 204): (1) pe­er-re­view pro­ce­du­res for re­se­arch was al­re­a­dy pre­vai­ling, (2) uni­ver­si­ties are
not pe­da­go­gi­cal ins­ti­tu­tions and stu­dents are res­pon­sib­le for their stu­dy­ing by them­sel­ves, and (3)
the­re was a low unem­plo­y­ment ra­te of gra­du­a­tes as uni­ver­si­ty de­gre­es ha­ve be­en con­si­ders as hig­
her than ot­her cer­ti­fi­ca­tes.
Though, arou­sed from the pi­lot stu­dy of Bren­nan et al. (1992) next to in hu­ge ex­pan­sion of stu­
dent num­bers and a lack of fun­ding and staff (de Rud­der 1994, p. 201) the po­li­cy on qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­
ce chan­ged ra­di­cal­ly and Ger­ma­ny was for­ced to ta­ke part in the in­ter­na­tio­nal dis­cus­sion pro­cess on
eva­lu­a­tions and qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce in hig­her edu­ca­tion. The ri­se of Ger­man qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce in hig­
her edu­ca­tion is most­ly se­en in the EU pi­lot pro­ject Eva­lu­a­ting Qu­a­li­ty in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion (1994)
when the Rec­tor’s Con­fe­ren­ce (HRK) star­ted to test new eva­lu­a­ting pro­ce­du­res (Ser­ra­no-Ve­lar­de,
2008, p. 39). Con­se­qu­ent­ly, so­me sta­tes de­ve­lo­ped eva­lu­a­tions and as­ses­sments of hig­her edu­ca­tion
per­for­man­ces (de Rud­der, 1994, p. 201) which are sum­ma­ri­zed by Ser­ra­no-Ve­lar­de (2008, pp. 113f)
as three dif­fe­rent ty­pes of eva­lu­a­tions: in­ter­nal eva­lu­a­tions sys­tems, eva­lu­a­tions by net­works of hig­
her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions (Ver­bund agen­cies) and re­gio­nal eva­lu­a­tion agen­cies.
As hig­her edu­ca­tion ob­jec­ti­ves are in the res­pon­si­bi­li­ty of the Länder, the­re is “no sin­gle as­ses­
sment sys­tem at na­tio­nal le­vel” (Hart­wig, 2004, p. 65) but se­ve­ral dif­fe­rent fe­de­ral so­lu­tions ha­ve
be­en found. The ge­ne­ral ba­sis for all sta­tes is that hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions are now res­pon­sib­le
for their qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce and ha­ve to es­tab­lish their own qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tem (Ser­ra­no-Ve­lar­
de, 2008, pp. 63ff). Though, each ins­ti­tu­tion is free to de­ci­de on the res­pec­ti­ve sys­tem of in­ter­nal
qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce and the in­stru­ments and pro­ce­du­res to as­su­re qu­a­li­ty in re­se­arch, te­aching and
ad­mi­nist­ra­tion by them­sel­ves. On­ly with the­se sys­tems they ha­ve to be ac­coun­tab­le which con­se­
qu­ent­ly gi­ves them mo­re au­to­no­my (Mit­tag & Da­niel, 2008, p. 281). Star­ting in 1994 se­ve­ral eva­
lu­a­tion agen­cies ha­ve be­en es­tab­lis­hed un­til 1998 the Kul­tus­mi­nis­ter­kon­fe­renz (KMK) de­ci­ded on
a two­fold sys­tem of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce: eva­lu­a­tion on the one hand and ac­cre­di­ta­tion on the ot­her
hand. The­re­fo­re, im­par­tial­ly ac­cre­di­ta­tion agen­cies ha­ve be­en es­tab­lis­hed with a Coun­cil con­sis­ting
Andrea BERNHARD. Two European Responses to Assure Quality in Higher Education
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
of rep­re­sen­ta­ti­ves from the mar­ket, the po­li­tics and hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions. Ac­cre­di­ta­tion is 39
dif­fe­rent to the sta­te ap­pro­val pro­ce­du­res and shall gu­a­ran­tee mi­ni­mum stan­dards and check the
em­plo­y­a­bi­li­ty of aca­de­mic de­gre­es (Ser­ra­no-Ve­lar­de, 2008, p. 69). At the sa­me ti­me the Pro­jekt
Qu­a­litätssi­che­rung was es­tab­lis­hed as plat­form for qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce is­su­es which was ne­ces­sa­ry
to co­or­di­na­te this di­ver­si­fied sys­tem. Furt­her­mo­re, the Ac­cre­di­ta­tion Coun­cil (Foun­da­tion for the
Ac­cre­di­ta­tion of Stu­dy Pro­gram­mes in Ger­ma­ny, AC) was set up to re­gu­la­te the dif­fe­rent ac­cre­di­
ta­tion agen­cies. On ap­pli­ca­tion from the agen­cy, an ac­cre­di­ta­tion pro­cess is car­ried out by the AC
that de­ci­des on the ac­cre­di­ta­tion or re­ac­cre­di­ta­tion. Hen­ce, each agen­cy it­self must be sub­ject to an
ac­cre­di­ta­tion pro­cess be­fo­re it is gi­ven the aut­ho­ri­ty to award the Qu­a­li­ty Se­al of the Foun­da­tion
for stu­dy pro­gram­mes to tho­se pro­gram­mes that ha­ve suc­ces­sful­ly ac­com­plis­hed an ac­cre­di­ta­tion
pro­ce­du­re. Cur­rent­ly the­re are ni­ne ac­cre­di­ted agen­cies which are si­tu­a­ted pri­ma­ri­ly in Ger­ma­ny
but the­re are al­so one Swiss and one Aust­rian agen­cy in ope­ra­tion.
Sin­ce 2003 pro­gram­me ac­cre­di­ta­tion is com­pul­so­ry for all ba­che­lor and mas­ter pro­gram­mes in
Ger­ma­ny. Due to cri­tics on the im­men­se ti­me and ef­fort for pro­gram­me ac­cre­di­ta­tion next to ot­her
qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce pro­ce­du­res hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions se­ek for a new way of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce
me­cha­nism. The­re­fo­re, Ger­ma­ny shif­ted from pro­gram­me to­wards sys­tem ac­cre­di­ta­tion to re­du­ce
the wor­klo­ad for ac­cre­di­ta­tion as far the ac­cre­di­ta­tion of hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions al­so inc­lu­des
the ac­cre­di­ta­tion of all stu­dy pro­gram­mes. In 2007 the AC de­ci­ded on Cri­te­ria for Sys­tem Ac­cre­
di­ta­tion and Ge­ne­ral Ru­les for Car­ry­ing Out Sys­tem Ac­cre­di­ta­tion Pro­ce­du­res as ba­sis for a new
way of Ger­man qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce. Sys­tem ac­cre­di­ta­tion shall ac­cre­dit the qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tem
for the de­ve­lop­ment and car­ry­ing out of stu­dy pro­gram­mes (Mit­tag & Da­niel, 2008, p. 284). Each
ins­ti­tu­tion is now free to de­ci­de on the res­pec­ti­ve sys­tem of in­ter­nal qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce and the in­stru­
ments and pro­ce­du­res to as­su­re qu­a­li­ty in re­se­arch, te­aching and ad­mi­nist­ra­tion. Mo­re­o­ver, they can
cho­o­se bet­we­en the­se two ty­pes of ac­cre­di­ta­tion and alt­hough the ‘ob­ject’ of the re­view pro­ces­ses
dif­fers bet­we­en pro­gram­me and ins­ti­tu­tio­nal le­vel, the new sys­tem ac­cre­di­ta­tion has clo­se links to
the pro­gram­me ap­pro­ach (Hop­bach, 2009, p. 83).
In sum­ma­ry this com­plex hig­her edu­ca­tion sys­tem has a qui­te long his­to­ry of eva­lu­a­tion pro­
ce­du­res car­ried out by dif­fe­rent agen­cies throug­hout the coun­try. The chan­ge to­wards an ap­pro­ach
on ac­cre­di­ta­tion was a start of a mo­re or­ga­ni­sed sys­tem of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce and the­re­by the AC
acts as cen­tral or­ga­ni­sa­tion wit­hin this va­rie­ty of ac­cre­di­ta­tion agen­cies. The re­cent­ly oc­cur­red shift
to­wards sys­tem ac­cre­di­ta­tion can be se­en as fi­nal step in a long dis­cus­sion pro­cess but the­re is still
a long way to go.

Sys­tem Ap­pro­ach: Uni­ted King­dom (UK)

The Uni­ted King­dom (UK) is di­vi­ded in­to four re­gions, na­me­ly Nort­hern Ire­land, Scot­land,
Wa­les and En­gland – each with a dif­fe­rent edu­ca­tion sys­tem. UK’s hig­her edu­ca­tion sec­tor com­pri­
ses uni­ver­si­ties, hig­her edu­ca­tion col­le­ges and a few uni­ver­si­ty col­le­ges. The­se ins­ti­tu­tions dif­fer a
lot in si­ze, mis­sion and his­to­ry. 80% of the po­pu­la­tion in the UK is lo­ca­ted in En­gland and this is
al­so re­flec­ted in the con­text of hig­her edu­ca­tion: in 2007/08 out of about 2,3 mil­lion stu­dents ap­pro­
xi­ma­te­ly 80% are stu­dy­ing and out of 166 hig­her edu­ca­tion pro­vi­ders 80% are lo­ca­ted in En­gland
(HESA, 2007/08). Most sig­ni­fi­cant for UK hig­her edu­ca­tion was the Furt­her and Hig­her Edu­ca­tion
Act in 1992 when po­ly­tech­nic ins­ti­tu­tions re­cei­ved uni­ver­si­ty sta­tus and the fun­ding and eva­lu­a­tion
pro­ce­du­res be­ca­me a new struc­tu­re (Ta­ve­nas, 2004, p. 48).
Uni­ver­si­ties and Col­le­ges are self-go­ver­ning and le­gal­ly in­de­pen­dent bo­dies with a high de­
gree of au­to­no­my, so­me as hig­her edu­ca­tion cor­po­ra­tions and as en­ti­ties ac­know­led­ged by an Act of
Par­lia­ment (QAA, 2005, p. 7). So­me ste­e­ring is­su­es of hig­her edu­ca­tion are or­ga­ni­sed at re­gio­nal
le­vel whi­le ot­hers are kept by sta­te de­part­ments of the UK go­vern­ment. The pub­lic fun­ding of UK
hig­her edu­ca­tion is two­fold: the bulk of funds is di­rec­ted from the four re­gio­nal Hig­her Edu­ca­tion
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

40
Fun­ding Coun­cils (HEFCs) and furt­her fun­ding from the Re­se­arch Coun­cils. The­se coun­cils are
re­gio­nal, in­de­pen­dent and non-de­part­men­tal bo­dies and in char­ge of the fi­nan­cial sup­port of all hig­
her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions in terms of te­aching and re­se­arch. The mo­ney from the HEFCs is gi­ven
to the ins­ti­tu­tions as a “block grant” that gi­ves them the fre­e­dom to set their own pri­ori­ties (Lei­sy­te,
2007, p. 37).
The cur­rent qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tem in the UK has its le­gis­la­ti­ve ro­ots in the la­te 1980s and
early 1990s, a ti­me of mas­si­fi­ca­tion in stu­dent num­bers as well as hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions.
For that re­a­son mo­re ac­coun­ta­bi­li­ty and me­a­su­rab­le out­puts and out­co­mes ha­ve be­en ine­vi­tab­le
and a shift “from a re­lian­ce on the jud­ge­ment of pro­fes­sio­nal staff de­li­ve­ring the ser­vi­ce to­wards
ins­pec­to­rial-sty­le jud­ge­ments ma­de by ex­ter­nal bo­dies” (Uni­ver­si­ties UK, 2008, p. 17) can be se­en.
Till 1992 the­re was no (ex­ter­nal) qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce in the UK ex­cept of al­re­a­dy exis­ting ex­ter­nal
as­ses­sments of the po­ly­tech­nics and col­le­ges as well as pro­gram­me ac­cre­di­ta­tion for tho­se that we­
re eager to be re­cog­ni­sed by so­me pro­fes­sio­nal or sta­tu­to­ry bo­dy (Brown, 2004, pp. 35/37). Due
to in­ter­nal and ex­ter­nal pres­su­res the first step was to es­tab­lish four UK hig­her edu­ca­tion fun­ding
bo­dies (HEFCs) as re­com­men­ded in the Whi­te Pa­per on the Fu­tu­re of Hig­her Edu­ca­tion in 1991.
This pa­per al­so dif­fe­ren­tia­ted bet­we­en two ty­pes of ex­ter­nal qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce me­cha­nisms (Uni­ver­
si­ties UK, 2008, p. 17):
• Qu­a­li­ty au­dit – ex­ter­nal scru­ti­ny ai­med at pro­vi­ding gu­a­ran­te­es that ins­ti­tu­tions ha­ve su­itab­
le qu­a­li­ty con­trol me­cha­nisms in pla­ce; wit­hin the res­pon­si­bi­li­ty of a unit ow­ned by hig­her
edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions; and
• Qu­a­li­ty as­ses­sment – the ex­ter­nal re­view of, and jud­gments about, the qu­a­li­ty of te­aching
and le­ar­ning in ins­ti­tu­tions; wit­hin the res­pon­si­bi­li­ty of the fun­ding coun­cils.
Star­ting with the Furt­her and Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Act of 1992 the HEFCs mo­ni­to­red the qu­a­li­
ty of their fun­ded aca­de­mic pro­gram­mes and the­re­fo­re es­tab­lis­hed the Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Qu­a­li­ty
Coun­cil (HEQC) which was ac­coun­tab­le for (1) au­di­ting the ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of ins­ti­tu­tions’ qu­a­li­ty as­
su­ran­ce ar­ran­ge­ments, (2) pro­mo­ting qu­a­li­ty en­han­ce­ment, (3) co-or­di­na­ting sec­tor-wi­de net­works,
and (4) or­ga­ni­sing go­od prac­ti­ce fo­rums (Lei­sy­te, 2007, p. 53). For the next years the fun­ding coun­
cils cre­a­ted qu­a­li­ty as­ses­sment com­mit­te­es to as­sess the qu­a­li­ty of their fun­ded sec­tors (te­aching
qu­a­li­ty as­ses­sment, TQA) and the­se pro­ce­du­res we­re com­ple­ted in Scot­land and Wa­les in 1997 and
four years la­ter al­so in En­gland and Nort­hern Ire­land (Uni­ver­si­ties UK, 2008, pp. 17f).
In terms of qu­a­li­ty as­ses­sment of re­se­arch the UK es­tab­lis­hed the Re­se­arch As­ses­sment Exer­
ci­se (RAE) in 1986 as the first “ex­pli­cit and for­ma­li­sed as­ses­sment pro­cess of the qu­a­li­ty of re­se­
arch” and as a “dis­cip­li­ne-ba­sed ex­pert re­view pro­cess” of pe­ers (RAE, 2010). Star­ting in 1992 the
HFCEs ba­sed their funds on the per­for­man­ce iden­ti­fied by the RAE wit­hin an ex­pert re­view by
dis­cip­li­ne-ba­sed pa­nels. The last exer­ci­se da­tes back to RAE 2008 which was a high­ly se­lec­ti­ve pro­
ce­du­re and ma­de jud­ge­ments ac­cor­ding to a gra­ded pro­fi­le. Ne­vert­he­less, the RAE will be re­for­med
and a new sys­tem will ma­y­be re­pla­ce the pe­er re­view ba­sed as­ses­sment exer­ci­se: met­rics that are
ba­sed on qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve me­a­su­res shall sim­pli­fy the as­ses­sment pro­ce­du­re and avoid unin­ten­ded ef­fects
of the RAE (Lei­sy­te, 2007, pp. 55f).
Due to blur­red boun­da­ries bet­we­en qu­a­li­ty as­ses­sment and aca­de­mic au­dit as well as inc­re­a­sed
bu­re­auc­ra­cy the Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce Agen­cy for Hig­her Edu­ca­tion (QAA) has be­en cre­a­ted by the
sta­te in 1997. HEQC and the qu­a­li­ty as­ses­sment di­vi­sions ha­ve be­en ab­sor­bed by the QAA and con­
se­qu­ent­ly two se­pa­ra­te ex­ter­nal pro­ces­ses be­ca­me one sin­gle me­cha­nism (Uni­ver­si­ties UK, 2008,
p. 18). At the be­gin­ning QAA was res­pon­sib­le for pe­ri­odi­cal ins­ti­tu­tio­nal and pro­gram­me eva­lu­a­
tions but the­se ex­pen­si­ve and com­pli­ca­ted pro­ce­du­res did not ha­ve a gre­at im­pact as on­ly 0,2% of
all eva­lu­a­tions ha­ve be­en ne­ga­ti­ve (Ta­ve­nas, 2004, p. 48). Af­ter a con­so­li­da­tion pha­se of this new
agen­cy a shift from ac­coun­ta­bi­li­ty to­wards qu­a­li­ty en­han­ce­ment was vi­sib­le (Wil­liams 2009, p. 1)
be­cau­se it al­so gi­ves ad­vi­ses on pos­sib­le im­pro­ve­ments. Thus, QAA chan­ged their pro­ce­du­res to
“ins­ti­tu­tio­nal au­dits” with eva­lu­a­tions of in­ter­nal qu­a­li­ty eva­lu­a­tion and ma­na­ge­ment pro­ce­du­res
whi­le the de­ci­sion on pro­gram­me eva­lu­a­tions ha­ve on­ly be­en con­duc­ted if any pro­blems ha­ve be­en
de­tec­ted (Ta­ve­nas, 2004, p. 48). This was the end of sub­ject re­views and the gat­he­ring of all re­views
on ins­ti­tu­tio­nal and sub­ject le­vels be­cau­se they we­re as­ses­sed as part of an ins­ti­tu­tio­nal au­dit with
Andrea BERNHARD. Two European Responses to Assure Quality in Higher Education
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
the fo­cus on qu­a­li­ty en­han­ce­ment. This new met­hod of ins­ti­tu­tio­nal au­dit was first im­ple­men­ted 41
in Scot­land and la­ter in En­gland, Nort­hern Ire­land and Wa­les from 2001 till 2002 (Lei­sy­te, 2007,
p. 53). Furt­her­mo­re, the na­tio­nal QAA cre­a­ted an as­ses­sment pro­cess for te­aching qu­a­li­ty as well as
Fra­me­works for hig­her edu­ca­tion qu­a­li­fi­ca­tions and sub­ject ben­chmark sta­te­ments for nu­me­rous
aca­de­mic fields of stu­dy. In sum­ma­ry, as UK’s hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions are res­pon­sib­le for aca­
de­mic stan­dards and qu­a­li­ty by them­sel­ves whe­re­as QAA on­ly has to check “how well they me­et
their res­pon­si­bi­li­ties, iden­ti­fy­ing go­od prac­ti­ce and ma­king re­com­men­da­tions for im­pro­ve­ment”
and to pub­lish “gui­de­li­nes to help ins­ti­tu­tions de­ve­lop ef­fec­ti­ve sys­tems to en­su­re stu­dents ha­ve
high qu­a­li­ty ex­pe­rien­ces” (QAA, 2009, p. 1ff).
En­gland, Nort­hern Ire­land, Scot­land and Wa­les show dif­fe­rent ap­pro­a­ches on qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce
but in to­tal all sys­tems are qui­te si­mi­lar, es­pe­cial­ly the sys­tems of En­gland, Nort­hern Ire­land and
Wa­les (Uni­ver­si­ties UK, 2008, p. 21). Thus, the UK sys­tem is cha­rac­te­ri­sed by a strong fo­cus on qu­
a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce in terms of hig­her edu­ca­tion re­se­arch (RAE), alt­hough this high­ly ela­bo­ra­ted sys­tem
has to be re­for­med and mo­re sim­pli­fied. The UK sys­tem al­so chan­ged to­wards qu­a­li­ty im­pro­ve­ment
rat­her than the pre­vio­us strong emp­ha­sis on ac­coun­ta­bi­li­ty. On­ly one na­tio­nal qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce
agen­cy is in char­ge of all pro­ce­du­res wit­hin this na­tio­nal sys­tem. Mo­re­o­ver, the new ap­pro­ach of
ins­ti­tu­tio­nal au­dits shall help to re­ach a high le­vel of qu­a­li­ty in hig­her edu­ca­tion in the UK. It can be
sta­ted that the pre­vai­ling qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tem chan­ged from a “mo­re ins­pec­tion-ba­sed mo­del”
to­wards a “cul­tu­re of con­ti­nuo­us im­pro­ve­ment and en­han­ce­ment” of hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions
that hand­le their own qu­a­li­ty and stan­dards in an ef­fec­ti­ve man­ner (ibid., p. 3). Cur­rent­ly the­re
are nu­me­rous un­cer­tain­ties in terms of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce in hig­her edu­ca­tion in the UK but “the­re
should be no ne­ed to fe­ar the fu­tu­re”, Pe­ter Wil­liams (2009, pp. 1f) ar­gu­es.

An Ex­ter­nal Per­spec­ti­ve

The gro­wing in­te­rest for qu­a­li­ty in hig­her edu­ca­tion is clo­se­ly lin­ked to ex­pan­sion pro­ces­ses
with inc­re­a­sed costs and a chan­ge of the tra­di­tio­nal ro­le of the go­vern­ment. The exam­ples of Ger­ma­
ny and the UK il­lust­ra­te two dif­fe­rent ap­pro­a­ches in their in­di­vi­du­al eco­no­mic, cul­tu­ral and so­cial
con­texts. In the fol­lo­wing I ad­dress the dif­fe­ren­ces and si­mi­la­ri­ties of both hig­her edu­ca­tion and
what fu­tu­re per­spec­ti­ves can be fi­gu­red out. I built on the in­sights from the two sys­tem ap­pro­a­ches
and on al­re­a­dy exis­ting com­pa­ra­ti­ve stu­dies. Both coun­tries ha­ve un­der­go­ne fun­da­men­tal re­forms
in terms of go­ver­nan­ce, fun­ding and, of cour­se, in terms of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce. They ha­ve be­en con­
fron­ted with ele­men­ta­ry shifts in their hig­her edu­ca­tion sys­tem and had to chan­ge their at­ti­tu­de in
aca­de­mic af­fairs. Ger­ma­ny and the UK lo­ok back on a long his­to­ry of hig­her edu­ca­tion but their
con­cen­tra­tion on qu­a­li­ty is­su­es is rat­her young and still un­der de­ve­lop­ment. In the UK the first steps
to­wards a qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tem star­ted main­ly in the 1980s and in Ger­ma­ny a de­ca­de la­ter. Ho­
we­ver, both coun­tries put qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce on the top of their po­li­ti­cal agen­das and ins­ti­tu­tio­na­li­sed
res­pec­ti­ve me­cha­nisms by the end of the last cen­tu­ry.
The UK has ta­ken two fun­da­men­tal ini­tia­ti­ves to as­su­re their qu­a­li­ty in hig­her edu­ca­tion: (1)
Re­se­arch As­ses­sment Exer­ci­se to eva­lu­a­te the qu­a­li­ty of re­se­arch and (2) Aca­de­mic Au­dit pro­cess
to as­sess qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce pro­ces­ses in all aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions. Pri­ma­ri­ly res­pon­sib­le for the­se
ef­forts in UK qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce ha­ve be­en fi­nan­cial me­a­su­res, such as per­for­man­ce-ba­sed sta­te fun­
ding. The hal­lmark for Ger­man hig­her edu­ca­tion sys­tem is the com­pe­ti­tion bet­we­en va­rio­us qu­a­li­ty
as­su­ran­ce agen­cies wit­hin the coun­try. The high­ly di­ver­si­fied Ger­man hig­her edu­ca­tion sys­tem has
a qui­te long his­to­ry of eva­lu­a­tion pro­ce­du­res car­ried out by dif­fe­rent agen­cies throug­hout the coun­
try. Thus, the Ger­man qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tem is much mo­re or­ga­ni­sed sin­ce the chan­ge to­wards
ac­cre­di­ta­tion and fi­nal­ly the up­co­ming of sys­tem ac­cre­di­ta­tion. The gro­wing in­te­rest on ins­ti­tu­tio­nal
qu­a­li­ty au­dits and a dec­li­ne in in­va­si­ve, dis­cip­li­ne-ba­sed qu­a­li­ty as­ses­sments are al­so found in ot­her
Eu­ro­pe­an coun­tries and ab­ro­ad.
The main pre­do­mi­nant cor­ners­to­ne that high­lights the dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en the­se two sys­tems
is their go­ver­nan­ce mo­del: the UK is tra­di­tio­nal­ly ba­sed on the “An­glo-Sa­xon go­ver­nan­ce mo­del”
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

42
whi­le Ger­ma­ny is ba­sed on the “Con­ti­nen­tal mo­del” (Clark, 1983). The ro­le of their go­vern­ments
ope­ned up be­cau­se mo­re op­por­tu­ni­ties for cre­a­ti­ve so­lu­tions are gi­ven to the hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­
ti­tu­tions them­sel­ves. The UK shif­ted their go­ver­nan­ce from a mo­re li­be­ral orien­ta­tion to­wards a
stron­ger sta­te re­gu­la­tion which af­fec­ted fun­ding as well as qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce mat­ters. This hap­pe­ned
in li­ne with inc­re­a­sed ac­coun­ta­bi­li­ty, ef­fi­cien­cy and a loss of trust to­wards hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­
tions from the sta­te. Ger­ma­ny went the op­po­si­te way from a pre­vio­us strong sta­te con­trol to­wards
de­re­gu­la­tion and mo­re uni­ver­si­ty au­to­no­my. As­pects of ac­coun­ta­bi­li­ty, such as per­for­man­ce-ba­sed
fun­ding and re­por­ting, re­a­ched Ger­man hig­her edu­ca­tion po­li­cies rat­her la­te. On the one hand the­se
trans­for­ma­tions led to a new way of uni­ver­si­ty ma­na­ge­ment and both coun­tries in­teg­ra­ted a bu­si­
ness-li­ke be­ha­vio­ur in hig­her edu­ca­tion mat­ters. On the ot­her hand it re­sul­ted in the es­tab­lis­hment
of va­rio­us dif­fe­rent or­ga­ni­sa­tions: the HEFCs and QAA in the UK and the AC as well as lots of
furt­her qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce agen­cies in Ger­ma­ny. Con­cer­ning fun­ding the UK went a qui­te strong way
with their pe­ri­odic RAEs whi­le Ger­ma­ny has chan­ged to per­for­man­ce-ba­sed fun­ding next to lump-
sum bud­gets which are not di­rec­tly lin­ked to qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce me­cha­nisms.
Ne­vert­he­less, Eu­ro­pe ne­eds to de­ve­lop a sys­tem con­cer­ning both the qu­a­li­fi­ca­tion of for­mal
know­led­ge, as well as the know­led­ge of qu­a­li­ty. Furt­her­mo­re, the most im­por­tant conc­lu­sion is
that the in­ter­na­tio­nal pre-con­di­tions for im­pro­ving re­cog­ni­tion ac­ross the Eu­ro­pe­an Hig­her Edu­ca­
tion Area ha­ve be­en cre­a­ted. Alt­hough the­re is no Eu­ro­pe­an or EU mo­del of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce the
clo­sest form is set up in the Bo­log­na Dec­la­ra­tion. With the go­al of a de­ve­lop­ment of com­pa­rab­le
cri­te­ria and met­ho­do­lo­gies in terms of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce Eu­ro­pe is on the ro­ad to­wards a com­mon
Eu­ro­pe­an un­ders­tan­ding of qu­a­li­ty, which, whi­le it do­es not yet con­tem­pla­te the es­tab­lis­hment of a
su­per­ve­ning Eu­ro­pe­an Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce Agen­cy, do­es en­cou­ra­ge col­la­bo­ra­tion bet­we­en na­tio­nal
agen­cies on a Eu­ro­pe­an and re­gio­nal ba­sis (Far­ring­ton, 2005, p. 53). Al­so Ger­ma­ny and the UK are
in­teg­ra­ted in the in­ter­na­tio­nal dis­cus­sion pro­ces­ses and are in­vol­ved in the work of Eu­ro­pe­an Net­
works (mem­bers of va­rio­us qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce net­works).
Lo­o­king at the­se coun­try re­ports con­cer­ning their qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce pro­ce­du­res tre­men­dous dif­
fe­ren­ces but al­so so­me si­mi­lar ap­pro­a­ches ha­ve be­en fi­gu­red out. Both coun­tries ha­ve ta­ken gre­at
ini­tia­ti­ves to as­su­re their qu­a­li­ty in hig­her edu­ca­tion and their pro­ce­du­res re­flect their cul­tu­ral and
his­to­ri­cal bac­kground. Their qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce sys­tems can­not be ex­chan­ge­ab­le or so­me ap­pro­a­ches
can be ap­plied by anot­her coun­try. From an Aust­rian per­spec­ti­ve – wit­hout going to much in depth
of both sys­tems – I would ar­gue that both coun­tries si­mi­lar to ot­her Eu­ro­pe­an coun­tries try to shift
to­wards a mo­re com­pre­hen­si­ve ap­pro­ach. Sys­tem ac­cre­di­ta­tion in Ger­ma­ny or ins­ti­tu­tio­nal au­dits
in the UK shall be the fu­tu­re pro­ce­du­res ins­te­ad of the pre­vio­us pie­ce­me­al me­cha­nisms with a high
de­gree of bu­re­auc­ra­cy and bur­den of work for hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions. Ne­vert­he­less the next
years will show if the­se two ap­pro­a­ches will be a func­tio­ning al­ter­na­ti­ve wit­hin the high com­ple­xi­ty
of qu­a­li­ty as­su­ran­ce me­cha­nisms in Eu­ro­pe and ab­ro­ad.

Re­fe­ren­ces

Bren­nan, J. et al. (1992). To­wards a Met­ho­do­lo­gy for Com­pa­ra­ti­ve Qu­a­li­ty As­ses­sment in Eu­ro­pe­an
Hig­her Edu­ca­tion. A Pi­lot Stu­dy on Eco­no­mics in Ger­ma­ny, the Net­her­lands and the Uni­ted King­dom.
Lon­don/Ens­che­de/Han­no­ver: CNAA/CHEPS/HIS.
Brown, R. (2004). Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion. The UK Ex­pe­rien­ce sin­ce 1992. Lon­don/
New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Sys­tem. Ber­ke­ley/Los An­ge­les/Lon­don: Uni­ver­si­ty of Ca­li­
for­nia Press.
De Rud­der, H. (1994). The Qu­a­li­ty Is­sue in Ger­man Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Po­li­cy. Eu­ro­pe­an Jour­nal of Edu­
ca­tion, 29(2), 201–219.
Gel­lert, C. (Ed.) (1993). Hig­her edu­ca­tion in Eu­ro­pe. Lon­don: Jes­si­ca Kings­ley Pub­lis­hers.
Andrea BERNHARD. Two European Responses to Assure Quality in Higher Education
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Hart­wig, L. (2004). Na­tio­nal Re­port of Ger­ma­ny for the OECD/IMHE-HEFCE pro­ject on fi­nan­cial 43
ma­na­ge­ment and go­ver­nan­ce of hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions. München: Ba­y­e­ris­ches Sta­at­sins­ti­tut für
Hoch­schul­fors­chung und Hoch­schul­pla­nung. (Mo­nog­rap­hien: Neue Fol­ge, Vol. 69).
HESA (2007/08). Stu­dents in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Ins­ti­tu­tions. Ret­rie­ved on 12 Feb­ru­a­ry 2010, from http://
www.he­sa.ac.uk.
Hop­bach, A. (2009). Ger­ma­ny. In Koh­ler, A./AQA (Ed.): Trends of Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce and Qu­a­li­ty Ma­
na­ge­ment in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Sys­tems (pp. 83-87). Vien­na: Fa­cul­tas Ver­lags- und Buch­han­dels AG.
HRK (2010). Hoch­schul­kom­pass. Ret­rie­ved on 12 Feb­ru­a­ry, 2010, from http://www.hoch­schul­kom­pass.
de.
Lei­sy­te, L. (2007). Hig­her Edu­ca­tion in the Uni­ted King­dom. IHEM Coun­try Re­port. Ens­che­de:
CHEPS.
Mit­tag, S., & Da­niel, H.-D. (2008). Qu­a­litätsma­na­ge­ment an Hoch­schu­len. In Kehm, B. (Ed.). Hoch­schu­
le im Wan­del. Die Uni­ver­sität als Fors­chungs­ge­gens­tand. Fest­schrift für Ul­rich Teich­ler (pp. 281–294).
Fran­furt/New York: Cam­pus Ver­lag.
Ne­ave, G. (1994). The Po­li­tics of Qu­a­li­ty: de­ve­lop­ments in hig­her edu­ca­tion in Wes­tern Eu­ro­pe 1992–
1994. Eu­ro­pe­an Jour­nal of Edu­ca­tion, 29(2), 115-134.
Pe­char, H. (2001). Pri­va­tu­ni­ver­sitäten. In Hanft, A. (Ed.) (2001). Grund­beg­rif­fe des Hoch­schul­ma­na­ge­
ments (pp. 359–362). Neu­wied: Luch­ter­hand.
QAA (2009). An In­tro­duc­tion to QAA. Glou­ces­ter: QAA.
RAE (2010). RAE2008. Re­se­arch As­ses­sment Exer­ci­se. Ret­rie­ved on 12 Feb­ru­a­ry, 2010, from
http://www.rae.ac.uk
Ser­ra­no-Ve­lar­de, K. (2008). Eva­lu­a­tion, Ak­kre­di­tie­rung und Po­li­tik. Zur Or­ga­ni­sa­tion von Qu­a­litätssi­
che­rung im Zu­ge des Bo­log­nap­ro­zes­ses. Wies­ba­den: VS Ver­lag für So­zial­wis­sens­chaf­ten.
Ta­ve­nas, F. (2004). Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce. A Re­fe­ren­ce Sys­tem for In­di­ca­tors and Eva­lu­a­tion Pro­ce­du­res.
Brus­sels: EUA.
Trow, M. (1973). Pro­blems in the Tran­si­tion from Eli­te to Mass Hig­her Edu­ca­tion. Ber­ke­ley: Car­ne­gie
Com­mis­sion on Hig­her Edu­ca­tion.
Uni­ver­si­ties UK (2008). Qu­a­li­ty and stan­dards in UK uni­ver­si­ties: A gui­de to how the sys­tem works.
Lon­don: Uni­ver­si­ties UK.
Wes­ter­heij­den, D.F. et al. (2006). Li­nes of Chan­ge in the Dis­cour­se on Qu­a­li­ty As­su­ran­ce. An Over­view
of So­me Stu­dies in­to What Im­pacts Im­pro­ve­ment. Pa­per pre­sen­ted to the 28th An­nu­al EAIR Fo­rum,
Ro­me, 30 Au­gust to 1 Sep­tem­ber 2006. Ret­rie­ved on 12 Feb­ru­a­ry, 2010, from http://www.ut­wen­te.
nl/cheps/do­cu­men­ten/2006eair­li­ne­sof­chan­ge­wes­ter­heij­den.pdf.
Wil­liams, P. (2009). Gre­at Ex­pec­ta­tions. Hig­her Qu­a­li­ty, 30, 1–2.
Wit­te, J. (2006). Chan­ge of de­gre­es and de­gre­es of chan­ge: Com­pa­ring adap­ta­tions of Eu­ro­pe­an hig­her
edu­ca­tion sys­tems in the con­text of the Bo­log­na pro­cess. Doc­to­ral the­sis. Ens­che­de: Cen­ter for Hig­her
Edu­ca­tion Po­li­cy Stu­dies (CHEPS)/Uni­ver­si­teit Twen­te.

Ad­vi­ced by Hans Pe­char, Uni­ver­si­ty of Kla­gen­furt, Aust­ria

An­drea Bern­hard Re­se­arch Fel­low, Ins­ti­tu­te of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces, Uni­ver­si­ty of Graz, Aust­ria.
Me­ran­gas­se 18/II, 8010 Graz, Aust­ria.
E-mail: an­drea.bern­hard@uni-graz.at
Web­si­te: http://www.uni-graz.at/pa­edwww/
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

44

The suc­ces­sful in­teg­ra­tion of


fo­reign-born in­struc­tors in the
aca­de­me: Les­sons from Is­ra­el’s
lar­gest pub­lic col­le­ge

Ya’arit Bo­kek-Co­hen, Nit­za Da­vi­do­vich


Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter, Is­ra­el
E-mail: ybo­kek@gmail.com, d.nit­za@ariel.ac.il

Abst­ract

Si­mi­lar­ly to ot­her in­dust­ries, the aca­de­mic world has inc­re­a­sin­gly be­co­me a ‘glo­bal vil­la­ge’, in which
fo­reign-born in­struc­tors cons­ti­tu­te a lar­ge pro­por­tion of uni­ver­si­ty fa­cul­ty. Most stu­dies on fo­reign-born
fa­cul­ty mem­bers ha­ve do­cu­men­ted va­rio­us dif­fi­cul­ties in the in­teg­ra­tion of fo­reign-born in­struc­tors in
aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions. This pa­per pre­sents da­ta in­di­ca­ting the suc­ces­sful in­teg­ra­tion of fo­reign-born in­
struc­tors in Is­ra­el’s lar­gest pub­lic col­le­ge, and iden­ti­fies the fac­tors that con­tri­bu­ted to this suc­cess. Da­ta
are ba­sed on se­ve­ral me­a­su­res used to as­sess fa­cul­ty mem­bers on an an­nu­al ba­sis in te­aching, re­se­arch,
ad­mi­nist­ra­tion, and com­mu­ni­ty ser­vi­ce. Li­ne­ar disc­ri­mi­nant ana­ly­sis (LNA) was per­for­med to exa­mi­ne
whet­her fa­cul­ty as­ses­sment sco­res dis­tin­guish bet­we­en Is­ra­e­li-born and fo­reign-born in­struc­tors. Fin­
dings show that fo­reign-born in­struc­tors ha­ve be­co­me suc­ces­sful­ly in­teg­ra­ted in the ins­ti­tu­tion. Four
com­ple­men­ta­ry ex­pla­na­tions for their suc­ces­sful in­teg­ra­tion are pro­po­sed. We conc­lu­de with a dis­cus­
sion of ma­na­ge­rial im­pli­ca­tions for ins­ti­tu­tions se­e­king to di­ver­si­fy their staff and suc­ces­sful­ly in­teg­ra­te
fo­reign-born in­struc­tors FBF in hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions.
Key words: fo­reign-born in­struc­tors, fa­cul­ty as­ses­sments, so­cial net­works the­o­ry, si­mi­la­ri­ty-at­trac­tion
pa­ra­digm.

In­tro­duc­tion

For ma­ny de­ca­des, Ame­ri­can uni­ver­si­ties ha­ve at­trac­ted a lar­ge num­ber of fa­cul­ty mem­bers
from all over the world (Lee, 2004). The­se im­mig­rants are at­trac­ted by the high stan­dards of li­
ving, aca­de­mic fre­e­dom, bet­ter work en­vi­ron­ment, ab­sen­ce of cor­rup­tion, and abo­ve all, su­pe­rior
op­por­tu­ni­ties cre­a­ted by a sys­tem of me­ri­toc­ra­cy un­pa­ral­le­led in the world (Brad­ford, 1990). This
glo­bal trend has ex­pan­ded and in­ten­si­fied sin­ce 1999, when the Bo­log­na Ac­cords we­re sig­ned by
the edu­ca­tion mi­nis­ters of the Eu­ro­pe­an coun­tries. The tre­a­ty aims to ma­ke it easier for stu­dents
and re­se­ar­chers to ac­cess Eu­ro­pe­an edu­ca­tion sys­tems. Now sig­ned by 45 coun­tries and rein­for­ced
by the Lis­bon Re­cog­ni­tion Con­ven­tion, the im­pact of the Bo­log­na pro­cess ex­tends be­yond the Eu­
ro­pe­an boun­da­ries.
The job mar­ket in U.S. has be­co­me less ac­ces­sib­le to young wor­kers in scien­ce and en­gi­ne­
e­ring fields, re­la­ti­ve to ma­ny ot­her high-le­vel oc­cu­pa­tions. Whi­le the­se obs­tac­les dis­cou­ra­ge US
Ya’arit BOKEK-COHEN, Nitza DAVIDOVICH. The Successful Integration of Foreign-born Instructors in the Academe:
Lessons from Israel’s Largest Public College PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
stu­dents from being ac­ti­ve in the­se fields, the be­ne­fits are still suf­fi­cient to at­tract lar­ge im­mig­rant 45
flows, par­ti­cu­lar­ly from de­ve­lo­ping coun­tries (Fre­e­man, 2005). The gro­wing num­ber of at­trac­ti­ve
job op­por­tu­ni­ties in the US eco­no­my for na­ti­ve col­le­ge gra­du­a­tes and the low ra­te of re­turn of
in­vest­ments in gra­du­a­te edu­ca­tion ha­ve led to a ri­se in the per­cen­ta­ge of fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty in
Ame­ri­can uni­ver­si­ties, es­pe­cial­ly in tech­ni­cal are­as. Af­ter com­ple­ting their aca­de­mic work, ma­ny
fo­reign stu­dents re­main in the US to ser­ve as aca­de­mic in­struc­tors, go­vern­ment scien­tists, or in­dust­
rial re­se­ar­chers fu­e­ling the US eco­no­mic en­gi­ne furt­her to­wards gre­a­ter le­vel of suc­cess (Gwyn­ne
& Kay, 1999). Ac­cor­ding to Fin­kels­tein et al. (1998), fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers com­pri­se mo­re
than one-sixth (16.9%) of all new en­trants, com­pa­red with on­ly one-ninth (11.5%) of all se­nior fa­
cul­ty mem­bers.
Des­pi­te the ever-inc­re­a­sing num­ber of fo­reign-born scien­tists in the US, ve­ry few stu­dies ha­ve
exa­mi­ned the re­se­arch ac­ti­vi­ty and per­for­man­ce of this group; This field is of­ten ter­med an “un­ders­
tu­died to­pic” (Man­ri­que & Man­ri­que, 1999; Mer­vis, 2004). This lack of know­led­ge may con­ce­al a
se­rio­us gap bet­we­en na­tio­nal po­li­cies to en­cou­ra­ge im­mig­ra­tion and in­ter­nal ins­ti­tu­tio­nal prac­ti­ces
in aca­de­mic re­se­arch ins­ti­tu­tions The main ob­jec­ti­ve of this re­se­arch is to pro­vi­de po­li­cy­ma­kers
em­pi­ri­cal evi­den­ce of suc­ces­sful in­teg­ra­tion of fo­reign-born scien­tists at the lar­gest Is­ra­e­li pub­lic
col­le­ge, re­flec­ted in the­se scien­tists ac­com­plis­hments in te­aching, re­se­arch, and com­mu­ni­ty ser­vi­ce.
Uni­ver­si­ties and col­le­ges around the world may use the Is­ra­e­li ex­pe­rien­ce to en­han­ce their un­ders­
tan­ding of the in­teg­ra­tion of fo­reign-born scien­tists and the be­ne­fits this pro­cess of­fers.
Our pa­per opens with a re­view of the li­te­ra­tu­re on fo­reign-born in­struc­tors, high­ligh­ting their
com­pli­ca­ted sta­tus. Their im­pres­si­ve achie­ve­ments are con­tras­ted by the disc­ri­mi­na­tion, stig­ma,
and lo­ne­li­ness they suf­fer. In the se­cond sec­tion of this pa­per, we re­port a stu­dy on fo­reign-born
in­struc­tors at Is­ra­el’s lar­gest pub­lic col­le­ge. Fin­dings re­ve­al suc­ces­sful in­teg­ra­tion of fo­reign-born
in­struc­tors, me­a­su­red in their per­for­man­ce sco­res in the are­as of te­aching, their re­se­arch pub­li­ca­tion
re­cord, and their aca­de­mic ranks. The pa­per conc­lu­des with a dis­cus­sion of the pos­sib­le fac­tors that
con­tri­bu­te to this suc­cess.

Fo­reign-born Fa­cul­ty Mem­bers

The ri­se of Ame­ri­ca has his­to­ri­cal­ly be­ne­fi­ted from im­por­ted ta­lents, and hig­her edu­ca­tion has
tra­di­tio­nal­ly pla­y­ed a cru­cial ro­le in the are­as of pu­re and ap­plied scien­ces (Lin, Pe­ar­ce & Wang,
2009). Ac­cor­ding to the fin­dings of Step­han and Le­vin (2001), fo­reign-born scien­tists con­tri­bu­te dis­
pro­por­tio­na­te­ly to the know­led­ge pro­duc­tion of US scien­ce. They found that 19.2% of the mem­bers
of the Na­tio­nal Aca­de­my of En­gi­ne­e­ring (NAE) and 23.8% of tho­se of the Na­tio­nal Aca­de­my of
Scien­ces (NAS) we­re fo­reign-born. Not on­ly do fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers en­han­ce the of­fe­ring
of va­rio­us aca­de­mic pro­grams, they al­so wri­te “hot pa­pers” that ha­ve hig­her than ave­ra­ge ci­ta­tion
ra­tes (Gwyn­ne & Kay, 1999). In fact, Kha­fa­gi (1990) sug­gests that “wit­hout the use of fo­reign-born
fa­cul­ty, uni­ver­si­ties would ha­ve suf­fe­red dif­fi­cul­ties in hand­ling the edu­ca­tio­nal and re­se­arch pro­
grams that are cur­rent­ly sup­por­ted” (p. 69).
A stu­dy of 750 ex­pat­ria­te fa­cul­ty mem­bers found that the res­pon­dents are ge­ne­ral­ly pro­duc­ti­ve
re­se­ar­chers. Mo­re than 35% ha­ve each pub­lis­hed mo­re than 20 re­fe­re­ed jour­nal ar­tic­les; 12% ha­ve
pub­lis­hed bet­we­en ele­ven and 20 ar­tic­les; 29% ha­ve pub­lis­hed bet­we­en fi­ve and ten ar­tic­les; and
the re­main­der ha­ve pub­lis­hed fe­wer than fi­ve ar­tic­les. Thir­ty-fi­ve per­cent ha­ve pub­lis­hed bo­oks or
writ­ten chap­ters in bo­oks. They ha­ve al­so pub­lis­hed nu­me­rous pro­ce­e­dings and par­ti­ci­pa­ted in ma­
ny con­fe­ren­ces (Qu­a­zi, Qud­dus, Deb­nath, & Tan­don, 2004).
Using mul­tip­le in­di­ca­tors, Lee (2004) found that fo­reign-born scien­tists do not dif­fer sig­ni­fi­cant­
ly from their na­ti­ve-born coun­ter­parts in re­se­arch col­la­bo­ra­tion and grants. In terms of pub­li­ca­tion
pro­duc­ti­vi­ty, ho­we­ver, fo­reign-born scien­tists are con­sis­tent­ly mo­re pro­duc­ti­ve than their na­ti­ve-
born col­le­a­gu­es. Even when re­le­vant va­riab­les are con­trol­led, being fo­reign-born still has a strong
po­si­ti­ve ef­fect on pub­li­ca­tion pro­duc­ti­vi­ty. This stu­dy al­so exa­mi­ned the im­pact of being fo­reign-
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

46
born on re­se­arch col­la­bo­ra­tion. Col­la­bo­ra­tion and grants ha­ve a sig­ni­fi­cant po­si­ti­ve ef­fect on­ly on
the pro­duc­ti­vi­ty of na­ti­ve-born scien­tists, whe­re­as the strong re­se­arch pre­fe­ren­ce of fo­reign-born
scien­tists con­tri­bu­tes to their re­la­ti­ve­ly hig­her pro­duc­ti­vi­ty (Lee, 2004). Fo­reign-born scien­tists ha­
ve a si­mi­lar num­ber of col­la­bo­ra­tors, a si­mi­lar stra­te­gic mo­ti­va­tion for col­la­bo­ra­tion, and a si­mi­lar
num­ber of co-aut­hors­hip po­ols as do na­ti­ve-born scien­tists. Ma­mi­seis­hvi­li http://www.springerlink.
com/content/223x16q25j64v522/ – ContactOfAuthor1#ContactOfAuthor1 and Ros­ser (2009) al­so
found that in­ter­na­tio­nal fa­cul­ty mem­bers we­re sig­ni­fi­cant­ly mo­re pro­duc­ti­ve in re­se­arch, but less
pro­duc­ti­ve in te­aching and com­mu­ni­ty ser­vi­ce ac­ti­vi­ties com­pa­red to their US-ci­ti­zen col­le­a­gu­es.
In con­trast to the da­ta shown abo­ve, so­me re­se­arch fin­dings sug­gest that mi­no­ri­ty fa­cul­ty ex­hi­
bit lo­wer re­se­arch pro­duc­ti­vi­ty, a strong te­aching orien­ta­tion, and sub­stan­tial com­mit­ment to ins­ti­tu­
tio­nal ser­vi­ce. Ac­cor­ding to Ol­sen, Map­le & Sta­ge (1995) ha­ve found that com­pa­red to na­ti­ve-born
scien­tists, fo­reign-born scien­tists are less en­ga­ged in col­la­bo­ra­tion and ha­ve fe­wer grants and are
sligh­tly less pro­duc­ti­ve es­pe­cial­ly du­ring the first three years af­ter their PhD, though the dif­fe­ren­ce
is not sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­ni­fi­cant.
Furt­her­mo­re, alt­hough most stu­dies in­di­ca­te that fo­reign-born aca­de­mic scien­tists and en­gi­
ne­ers are mo­re pro­duc­ti­ve than their US-born pe­ers in all are­as, they fa­ce va­rio­us dif­fi­cul­ties and
chal­len­ges. Any aca­de­mic em­bar­king on a te­aching ca­re­er is con­ti­nu­al­ly eva­lu­a­ted on her abi­li­ty to
te­ach, con­duct re­se­arch, pub­lish, and per­form ot­her du­ties. Fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers wor­king
in US uni­ver­si­ties, ho­we­ver, fa­ce a uni­que set of chal­len­ges that dif­fer from tho­se fa­ced by their
na­ti­ve-born col­le­a­gu­es (Col­lins, 2008).
Des­pi­te ex­pec­ta­tions, hig­her edu­ca­tion ap­pe­ars to lag sub­stan­tial­ly be­hind so­cie­ty as a who­le in
terms of di­ver­si­fi­ca­tion ef­forts, at le­ast with re­gard to the com­po­si­tion of its fa­cul­ty. Di­ver­si­ty trends
in hig­her edu­ca­tion ha­ve most clo­se­ly pa­ral­le­led lo­cal and na­tio­nal po­pu­la­tion ef­forts in dis­cip­li­nes
whe­re pay for fa­cul­ty and pro­gram gra­du­a­tes is com­pa­ra­ti­ve­ly low. Whe­re com­pen­sa­tion for fa­cul­ty
and gra­du­a­tes is high, the di­ver­si­fi­ca­tion pro­cess is sub­stan­tial­ly re­tar­ded (Mic­ce­ri, 2003).
If they are in­vi­ted to ser­ve in the ad­mi­nist­ra­tion, fo­reign pro­fes­sors of­ten find them­sel­ves left in
the lo­wer eche­lons as pro­gram ad­vi­sers, co­or­di­na­tors, or chair­per­sons. Mo­re­o­ver, ave­ra­ge sa­la­ries
and work sa­tis­fac­tion le­vels for fo­reign-born scien­tists are lo­wer than for US-born scien­tists (Cor­
ley & Sab­har­wal, 2007). Asian- Ame­ri­cans do not de­ri­ve com­pa­rab­le be­ne­fits from se­ve­ral cha­rac­
te­ris­tics as­so­cia­ted with hig­her sa­la­ries for Cau­ca­sian Ame­ri­cans and ap­pe­ar to ha­ve mo­re li­mi­ted
pat­hwa­ys to hig­her sa­la­ries (Lee, 2002).
Mic­ce­ri (2003) exa­mi­ned the re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en et­hnic ori­gin of fa­cul­ty and aca­de­mic ran­
king. He found that mi­no­ri­ty and fe­ma­le fa­cul­ty growth is mo­re pro­mi­nent in the lo­wer sa­la­ried
ranks; Sin­ce the di­ver­si­ty ini­tia­ti­ve be­gan (1996), on­ly for as­so­cia­te pro­fes­sors has the cur­ve ste­
e­pe­ned up­ward for mi­no­ri­ties and fe­ma­les, whi­le the as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor trend flat­te­ned for both
groups.
So­me re­se­ar­chers ha­ve clai­med that cul­tu­ral bias, ra­cial pro­fi­ling, and she­er ne­po­tism im­pe­de
ad­van­ce­ment and scho­lars­hip on so­me cam­pu­ses (Ngwainm­bi, 2006). For exam­ple, with a na­tion­
wi­de sur­vey of 2,265 fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers of US uni­ver­si­ties, Man­ri­que and Man­ri­que
(1999) found that 38% of the res­pon­dents felt that they had be­en disc­ri­mi­na­ted against eit­her by
fel­low fa­cul­ty or by ad­mi­nist­ra­tors. Furt­her­mo­re, ne­ar­ly one-half of the res­pon­dents knew ot­her
fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty who had be­en tar­gets of disc­ri­mi­na­tion. Alt­hough disc­ri­mi­na­tion is lar­ge­ly
sub­jec­ti­ve, im­mig­rant scien­tists are mo­re li­ke­ly to ha­ve so­me forms of disc­ri­mi­na­tion-re­la­ted di­
sad­van­ta­ges that might af­fect their re­se­arch ac­ti­vi­ties (He­y­lin, 1992). So­me PWIs (Pri­ma­ri­ly Whi­te
Ins­ti­tu­tions) ha­ve be­en ac­cu­sed of pre­ven­ting te­nu­re-se­e­king mi­no­ri­ty pro­fes­sors from en­jo­y­ing
the sa­me aca­de­mic fre­e­doms as their Whi­te col­le­a­gu­es. In ma­ny ca­ses, PWIs ha­ve im­ple­men­ted
nar­row­ly de­fi­ned scho­lars­hip po­li­cies that are in­con­sis­tent with the bro­a­der spec­trum of aca­de­mic
fre­e­dom. By doing so, te­nu­re com­mit­te­es ha­ve un­der­mi­ned cul­tu­ral re­se­arch. The­se cons­ti­tu­te sig­
ni­fi­cant as­pects of the re­se­arch in­te­rests of ma­ny mi­no­ri­ty pro­fes­sors, and hen­ce the pro­fes­sors are
mo­re of­ten de­nied te­nu­re. So­me ins­ti­tu­tions are no­to­rio­us for ra­cial­ly pro­fi­ling can­di­da­tes be­fo­re a
“su­itab­le” one is se­lec­ted for a te­aching and/or ad­mi­nist­ra­ti­ve po­si­tion. Ot­hers rec­ruit per­sons who
Ya’arit BOKEK-COHEN, Nitza DAVIDOVICH. The Successful Integration of Foreign-born Instructors in the Academe:
Lessons from Israel’s Largest Public College PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
fit a ge­og­rap­hic, et­hnic or gen­der pro­fi­le wit­hout se­rio­us­ly eva­lu­a­ting his/her cre­den­tials. The ma­jo­ 47
ri­ty of wo­men and mi­no­ri­ty are con­cen­tra­ted at less pres­ti­gio­us two – and four-year col­le­ges, and at
the lo­wer end of the fa­cul­ty ranks, or in non-te­nu­re track po­si­tions.
Ac­cor­ding to a Scien­tist ma­ga­zi­ne sur­vey (Park, 2001), a ma­jo­ri­ty of fo­reign-born scien­tists
res­pon­ded that com­mu­ni­ca­tions po­se their gre­a­test pro­blem in re­se­arch due to the lan­gu­a­ge dif­fe­
ren­ce. Com­mu­ni­ca­tion pro­blems may al­so ad­ver­se­ly af­fect fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers’ so­cial
and psy­cho­lo­gi­cal well-being. Dra­wing on se­ve­ral of­fi­ce-hour in­te­rac­tions bet­we­en in­ter­na­tio­nal
te­aching as­sis­tants and Ame­ri­can col­le­ge stu­dents, Chiang (2009) exa­mi­ned the lin­guis­tic and cul­
tu­ral sour­ces of com­mu­ni­ca­tion pro­blems. Col­lins (2008) al­so pre­sen­ted fin­dings on the ne­ga­ti­ve
re­ac­tions of stu­dents to the ac­cent of fo­reign-born in­struc­tors.
As re­por­ted in a re­cent Scien­ce ar­tic­le (Mer­vis, 2004), even fo­reign-born scien­tists who gra­du­
a­ted from the US uni­ver­si­ties still ha­ve lan­gu­a­ge pro­blems in their early ca­re­er sta­ge as a fa­cul­ty
mem­ber. So­me fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers said that stu­dents are re­luc­tant to ha­ve them ser­ve as
the­sis com­mit­tee mem­bers, and re­la­ti­ve­ly few stu­dents re­gis­te­red for clas­ses taught by fo­reign-born
in­struc­tors. Ra­cial and cul­tu­ral bia­ses exist in the clas­sro­om as well. Whi­te stu­dents of­ten open­ly
qu­es­tion the in­tel­lec­tu­al ca­li­ber of their Black pro­fes­sors, whi­le Af­ri­can-Ame­ri­can stu­dents au­to­ma­
ti­cal­ly ac­cept the aut­ho­ri­ty of Whi­te pro­fes­sors. Both groups of­ten mi­ni­mi­ze the ta­lents and con­tri­bu­
tions of fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty (par­ti­cu­lar­ly Af­ri­can and Asian pro­fes­sors). So­me pe­op­le be­lie­ve that
stu­dents le­arn less with fo­reign-born pro­fes­sors be­cau­se of their ac­cents and pro­blems ar­ti­cu­la­ting
Ame­ri­can pho­ne­tics. Ma­ny stu­dents, pa­rents, and le­gis­la­tors doubt the abi­li­ty of fo­reign-born in­
struc­tors to en­su­re that stu­dents se­cu­re ade­qu­a­te achie­ve­ments (Al­berts, 2008).
Cul­tu­ral dif­fe­ren­ces in edu­ca­tio­nal prac­ti­ces can le­ad to mi­sun­ders­tan­dings bet­we­en fa­cul­ty
mem­bers and stu­dents (Col­lins, 2008). In her sur­vey of 30 fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers from dif­
fe­rent coun­tries, Col­lins found that 87% of the res­pon­dents re­por­ted stress ari­sing from the ne­ed
to co­pe with cul­tu­ral dif­fe­ren­ces, such as the de­gree of for­ma­li­ty de­e­med ap­prop­ria­te in so­cial or
pro­fes­sio­nal re­la­tions­hips. Six­ty-three per­cent of the res­pon­dents re­por­ted fe­e­lings of iso­la­tion and
loss of con­tacts with friends and fa­mi­ly mem­bers. Alt­hough so­me res­pon­dents men­tio­ned sup­port
groups that we­re de­sig­ned to fill their so­cial ne­eds, the­se groups are ap­pa­rent­ly not ve­ry ac­ti­ve or
well pub­li­ci­zed. Two po­ten­tial sour­ces of sup­port, the chairs of the de­part­ments and the ins­ti­tu­
tion’s in­ter­na­tio­nal of­fi­ce; we­re found to of­fer in­con­sis­tent as­sis­tan­ce, which led to the ne­ga­ti­ve
fe­e­lings of going through the ad­just­ment pro­cess alo­ne with ve­ry lit­tle help. About one-third of the
pro­fes­sors at his­to­ri­cal­ly Black col­le­ges and uni­ver­si­ties co­me from de­ve­lo­ping coun­tries, main­ly
Af­ri­ca and In­dia. Though high­ly qu­a­li­fied, ma­ny of the­se fo­reign-born in­struc­tors re­port being over­
wor­ked, un­der­paid, un­de­rap­pre­cia­ted, and fa­ce disc­ri­mi­na­tion from Af­ri­can-Ame­ri­can pro­fes­sors,
stu­dents, and staff.

FSU Im­mig­rant Fa­cul­ty in Is­ra­e­li Aca­de­mia

In 1989, the for­mer So­viet Union ope­ned its ga­tes to ci­ti­zens who wis­hed to emig­ra­te. This
event trig­ge­red the se­cond wa­ve of im­mig­ra­tion to Is­ra­el from the FSU (af­ter the first wa­ve of im­
mig­ra­tion from the So­viet Union in the 1970s). By 2008, the num­ber of FSU im­mig­rants to Is­ra­el
from this se­cond wa­ve ex­ce­e­ded one mil­lion. The FSU im­mig­rant po­pu­la­tion is high­ly edu­ca­ted
re­la­ti­ve to the Is­ra­e­li-born po­pu­la­tion. Bet­we­en 2000 and 2008, 31% of the im­mig­rants had aca­de­
mic or scien­ti­fic oc­cu­pa­tions or tech­ni­cal and pro­fes­sio­nal oc­cu­pa­tions (Mi­nist­ry of Ab­sorp­tion,
2008). The­se im­mig­rants ca­me to Is­ra­el se­e­king new so­cio-eco­no­mic op­por­tu­ni­ties, and vie­wed
em­plo­y­ment as a ma­jor ele­ment of their in­teg­ra­tion in Is­ra­el (Me­na­hem & Geist, 1999). To­day
the­re are 15,700 scien­tists in Is­ra­el who im­mig­ra­ted from the FSU in the last wa­ve of im­mig­ra­tion
(Mei-Ami, 2008).
The com­ple­xi­ty cha­rac­te­ri­zing the sta­tus of fo­reign-born in­struc­tors in aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions is
evi­den­ce of the asym­met­ry in be­ne­fits and draw­backs in terms of their in­teg­ra­tion. The me­a­ning of
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

48
the­se asym­met­ric da­ta is that the­re is a gap bet­we­en rhe­to­ric and re­a­li­ty, and this gap may di­mi­nish
the abi­li­ty of aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions to be­ne­fit from the im­pres­si­ve po­ten­tial of fo­reign-born in­struc­
tors.
The stu­dy re­por­ted he­rein as­su­mes that an im­por­tant go­al of po­li­cy­ma­kers is to es­tab­lish a mo­
re ra­cial­ly and et­hni­cal­ly di­ver­se aca­de­me. The stu­dy ex­plo­res the achie­ve­ments of fo­reign-born
in­struc­tors at Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter, Is­ra­el’s lar­gest pub­lic col­le­ge, me­a­su­red by fa­cul­ty as­ses­
sment sco­res, com­pa­red to tho­se of Is­ra­e­li-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers, as an in­di­ca­tor of the suc­ces­sful
in­teg­ra­tion of fo­reign-born in­struc­tors. Fa­cul­ty mem­bers at aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions per­form a wi­de
ran­ge of ac­ti­vi­ties, inc­lu­ding: te­aching, re­se­arch, re­se­arch pub­li­ca­tions, pre­sen­ta­tions at con­fe­ren­
ces, sub­mit­ting re­se­arch grants, aca­de­mic ad­mi­nist­ra­tion, com­mu­ni­ty ser­vi­ce, etc. As­ses­sments of
fa­cul­ty ac­ti­vi­ties and achie­ve­ment-ba­sed re­wards ha­ve be­co­me im­por­tant to­pics over the past four
de­ca­des (Alt­bach, 2000; Gil­les­pie, Hil­sen & Wad­sworth, 2002; He­arn, 1999; Tar­qui­nio, Dit­tus, Byr­
ne, Kai­ser, & Ne­il­son, 2003; Wad­sworth, 1994).

Met­ho­do­lo­gy of Re­se­a­erch

The main re­se­arch qu­es­tion of the pre­sent stu­dy is whet­her fo­reign born fa­cul­ty mem­bers ha­ve
in­teg­ra­ted suc­ces­sful­ly in­to Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter (AUC). Suc­ces­sful in­teg­ra­tion me­ans that their
achie­ve­ments are not in­fe­rior to the ac­com­plis­hments of their na­ti­ve-born pe­ers, as me­a­su­red by
fa­cul­ty as­ses­sment sco­res in se­ve­ral fields.
Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter is the lar­gest Is­ra­e­li pub­lic col­le­ge and is in the pro­cess of se­cu­ring
re­cog­ni­tion as a uni­ver­si­ty. Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of Sa­ma­ria was es­tab­lis­hed in 1982 as a col­le­ge
in Ke­du­mim. Its aca­de­mic his­to­ry be­gan as an ex­ten­sion of the Bar-Ilan Uni­ver­si­ty in 1990 with the
mo­ve to the Scien­ce Park in Ariel. That year, a Re­se­arch Ins­ti­tu­te was foun­ded, hi­ring a group of
new im­mig­rant re­se­ar­chers from the for­mer USSR. The de­ci­sion to es­tab­lish the Re­se­arch Ins­ti­tu­te
was ba­sed on the un­ders­tan­ding that re­se­arch is an in­teg­ral part of an aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tion. Se­ve­ral
of the­se re­se­ar­chers cons­ti­tu­te the co­re of the aca­de­mic fa­cul­ty in a num­ber of En­gi­ne­e­ring and
Na­tu­ral Scien­ce De­part­ments. AUC’s four fa­cul­ties (En­gi­ne­e­ring, So­cial Scien­ces and Hu­ma­ni­ties,
Na­tu­ral Scien­ces, and the Scho­ol of He­alth Scien­ces) of­fer un­derg­ra­du­a­te de­gree pro­grams in 23 de­
part­ments. Four of the­se de­part­ments award mas­ters de­gre­es. The AUC al­so of­fers 9 doub­le-ma­jor
pro­grams, as well as pro­grams in the Scho­ol of Ar­chi­tec­tu­re and Scho­ol of Com­mu­ni­ca­tions.
AUC has es­tab­lis­hed its sta­tus as the lar­gest pub­lic aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tion in Is­ra­el that is not
a re­se­arch uni­ver­si­ty, both in num­ber of stu­dents, num­ber of se­nior fa­cul­ty mem­bers, and va­rie­ty
of de­gree pro­grams. In the 2008-9 aca­de­mic year, the stu­dent bo­dy com­pri­ses mo­re than 8,000 stu­
dents.
As se­en in Fi­gu­re 1, the fa­cul­ty at AUC com­pri­ses four main et­hnic groups: (a) Is­ra­e­li-born, (b)
US-born, (c) FSU-born, and (d) ot­her fo­reign-born in­struc­tors (i.e., Ar­gen­ti­na, Fran­ce, and Sy­ria).
The rec­tor of AUC is a FSU im­mig­rant who ar­ri­ved to Is­ra­el in 1992. He is the first FSU-born
pro­fes­sor to achie­ve such a high aca­de­mic rank in Is­ra­el. He earned a Dr. Sc. de­gree in phy­si­cal che­
mist­ry at the USSR Aca­de­my of Scien­ce, Ins­ti­tu­te of Me­tal­lur­gy. Short­ly af­ter his ar­ri­val to Is­ra­el he
be­ca­me a fa­cul­ty mem­ber in the De­part­ment of Phy­sics At AUC. Six­te­en years la­ter, he was elec­ted
to the po­si­tion of Rec­tor of AUC.
The De­an of the Fa­cul­ty of Na­tu­ral Scien­ces is al­so a FSU-born im­mig­rant who ar­ri­ved to
Is­ra­el 20 years ago; the he­ad of the De­part­ment of Mo­le­cu­lar Bio­lo­gy im­mig­ra­ted from FSU 13
years ago. The he­ad of the De­part­ment of Elec­tric en­gi­ne­e­ring was born in the US and im­mig­ra­ted
to Is­ra­el 18 years ago; the he­ad of the De­part­ment of Com­mu­ni­ca­tion was born al­so in the US and
im­mig­ra­ted to Is­ra­el 20 years ago.
Ya’arit BOKEK-COHEN, Nitza DAVIDOVICH. The Successful Integration of Foreign-born Instructors in the Academe:
Lessons from Israel’s Largest Public College PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

Other; 14; 49
7%
U.S. b­o­rn;
24; 12%

FSU b­o­rn;
166; 81%
Fi­gu­re 1. Et­hnic ori­gin of AUC fa­cul­ty.

Sam­ple

This stu­dy is ba­sed on 206 aca­de­mic fa­cul­ty mem­bers from the AUC. 62.6% of the fa­cul­ty
mem­bers are na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis, 19.4% are im­mig­rants from the FSU, 12.1% are US-born, and 5.8%
ca­me from ot­her coun­tries (See fi­gu­re 1 abo­ve). FBF in this stu­dy are pro­fes­sors that ar­ri­ved to Is­
ra­el af­ter 1989, the year in which the mass im­mig­ra­tion from FSU has be­gan. In or­der to exa­mi­ne
the cor­re­la­tion bet­we­en fa­cul­ty mem­ber de­mog­rap­hic da­ta and as­ses­sment sco­res, fa­cul­ty mem­bers
we­re di­vi­ded in­to four groups of ori­gin: Is­ra­el, FSU, USA, and ot­hers.
At the AUC, fa­cul­ty mem­bers who hold at le­ast a 2/3 full-ti­me te­aching po­si­tion, and are ran­
ked in the top 60% of as­ses­sment sco­res earn an an­nu­al bo­nus, ba­sed on their achie­ve­ments du­ring
the pre­vio­us year. Bo­nu­ses ran­ge from 7.5% (the lo­wer 20% of the ex­cel­len­ce sco­res) to 15% (the
mid­dle 20% of the ex­cel­len­ce sco­res) to 20% (the top 20% of the ex­cel­len­ce sco­res), ac­cor­ding to
the num­ber of points ac­cu­mu­la­ted. This stu­dy cal­cu­la­tes ave­ra­ge sco­res ba­sed on fi­ve me­a­su­res of
as­ses­sment, and pri­ma­ri­ly pe­er eva­lu­a­tions of aca­de­mic ac­ti­vi­ties by se­nior col­le­a­gu­es, inc­lu­ding
de­ans, and stu­dent eva­lu­a­tions of te­aching qu­a­li­ty.

Re­sults of Re­se­arch

The first part of the stu­dy exa­mi­ned links bet­we­en per­so­nal and pro­fes­sio­nal da­ta of aca­de­mic
fa­cul­ty and their coun­try of ori­gin with the aim of ana­ly­zing dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­li and
im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers. Items ana­ly­zed are gen­der, age, se­nio­ri­ty, de­part­men­tal af­fi­lia­tion, em­
plo­y­ment sta­tus and rank. On the who­le, it was found that the­re is no link bet­we­en age, sta­tus and
rank on one part, and coun­try of ori­gin on the ot­her. Con­cur­rent­ly it was found that the­re is a link bet­
we­en gen­der, se­nio­ri­ty and de­part­men­tal af­fi­lia­tion on one si­de, and coun­try of ori­gin on the ot­her.

Tab­le 1. Bre­ak­down of Fa­cul­ty Mem­bers and Coun­try of Ori­gin by Gen­der.

Ori­gin Is­ra­el FSU USA Ot­hers To­tal


Gen­der Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Ma­le 86 66.7 32 80 18 72 11 91.7 147 71.4
Fe­ma­le 43 33.3 8 20 7 28 1 8.3 59 28.6
To­tal 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100

Tab­le I and re­gres­sion ana­ly­ses in­di­ca­te a sig­ni­fi­cant link bet­we­en gen­der and coun­try of ori­
gin: The­re is a sig­ni­fi­cant­ly hig­her per­cen­ta­ge of wo­men among na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­li fa­cul­ty mem­bers than
among im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers. Furt­her­mo­re, ma­les do­mi­na­te the fa­cul­ty: 71.4% of fa­cul­ty
mem­bers are ma­le and 28.6% fe­ma­le. This gen­der bre­ak­down do­es not com­pa­re fa­vo­rab­ly with the
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

50
na­tio­nal pic­tu­re. Ac­cor­ding to the Cen­tral Bu­re­au of Sta­tis­tics, in 2006/7 fe­ma­les cons­ti­tu­ted 43.6%
of the fa­cul­ty of so­cial scien­ces and hu­ma­ni­ties on the na­tio­nal le­vel; 29.3% of the fa­cul­ties of exact
scien­ces, and na­tu­ral and li­fe scien­ces; and 37.6% of the fa­cul­ties of he­alth scien­ces and me­di­ci­ne
(CBS, 2008, Tab­le 8.58).

Tab­le 2. Bre­ak­down of Fa­cul­ty Mem­bers by Se­nio­ri­ty at the Aca­de­mic


Ins­ti­tu­tion and Coun­try of Ori­gin.

Ori­gin Is­ra­el FSU USA Ot­hers To­tal


Se­nio­ri­ty Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
3 years or less 21 16.3 9 22.5 4 16 1 8.3 35 17.0
3-5 50 38.8 6 15.0 6 24 2 16.7 64 31.1
6-10 26 20.2 14 35.0 3 12 1 8.3 44 21.4
11+ 32 24.8 11 27.5 12 48 8 66.7 63 30.6
To­tal 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100

Tab­le II and chi-squ­a­re test re­sults in­di­ca­te a sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­ni­fi­cant cor­re­la­tion bet­we­en years
of se­nio­ri­ty at the aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tion and coun­try of ori­gin (χ² (9) = 22.95, p > .01). Ap­pro­xi­ma­
te­ly one-qu­ar­ter of na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­li and FSU-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers ha­ve be­en wor­king at the pre­sent
pla­ce of em­plo­y­ment for 11 years and mo­re, whi­le among US-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers 48% ha­ve be­en
as­so­cia­ted with the ins­ti­tu­tion for over 11 years. Among im­mig­rants from ot­her coun­tries, 66.7%
ha­ve over 11 years of se­nio­ri­ty.

Tab­le 3. Bre­ak­down of Fa­cul­ty Mem­bers by Fa­cul­ty and Coun­try of Ori­gin.

Ori­gin Is­ra­el FSU USA Ot­hers To­tal


Fa­cul­ty Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Ar­chi­tec­tu­re 6 4.7 0 0 2 8 3 25 11 5.3
He­alth Scien­ces 11 8.5 0 0 1 4 0 0 12 5.8
En­gi­ne­e­ring 27 20.9 15 37.5 4 16 0 0 46 22.3
Soc. Scien­ces & hu­ma­
74 57.4 7 17.5 16 64 4 33.3 101 49.0
ni­ties
Na­tu­ral Scien­ces 11 8.5 18 45 2 8 5 41.7 36 17.5
To­tal 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100

Tab­le III and chi-squ­a­re test re­sults in­di­ca­te a sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­ni­fi­cant cor­re­la­tion bet­we­en de­
part­men­tal af­fi­lia­tion and coun­try of ori­gin (χ² (12) =63.66, p>.001). 57.4% of na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis and
64% of US-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers te­ach at the Fa­cul­ty of So­cial Scien­ces and the Hu­ma­ni­ties, whi­le
on­ly 17.5% of im­mig­rants from the FSU te­ach at this fa­cul­ty. In ad­di­tion, 45% of im­mig­rants from
the FSU te­ach at the Fa­cul­ty of Na­tu­ral Scien­ces and 37.5% at the Fa­cul­ty of En­gi­ne­e­ring. The­re
are al­most no im­mig­rant in­struc­tors (from the FSU, USA, and ot­her coun­tries) at the Fa­cul­ties of
Ar­chi­tec­tu­re and He­alth Scien­ces. Their aca­de­mic staff is pri­ma­ri­ly Is­ra­e­li-born.
Fi­nal­ly, in or­der to exa­mi­ne to what de­gree bac­kground va­riab­les dis­tin­guish bet­we­en im­mig­
rants and na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis, a disc­ri­mi­nant ana­ly­sis was per­for­med. No dif­fe­ren­ces we­re found bet­we­
en na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis, im­mig­rants from the FSU, im­mig­rants from the USA and from ot­her coun­tries.
Ho­we­ver a bor­der­li­ne sig­ni­fi­cant ten­den­cy to­wards dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis and all im­
mig­rants was found.
The pre­dic­tors of dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en Is­ra­e­lis and ot­hers inc­lu­ded the fol­lo­wing va­riab­les:
se­nio­ri­ty, age, sex, aca­de­mic rank, te­nu­re (bac­kground va­riab­les), and as­ses­sment sco­res (achie­ve­
ment va­riab­les). This se­ries of va­riab­les was found to ha­ve a bor­der­li­ne sig­ni­fi­cant con­tri­bu­tion to
the dis­tinc­tion bet­we­en im­mig­rant and Is­ra­e­li-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers (Wilks’ Lamb­da = 0.94, df = 6,
Chi Squ­a­re = 12.22, p = .057). As men­tio­ned abo­ve, the fol­lo­wing three va­riab­les we­re found to
con­tri­bu­te to the dis­tinc­tion bet­we­en im­mig­rants and na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­li fa­cul­ty:
Ya’arit BOKEK-COHEN, Nitza DAVIDOVICH. The Successful Integration of Foreign-born Instructors in the Academe:
Lessons from Israel’s Largest Public College PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
* Se­nio­ri­ty (F (1,204) = 4.30, p < .05): Im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers ha­ve gre­a­ter se­nio­ri­ty 51
than na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis.
* Sco­ring on ex­cel­len­ce cri­te­ria (F (1,204) = 4.45, p < 0.05): A gre­a­ter per­cen­ta­ge of im­mig­
rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers ver­sus na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis sa­tis­fied the cri­te­ria for sa­la­ry bo­nu­ses.
* Gen­der (F (1,204) = 3.75, p = 0.054): Among na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­li fa­cul­ty mem­bers the­re is a hig­
her per­cen­ta­ge of wo­men than among im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers.
* De­part­men­tal af­fi­lia­tion (χ² (12) = 63.66, p > .001): Whe­re­as the ma­jo­ri­ty of the na­ti­ve
Is­ra­e­lis and the fa­cul­ty mem­bers born in the US work in the Fa­cul­ty of So­cial Scien­ces and
Hu­ma­ni­ties, the gre­at ma­jo­ri­ty of FSU-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers are af­fi­lia­ted with the fa­cul­ties
of na­tu­ral scien­ces and en­gi­ne­e­ring.
The se­cond part of the stu­dy exa­mi­ned re­la­tions­hips bet­we­en fa­cul­ty mem­bers’ as­ses­sment
sco­res and their coun­try of ori­gin, with the aim of ana­ly­zing dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­li and
im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers.

Tab­le 4. Bre­ak­down of Fa­cul­ty Mem­bers by Sco­res on Bo­nus Cri­te­ria and


Coun­try of Ori­gin.

Is­ra­el FSU USA Ot­hers To­tal


Sa­tis­fies cri­te­ria Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Yes 86 66.7 20 50 16 64 4 33.3 126 61.2
No 43 33.3 20 50 9 36 8 66.7 80 38.8
To­tal 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100

Tab­le IV and chi-squ­a­re test re­sults in­di­ca­te a sig­ni­fi­cant cor­re­la­tion bet­we­en as­ses­sment sco­
res and coun­try of ori­gin (χ² (2) = 7.74, p < .05). One-half (50%) of FSU-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers met
the cri­te­ria for an an­nu­al bo­nus, as did 66.7% of fa­cul­ty mem­bers from ot­her over­se­as coun­tries
(ex­cept the US); Ho­we­ver on­ly 36% of US-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers and 33.3% of na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis met
the cri­te­ria for the bo­nus. In all fa­cul­ty as­ses­sment ca­te­go­ries, fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers sco­red
hig­her than Is­ra­e­li-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers.
Fa­cul­ty mem­bers al­so are awar­ded points for par­ti­ci­pa­ting in ins­ti­tu­tio­nal, na­tio­nal or in­ter­na­
tio­nal aca­de­mic com­mit­te­es (e.g. te­aching com­mit­te­es, ad­mis­sion com­mit­te­es), and for ser­ving as
a chair­per­son of such com­mit­te­es. Re­sults of the ana­ly­sis of va­rian­ce in­di­ca­ted sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­ni­fi­
cant dif­fe­ren­ces in sco­res for aca­de­mic ad­mi­nist­ra­tion by ori­gin (F (3, 76) = 4.56, p < .01). Fa­cul­ty
from the US and ot­her coun­tries re­cei­ved hig­her sco­res for aca­de­mic ad­mi­nist­ra­tion than na­ti­ve
Is­ra­e­li and FSU-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers (see Tab­le V).

Tab­le 5. Me­ans and Stan­dard De­via­tions of Fa­cul­ty Sco­res for Aca­de­mic


Ad­mi­nist­ra­tion in 2007 by Coun­try of Ori­gin (ma­xi­mal sco­ring: 10).

Ori­gin Me­an SD N
Is­ra­el 3.63 3.56 43
FSU 2.25 2.34 20
USA 7.67 9.75 9
Ot­her 7.50 3.93 8
To­tal 4.05 4.69 80

Dis­cus­sion and Conc­lu­sion

Most aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions in Eu­ro­pe and the US hi­re lar­ge num­bers of fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty
mem­bers. Ho­we­ver, re­se­arch on hig­her edu­ca­tion has not paid ade­qu­a­te at­ten­tion to do­cu­men­ting
the spe­cial is­su­es and dif­fi­cul­ties they fa­ce. This pa­per of­fers an at­tempt to con­tri­bu­te to our un­ders­
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

52
tan­ding of the chal­len­ges and op­por­tu­ni­ties of fo­reign-born in­struc­tors in aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions.
We be­lie­ve po­li­cy ma­kers of aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions should ta­ke steps to fa­ci­li­ta­te the in­teg­ra­tion of
fo­reign-born in­struc­tors in aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions to be­ne­fit from their ac­com­plis­hments in te­aching,
re­se­arch, and com­mu­ni­ty ser­vi­ce.
This stu­dy com­pa­red achie­ve­ments of fo­reign-born and na­ti­ve-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers in Is­ra­
el’s lar­gest pub­lic col­le­ge. The stu­dy was ba­sed on 206 aca­de­mic fa­cul­ty mem­bers from the Ariel
Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter, whe­re 37% of all fa­cul­ty mem­bers are fo­reign born. The­se scho­lars might be
de­e­med a suc­cess sto­ry, as the re­se­arch fin­dings in­di­ca­te that they ha­ve be­co­me well in­teg­ra­ted at
the ins­ti­tu­tion. Far from suf­fe­ring from disc­ri­mi­na­tion and in­fe­rior ac­com­plis­hments, the im­mig­rant
fa­cul­ty mem­bers pro­du­ced out­stan­ding achie­ve­ments. We be­lie­ve a com­bi­na­tion of the fol­lo­wing
four fac­tors has yiel­ded go­od re­sults for both fa­cul­ty and the ins­ti­tu­tion: (a) a fit bet­we­en sup­ply
and de­mand for fa­cul­ty; (b) sup­por­ti­ve so­cial net­works; (c) strong mo­ti­va­tion; (d) the herd ef­fect
and cul­tu­ral su­per­io­ri­ty.

(a) Sup­ply and de­mand


A ma­jor fac­tor that may ex­plain the im­pres­si­ve achie­ve­ments of fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers
in Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter is the cor­re­la­tion bet­we­en the high le­vel of de­mand for ex­perts in the
fields of na­tu­ral scien­ces and en­gi­ne­e­ring in Is­ra­el in ge­ne­ral, and at AUC in par­ti­cu­lar, due to the
li­mi­ted num­ber of na­ti­ve-born ex­perts in the­se are­as. Thus, fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers, and es­
pe­cial­ly FSU im­mig­rants, who spe­cia­li­zed in the­se are­as in their coun­try of birth ha­ve fa­ced lit­tle
com­pe­ti­tion in the work­pla­ce and ha­ve at­tai­ned high aca­de­mic ranks with lit­tle obs­tac­les.
Ac­cor­ding to the Co­or­di­na­tion and Bud­get Com­mit­tee of Is­ra­el’s Coun­cil for Hig­her Edu­ca­
tion) CHE, 2008), Is­ra­el’s se­ven uni­ver­si­ties of­fers a to­tal of 18,720 fa­cul­ty po­si­tions. Three of
the­se uni­ver­si­ties are lo­ca­ted in the ge­og­rap­hic area of AUC. Bet­we­en the 2004–2005 and 2005-6
aca­de­mic years, the num­ber of po­si­tions in the­se fields dec­li­ned by 1.5% – 2.9% in two of the three
uni­ver­si­ties, whi­le fi­ve jobs we­re ad­ded at the third. At the sa­me ti­me, the num­ber of can­di­da­tes for
the­se po­si­tions con­ti­nu­ed to inc­re­a­se ste­a­di­ly. It is im­pos­sib­le to es­ti­ma­te the num­ber of ap­pli­cants
for each aca­de­mic po­si­tion, sin­ce this in­for­ma­tion is clas­si­fied. We can es­ti­ma­te this num­ber by the
num­ber of doc­to­ral stu­dents who we­re awar­ded their doc­to­ral de­gree. Ac­cor­ding to CHE fi­gu­res
(2009), 450 pe­op­le re­cei­ved a doc­to­ra­te de­gree in 1989-9; in the 1999-2000 aca­de­mic year this
num­ber had ri­sen to 800; in 2002–2003 999 doc­to­ra­te de­gre­es we­re awar­ded; and in 2003-2004, the
num­ber ro­se to 1,135. In per­cen­ta­ge terms, the an­nu­al inc­re­a­se in the num­ber of doc­to­ra­te de­gre­es
awar­ded al­so ro­se from 5.9% in 1999–2000, to 13.6% in 2003–2004. The lar­ge num­ber of PhDs cre­
a­tes a lar­ge po­ol of po­ten­tial ap­pli­cants who com­pe­te for the li­mi­ted num­ber of uni­ver­si­ty po­si­tions.
The scar­ci­ty of aca­de­mic po­si­tions in Is­ra­e­li aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions has inc­re­a­sed mig­rant scien­tists’
mo­ti­va­tion to ex­cel.
This fac­tor pro­vi­des em­pi­ri­cal sup­port for the Pi­pe­li­ne Ar­gu­ment. This ar­gu­ment holds that
the lack of rep­re­sen­ta­tion of et­hnic mi­no­ri­ties among pro­fes­sors in ge­ne­ral, and par­ti­cu­lar­ly at the
rank of full pro­fes­sor, is sim­ply a lack of qu­a­li­fied can­di­da­tes (San­der­son et al., 2000). This ar­gu­
ment may suit Ame­ri­can aca­de­mia, and re­cei­ves va­li­da­tion in Is­ra­el in which the op­po­si­te si­tu­a­tion
oc­curs: a lar­ge po­ol of high­ly qu­a­li­fied can­di­da­tes le­ads to the suc­ces­sful in­teg­ra­tion and even over­
rep­re­sen­ta­tion of im­mig­rant pro­fes­sors.
Anot­her fac­tor that fa­ci­li­ta­tes the en­tran­ce of im­mig­rant pro­fes­sors to aca­de­me and their pro­
mo­tion wit­hin the aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tion is the po­si­ti­ve ste­re­o­ty­pes as­so­cia­ted with So­viet cul­tu­re in
Is­ra­el. In Is­ra­el, Rus­sian cul­tu­re is con­si­de­red mo­re pres­ti­gio­us by both ve­te­ran Is­ra­e­lis and FSU im­
mig­rants. For exam­ple, fin­dings a re­cent sur­vey of FSU im­mig­rants in­di­ca­te that 62% of the res­pon­
dents be­lie­ve that Rus­sian cul­tu­re is su­pe­rior to the Is­ra­e­li cul­tu­re, and 43% pre­fer to edu­ca­te their
chil­dren ac­cor­ding to Rus­sian cul­tu­ral va­lu­es. Com­mu­ni­ca­tion re­se­ar­chers ha­ve po­in­ted to po­pu­lar
sa­ti­ri­cal ar­tic­les that por­tray na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis as un­cul­tu­red bo­ors who lack ba­sic man­ners.
Na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis tend to at­tri­bu­te to FSU im­mig­rants po­si­ti­ve traits such as high-qu­a­li­ty hu­man
ca­pi­tal and a go­od le­vel of edu­ca­tion. A stu­dy by Pe­res and Lis­sit­sa (2000) al­so found an ap­pre­cia­
Ya’arit BOKEK-COHEN, Nitza DAVIDOVICH. The Successful Integration of Foreign-born Instructors in the Academe:
Lessons from Israel’s Largest Public College PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
tion among na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis for FSU im­mig­rants’ pro­fes­sio­nal and edu­ca­tio­nal ca­pa­bi­li­ties. Ac­cor­ 53
ding to this stu­dy, na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis be­lie­ve that FSU im­mig­rants ex­cel in two fields – scien­ce and tech­
no­lo­gy, and dis­cip­li­ne and wor­king re­la­tions. A stu­dy by Schwart­zwald and Tur-Kas­pa (1997) al­so
found that im­mig­rants are po­si­ti­ve­ly eva­lu­a­ted for their ac­com­plis­hments and in­tel­lec­tu­al skills.
Mo­re­o­ver, stu­dies by Gal (1994) and Va­da­na (1997) found that na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis ha­ve a po­si­ti­ve eva­lu­
a­tion of the im­mig­rants’ con­tri­bu­tion in two key fields – cul­tu­re and the eco­no­my.

(b) Sup­por­ti­ve so­cial net­works


As desc­ri­bed in the li­te­ra­tu­re re­view, a lar­ge num­ber of fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers ex­pe­rien­
ce ne­ga­ti­ve fe­e­lings of lo­ne­li­ness and suf­fer from a lack of so­cial sup­port. It is re­a­so­nab­le to as­su­me
that this emo­tio­nal sta­te ad­ver­se­ly af­fects their psy­cho­lo­gi­cal well-being and aca­de­mic pro­duc­ti­vi­
ty. In con­trast to the po­or so­cial sup­port for fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers in the US and Eu­ro­pe,
fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers in Is­ra­el li­ve in den­se so­cial net­works. Most are im­mig­rants who
ar­ri­ved with their nuc­le­ar fa­mi­lies and/or friends from their ho­me­lands; They tend to li­ve in clus­ters
of FSU im­mig­rants, which pro­vi­de so­cial and emo­tio­nal sup­port. Three as­pects of the so­cial net­
work can shed so­me light on the den­si­ty of so­cial net­works of FSU im­mig­rants: Sa­tis­fac­tion with
so­cial re­la­tions­hips, fre­qu­en­cy of so­cial in­te­rac­tions, and num­ber of fa­mi­ly mem­bers. Ac­cor­ding to
da­ta from the So­cial Sur­vey of the Is­ra­e­li Cen­tral Bu­re­au of Sta­tis­tics (CBS), im­mig­rants ex­press
mo­de­ra­te le­vels of sa­tis­fac­tion with their so­cial and fa­mi­lial re­la­tions­hips; com­pa­red to the le­vels
ex­pres­sed by their ve­te­ran coun­ter­parts, the­se le­vels are a lit­tle lo­wer, though not sig­ni­fi­cant, on all
me­a­su­res (Bo­kek-Co­hen & Lis­sit­sa, 2009).
Po­li­cy ma­kers in hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions should en­han­ce so­cial sup­port for fo­reign-born
fa­cul­ty mem­bers and fa­ci­li­ta­te their emo­tio­nal and psy­cho­lo­gi­cal well-being. This sup­port can be
gi­ven eit­her for­mal­ly, by a spe­cial of­fi­ce that is de­sig­ned to pro­vi­de ap­prop­ria­te sup­port, or in­for­
mal­ly, by as­sig­ning a men­tor to each fo­reign- pro­fes­sor, to as­sist in the pro­fes­sor’s ac­cul­tu­ra­tion
pro­cess, help her be­co­me fa­mi­liar with lo­cal va­lu­es, and pro­vi­de so­cial sup­port.

(c) Mo­ti­va­tion
One of the most fre­qu­ent­ly ci­ted dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en im­mig­rants and na­ti­ves is work mo­ti­
va­tion: Im­mig­rants tend to be mo­re mo­ti­va­ted to work and to achie­ve suc­cess. In Ame­ri­can and
Eu­ro­pe­an aca­de­me, the le­gal sta­tus of fo­reign scien­tists inc­re­a­ses their mo­ti­va­tion in their re­se­arch
en­de­a­vors (Es­pens­ha­de & Rod­ri­gu­ez, 1997), be­cau­se US im­mig­ra­tion laws pro­hi­bit off-cam­pus em­
plo­y­ment of pro­fes­sors. In con­trast, im­mig­rant pro­fes­sors in Is­ra­el au­to­ma­ti­cal­ly re­cei­ve ci­ti­zens­hip
ac­cor­ding to Is­ra­el’s Law of Re­turn and be­ne­fit from ge­ne­rous pub­lic as­sis­tan­ce pro­grams de­sig­ned
to fa­ci­li­ta­te their so­cial and eco­no­mic in­teg­ra­tion.
Most fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers who ar­ri­ve in the US plan to stay for a short term: They
view their aca­de­mic ex­pe­rien­ce out­si­de their ho­me­land as a me­ans to bo­ost aca­de­mic ca­re­er and
will help them se­cu­re a pro­mo­tion when they re­turn. Ac­cor­din­gly, their ef­forts at in­teg­ra­tion are a
re­ver­sib­le ex­pe­rien­ce. In con­trast, one of Is­ra­el’s main na­tio­nal go­als is to at­tract re­tur­ning Jews,
es­pe­cial­ly tho­se who are high­ly edu­ca­ted, and to help them to in­teg­ra­te in so­cie­ty. Ac­cor­din­gly, fo­
reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers in Is­ra­el are im­mig­rants with full ci­ti­zens­hip, and the vast ma­jo­ri­ty of
im­mig­rants do not wish to re­turn to their coun­tries of ori­gin. Ac­cor­din­gly, their mo­ti­va­tion to ex­cel
is ve­ry dif­fe­rent, though not ne­ces­sa­ri­ly gre­a­ter.

(d) The herd ef­fect and cul­tu­ral su­per­io­ri­ty


The Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of Sa­ma­ria was es­tab­lis­hed in 1982 as a col­le­ge in Ke­du­mim,
which is a small vil­la­ge ne­ar the ci­ty of Ariel. Its aca­de­mic his­to­ry be­gan as an ex­ten­sion of the
Bar-Ilan Uni­ver­si­ty in 1990 with the mo­ve to the Scien­ce Park in Ariel, whe­re a ra­pid ex­pan­sion of
the Col­le­ge’s pro­grams to­ok pla­ce. That year, a Re­se­arch Ins­ti­tu­te for Mat­he­ma­tics and Phy­sics was
foun­ded, hi­ring a group of new im­mig­rant re­se­ar­chers from the for­mer USSR.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

54
It is well do­cu­men­ted in or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal re­se­arch that small or­ga­ni­za­tions are mo­re li­ke­ly to re­ly
on in­for­mal met­hods of rec­ruit­ment (Ta­no­va, 2003). As the ori­gi­nal mem­bers of the Re­se­arch Ins­ti­
tu­te we­re FSU im­mig­rants, it is as­su­med that the rec­ruit­ment of ad­di­tio­nal scien­tists to the ins­ti­tu­te
was ba­sed on a “herd ef­fect” whe­re­by FSU im­mig­rant scien­tists in­vi­ted col­le­a­gu­es from their wi­de
so­cial and pro­fes­sio­nal net­work to join the ins­ti­tu­te.
Eps­tein and Hil­lman (1998) pre­sent their “herd mo­del” for im­mig­rants’ de­ci­sions in the host
coun­try. They con­si­der in­di­vi­du­als ma­king se­qu­en­tial de­ci­sions re­gar­ding emig­ra­tion. Each in­di­vi­
du­al re­cei­ves a sig­nal that con­ve­ys pri­va­te in­for­ma­tion re­gar­ding pre­fer­red lo­ca­tions ab­ro­ad, and
al­so ob­ser­ves the de­ci­sions ma­de by pre­vio­us emig­rants. The herd be­ha­vior which en­su­es gi­ves ri­se
to ge­og­rap­hi­cal con­cen­tra­tion in host coun­tries of im­mig­rants from a sin­gle lo­ca­tion. Herd ef­fects
can be ex­pec­ted to ha­ve both po­si­ti­ve and ne­ga­ti­ve con­se­qu­en­ces. On one hand, im­mig­rants be­ne­
fit the so­cial sup­port of im­mig­rants of their et­hnic ori­gin, inc­lu­ding in­for­ma­tion and ad­vi­ce. On
the ot­her hand, if the­re is a scar­ci­ty of jobs in a spe­ci­fic ge­og­rap­hic lo­ca­tion, im­mig­rants are mo­re
li­ke­ly to suf­fer from unem­plo­y­ment or bad em­plo­y­ment con­di­tions be­cau­se of the lar­ge sup­ply of
can­di­da­tes for each job.
A ma­jor strength of the pre­sent stu­dy is its qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve da­ta about scien­tists of the sa­me et­hnic
ori­gin. Da­ta from the lar­ge group of FSU-born pro­fes­sors enab­le us to iden­ti­fy com­mon fe­a­tu­res
of this et­hnic group rat­her than ana­ly­zing in­di­vi­du­al pro­fes­sors of di­ver­se et­hnic ori­gins. If, for
exam­ple, disc­ri­mi­na­tion we­re pre­sent against a par­ti­cu­lar et­hnic group, da­ta of the pro­mo­tion and
ranks of all the pro­fes­sors of this group would enab­le us to ex­plo­re this disc­ri­mi­na­tion. Anot­her
sour­ce of the ad­van­ta­ge in stu­dy­ing scien­tists of the sa­me et­hnic ori­gin is the pos­si­bi­li­ty to con­trol
for lin­guis­tic/cul­tu­ral cha­rac­te­ris­tics that are com­mon­ly sha­red among pe­op­le of the sa­me et­hnic
bac­kground.
The me­a­su­re­ments used in this stu­dy ha­ve strong ad­van­ta­ges. The fa­cul­ty bo­nus cri­te­ria do
not fo­cus on­ly on the num­ber of jour­nal ar­tic­les pub­lis­hed as the me­a­su­re of re­se­arch pro­duc­ti­vi­ty;
rat­her, the qu­a­li­ty of re­se­arch and ot­her out­puts (e.g. pa­tents and con­fe­ren­ce pro­ce­e­dings) are al­so
inc­lu­ded. Ho­we­ver, the pub­li­ca­tion sco­re do­es not ta­ke in­to ac­count the qu­a­li­ty of jour­nals and the
im­pact or qu­a­li­ty of the pub­lis­hed ar­tic­les. Pa­tents are a ma­jor re­se­arch out­put, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in so­me
en­gi­ne­e­ring fields (such as me­cha­ni­cal en­gi­ne­e­ring and bio-en­gi­ne­e­ring). Con­fe­ren­ce pro­ce­e­dings
(with pe­er re­view) are equ­al­ly im­por­tant in so­me dis­cip­li­nes (e.g. com­pu­ter scien­ce and com­pu­ter
en­gi­ne­e­ring).
No­net­he­less, the sam­ple has two li­mi­ta­tions. First, da­ta was col­lec­ted on­ly from pro­fes­sors at
a sin­gle ins­ti­tu­tion, the AUC. Alt­hough this of­fers so­me be­ne­fits (such as the si­mi­lar or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal
cul­tu­re and or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal de­sign) in com­pa­ring re­se­arch ac­ti­vi­ty and per­for­man­ce, the sam­ple is
not rep­re­sen­ta­ti­ve of the en­ti­re group of fo­reign-born scien­tists in Is­ra­el, and a bro­a­der sam­ple is
ne­eded that rep­re­sent this group in all aca­de­mic fa­cul­ties in Is­ra­el. Se­cond­ly, the pro­fes­sors sam­pled
in this stu­dy are en­ga­ged in se­ve­ral dis­cip­li­nes. Con­si­de­ring the dif­fe­rent na­tu­re of dis­cip­li­nes, this
di­ver­si­ty li­mits our abi­li­ty to draw cau­sal in­fe­ren­ces avai­lab­le from the ana­ly­sis. A sam­ple of pro­fes­
sors in a sin­gle dis­cip­li­ne might yield re­sults with a much mo­re po­wer­ful ex­pla­na­tion of cau­se and
ef­fect. For exam­ple, scien­tists of na­tu­ral scien­ces and en­gi­ne­e­ring tend to se­cu­re mo­re funds than
ot­her so­cial re­se­ar­chers.
As for the me­a­su­res used to eva­lu­a­te fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers’ in­teg­ra­tion, the bo­nus cri­
te­ria used in this stu­dy al­so inc­lu­des fa­cul­ty mem­bers’ suc­cess in se­cu­ring re­se­arch fun­ding. This
per­for­man­ce in­di­ca­tor is pro­ble­ma­tic sin­ce it de­pends on the fi­nan­cial sta­te of funds all over the
world. The­re are al­so ti­me lags bet­we­en fun­drai­sing and pub­li­ca­tion pro­duc­ti­vi­ty. The sur­vey da­ta
lacks so­me im­por­tant va­riab­les that could sig­ni­fi­cant­ly im­pro­ve the cau­sal in­fe­ren­ce. Spe­ci­fi­cal­ly,
the da­ta lack in­for­ma­tion on pro­fes­sors’ le­vel of lan­gu­a­ge pro­fi­cien­cy, cul­tu­ral as­si­mi­la­tion, and
re­a­sons for im­mig­ra­ting to Is­ra­el.
Fu­tu­re re­se­arch should be con­duc­ted using a qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve ap­pro­ach in or­der to pro­vi­de so­cial,
emo­tio­nal, and psy­cho­lo­gi­cal in­sights to fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers’ ex­pe­rien­ce in aca­de­my. Se­
ve­ral strong points of the stu­dy war­rant re­pli­ca­tion. Our know­led­ge of the pro­cess of fo­reign-born
Ya’arit BOKEK-COHEN, Nitza DAVIDOVICH. The Successful Integration of Foreign-born Instructors in the Academe:
Lessons from Israel’s Largest Public College PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
fa­cul­ty mem­bers’ in­teg­ra­tion has be­en ad­van­ced by exa­mi­ning the con­text in which suc­ces­sful and 55
less suc­ces­sful in­struc­tors work. In doing so, this re­se­arch has fil­led a gap in our un­ders­tan­ding of
the fac­tors that in­flu­en­ce aca­de­mic per­for­man­ce in ge­ne­ral, and tho­se of fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty mem­
bers in par­ti­cu­lar.
The li­te­ra­tu­re re­view in­di­ca­tes that the­re is a con­trast bet­we­en go­als of di­ver­si­ty (equ­al op­por­
tu­ni­ties) and the re­a­li­ty of mi­no­ri­ty rep­re­sen­ta­tion in fa­cul­ty ranks in ma­ny ins­ti­tu­tions. AUC rep­re­
sents an aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tion in which the­se go­als go hand in hand, to the be­ne­fit of all si­des. Our
pa­per high­lights se­ve­ral fac­tors that re­con­ci­le rhe­to­ric and re­a­li­ty. We ho­pe our fin­dings may help
po­li­cy­ma­kers of aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions es­tab­lish a mo­re ra­cial­ly and et­hni­cal­ly di­ver­se fa­cul­ty, to the
be­ne­fit of stu­dents, fa­cul­ty, and the so­cie­ty at lar­ge.

Re­fe­ren­ces

Al­berts, H. C. (2008). The chal­len­ges and op­por­tu­ni­ties of fo­reign-born in­struc­tors in the clas­sro­om.
Jour­nal of Ge­og­rap­hy in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion, 32(2), 189–203.
Alt­bach, P.G. (Ed.) (2000). The chan­ging aca­de­mic work­pla­ce: Com­pa­ra­ti­ve per­spec­ti­ves. Chest­nut
Hill, Mass: Bos­ton Col­le­ge.
Bo­kek-Co­hen, Y., & Lis­sit­sa, S. (2009). Spou­sal in­flu­en­ce stra­te­gies in the pur­cha­se de­ci­sion pro­cess:
an eco­lo­gi­cal per­spec­ti­ve, wor­king pa­per.
Brad­ford, C. (1990). Why dro­ves of fo­reign profs toil in U.S. gro­ves. The Wall Stre­et Jour­nal, March
29, A12.
Chiang, S. Y. (2009). De­a­ling with com­mu­ni­ca­tion pro­blems in the in­struc­tio­nal in­te­rac­tions bet­
we­en in­ter­na­tio­nal te­aching as­sis­tants and Ame­ri­can col­le­ge stu­dents. Lan­gu­a­ge and Edu­ca­tion,
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t794297816~tab=issueslist~branches=23-
v2323(5), 461–478.
Col­lins, J. M. (2008). Co­ming to Ame­ri­ca: Chal­len­ges for fa­cul­ty co­ming to Uni­ted Sta­tes’ uni­ver­si­ties.
Jour­nal of Ge­og­rap­hy in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion, 32(2), 179–188.
Cor­ley , E. A., & Sab­har­wal, M. (2007). Fo­reign-born aca­de­mic scien­tists and en­gi­ne­ers: pro­du­cing mo­
re and get­ting less than their U.S.-born pe­ers? Re­se­arch in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion, 48(8), 909–940.
Co­or­di­na­tion and Bud­get Com­mit­tee, Coun­cil for Hig­her Edu­ca­tion (2008), da­ta on aca­de­mic po­si­tions.
Ret­rie­ved from: http://www.che.org.il/dow­nlo­ad/fi­les/va­tat-3_1072.pdf.
Coun­cil for Hig­her Edu­ca­tion (2009). Num­ber of re­ci­pients of doc­to­ra­te de­gre­es. Ret­rie­ved from: http://
www.che.org.il/ar­tic­les/ar­tic­le.aspx?ArticleId=2.
Eps­tein, G. S., & Hil­lman, A. L., (1998). Herd ef­fects and mig­ra­tion, CEPR Dis­cus­sion Pa­pers 1811,
C.E.P.R. Dis­cus­sion Pa­pers.
Es­pens­ha­de, T. J., & Rod­ri­gu­ez, G. (1997). Com­ple­ting the Ph.D: Com­pa­ra­ti­ve per­for­man­ces of U.S.
and fo­reign stu­dents, So­cial Scien­ce Qu­ar­ter­ly, 78(2), 593–605.
Fin­kels­tein, M. J., Se­al, R. K., & Schus­ter, J.H., (1998). The new aca­de­mic ge­ne­ra­tion: A pro­fes­sion in
trans­for­ma­tion. Lon­don: John Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty Press.
Fre­e­man, R. B. (2005). Do­es glo­ba­li­za­tion of the scien­ti­fic/en­gi­ne­e­ring work­for­ce thre­a­ten U.S. eco­no­
mic le­a­ders­hip? NBER Wor­king Pa­per No. W11457.

Gal, R., (1994). A pub­lic sur­vey re­gar­ding the at­ti­tu­de of the Je­wish po­pu­la­tion in Is­ra­el to­ward the im­
mig­ra­tion and the im­mig­rants. Tel Aviv: Po­ri Ins­ti­tu­te.
Gan­dal, N., Han­son, G. H., Mat­thew, M. J., & Slaugh­ter, J. (2004). Tech­no­lo­gy, tra­de, and ad­just­ment
to im­mig­ra­tion in Is­ra­el, Eu­ro­pe­an Eco­no­mic Re­view, 48, 403–428.
Gil­lep­sie, K. H. (ed.), Hil­sen, L. R., & Wad­sworth, E. C. (Ass. eds.) (2002). A gui­de to fa­cul­ty de­ve­lop­
ment. Bol­ton, MA: An­ker Pub­lis­hing.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

56
Gwyn­ne, R. N., & Kay, C., (1999). La­tin Ame­ri­ca Trans­for­med: Glo­ba­li­za­tion and Mo­der­ni­ty. Ca­li­for­
nia: Ar­nold Pub­li­ca­tions.
He­arn, J. C. (1999). Pay and per­for­man­ce in the uni­ver­si­ty: An exa­mi­na­tion of fa­cul­ty sa­la­ries. The Re­
view of Hig­her Edu­ca­tion, 22(4), 391–410.
He­y­lin, M., (1992) Fo­reign-born Che­mists Pon­der Ca­re­er Pro­spects, Che­mi­cal En­gi­ne­e­ring News, 37–
38.
Kha­fa­gi, B., (1990). In­flu­en­ce of in­ter­na­tio­nal stu­dents on the U.S. edu­ca­tio­nal sys­tem and pro­fes­sio­nal
prac­ti­ce. Ci­vil En­gi­ne­e­ring – ASCE, 60(11), 67–69.
Lee, S. M., (2002). Do Asian-Ame­ri­can fa­cul­ty fa­ce a glass cei­ling in hig­her edu­ca­tion? Ame­ri­can Edu­
ca­tio­nal Re­se­arch Jour­nal, 39(3), 695–724 .
Lee, S., (2004). Fo­reign-born scien­tists in the Uni­ted Sta­tes – Do they per­form dif­fe­rent­ly than na­ti­
ve-born scien­tists? Doc­to­ral dis­ser­ta­tion pre­sen­ted to the Scho­ol of Pub­lic Po­li­cy, Ge­or­gia Ins­ti­tu­te of
Tech­no­lo­gy.
Lin, Z., Pe­arc, R., & Wang, W. (2009). Im­por­ted ta­lents: de­mog­rap­hic cha­rac­te­ris­tics, achie­ve­ment and
job sa­tis­fac­tion of fo­reign born full ti­me fa­cul­ty in four-year Ame­ri­can col­le­ges. Hig­her Edu­ca­tion,
57(6), 703–721.
Ma­mi­seis­hvi­li , K., & Ros­ser, V. J., (2010). In­ter­na­tio­nal and ci­ti­zen fa­cul­ty in the uni­ted sta­tes: An exa­
mi­na­tion of their pro­duc­ti­vi­ty at re­se­arch uni­ver­si­ties. Re­se­arch in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion, 51(1), 88–107.
Man­ri­que, C. G., & Man­ri­que, G. G. (1999). The mul­ti­cul­tu­ral or im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty in Ame­ri­can so­cie­ty.
New York: The Ed­win Mel­len Press.
Mar­vas­ti, A., (2005). U.S. Aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions and per­cei­ved ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty.
Jour­nal of Eco­no­mic Is­su­es, 39, 39–54.
Me­na­chem, G., & Geist, A. (1999). Lan­gu­a­ge, em­plo­y­ment, and af­fi­lia­tion with Is­ra­el among im­mig­
rants from the CIS in the ‘90s. Me­ga­mot: Jour­nal for the Be­ha­vio­ral Scien­ces, 40(1), 132–148. (in
Heb­rew).
Mer­vis, J. (2004). Ma­ny ori­gins, one des­ti­na­tion, Scien­ce, 304, 1277.
Mer­vis, J. (2004), Per­cep­tions and Re­a­li­ties of the Work­pla­ce, Scien­ce, 304(5675), 1285–1286.
Mey-Ami, N. (2008). In­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rants in in­dust­ry, bu­si­ness, and scien­ce. Sub­mit­ted to the com­
mit­tee for im­mig­ra­tion, ab­sorp­tion, and the Dias­po­ra. (in Heb­rew).
Mic­ce­ri, T., (2003). Evi­den­ce sug­ges­ting that sa­la­ries re­la­te ne­ga­ti­ve­ly to the per­cen­ta­ge of un­der­rep­
re­sen­ted mi­no­ri­ties and fe­ma­les at a met­ro­po­li­tan uni­ver­si­ty, Pa­per pre­sen­ted at the As­so­cia­tion for
Ins­ti­tu­tio­nal Re­se­arch An­nu­al Fo­rum, Tam­pa, FL, May 18–21, 2003.
MOIA (2008). Da­ta on im­mig­rant scien­tists for the years 1989-1999. Mi­nist­ry web­si­te: www.moia.gov.
il/Moia_he/Sta­tis­tics/Stat+89-99, Ret­rie­ved on Ja­nu­a­ry 10, 2009. (in Heb­rew).
My­ers, S. L., & Tur­ner, C. S. (2004). The ef­fects of Ph.D. sup­ply on mi­no­ri­ty fa­cul­ty rep­re­sen­ta­tion.
Ame­ri­can Eco­no­mic Re­view, 94(2), 296–301.
Ngwainm­bi , E. K., (2006). The strug­gles of fo­reign-born fa­cul­ty. Di­ver­se Is­su­es in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion,
23(10), 28.
Ol­sen, D., Map­le, S. A., & Sta­ge, F. K. (1995). Wo­men and mi­no­ri­ty job sa­tis­fac­tion. The Jour­nal of
Hig­her Edu­ca­tion, 66(3), 267–293.

Park, P. (2001). Ma­na­ging the scien­ti­fic mul­ti­tu­des. The Scien­tists, 15(19), 31.
Pe­res, Y., and Lis­sit­sa, S. (2000). FSU im­mig­rants – iden­ti­ty de­ve­lop­ment and in­teg­ra­tion pro­ces­ses – re­
se­arch re­port, Yitzhak Ra­bin Cen­ter for the Stu­dy of Is­ra­e­li So­cie­ty.
Qu­a­zi, R. M., Qud­dus, M., Deb­nath, S., & Tan­don, S. (2004). Fo­reign-born pro­fes­so­ra­te in Ame­ri­can
ins­ti­tu­tions: a ca­se stu­dy. Pa­per pre­sen­ted at IABPAD con­fe­ren­ce, Tu­ni­ca, Mis­sis­sip­pi, March 2004.
Ya’arit BOKEK-COHEN, Nitza DAVIDOVICH. The Successful Integration of Foreign-born Instructors in the Academe:
Lessons from Israel’s Largest Public College PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
San­der­son, A. R., Du­go­ni, B. D., Hof­fer, T., & My­ers, S. L. (2000). Doc­to­ra­te re­ci­pients from uni­ted 57
sta­tes uni­ver­si­ties: Sum­ma­ry re­port 1999. Na­tio­nal Opi­nion Re­se­arch Cen­ter at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Chi­ca­
go.
Step­han, P. E., & Le­vin, S.G., (2001). Ex­cep­tio­nal con­tri­bu­tions to US scien­ce by the fo­reign-born and
fo­reign-edu­ca­ted. Po­pu­la­tion Re­se­arch and Po­li­cy Re­view, 20, 59–79.
Ta­no­va, C. (2003). Firm si­ze and rec­ruit­ment: staf­fing prac­ti­ces in small and lar­ge or­ga­ni­za­tions in North
Cyp­rus. Ca­re­er De­ve­lop­ment In­ter­na­tio­nal, 8(2), 107–114.
Tar­qui­nio, G. T., Dit­tus, R. S., Byr­ne, D. W., Kai­ser, A./ & Ne­il­son, E.G. (2003). Ef­fects of per­for­man­
ce-ba­sed com­pen­sa­tion and fa­cul­ty track on the cli­ni­cal ac­ti­vi­ty, re­se­arch port­fo­lio, and te­aching mis­sion
of a lar­ge de­part­ment of Me­di­ci­ne. Aca­de­mic Me­di­ci­ne, 78(7), 690–701.
Va­da­na, Y. (1997). At­ti­tu­des of the Is­ra­e­li pub­lic to­ward im­mig­rants from the For­mer So­viet Union, Re­
se­arch Re­port, Shva­kim Pa­no­ra­ma Pub­lic Opi­nion Ins­ti­tu­te (in Heb­rew).
Wad­sworth, E.C. (Ed.) (1994). To im­pro­ve the aca­de­my re­sour­ces for fa­cul­ty. In­struc­tio­nal and Or­ga­ni­
za­tio­nal De­ve­lop­ment, 13, pp. 109–120.
Zil­berg N. (1995). In-group hu­mor of im­mig­rants from the For­mer So­viet Union to Is­ra­el, Is­ra­el So­cial
Scien­ce Re­se­arch, 10(1), pp. 1–22.

Ad­vi­ced by Ga­bi Li­ber­man, Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of Sa­ma­ria, Is­ra­el

Ya’arit Bo­kek-Co­hen Ph.D. in So­cio­lo­gy, Lec­tu­rer at Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of Sa­ma­ria, Is­ra­el.
p.o.b. 3, Ariel, Is­ra­el.
Pho­ne: 972-50-2498585.
E-mail: ybo­kek@gmail.com
Web­si­te: http://www.yosh.ac.il/

Nit­za Da­vi­do­vich He­ad, Aca­de­mic De­ve­lop­ment & As­ses­sment Unit, Ari’el Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­tre, Ari’el Is­ra­
el.
E-mail: d.nit­za@ariel.ac.il
Web­si­te: http://www.ariel.ac.il
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

58

REFLECTIVE LEARNING MODELS IN


THE CONTEXT OF HIGHER EDUCATION:
CONCEPT ANALYSIS

Re­mi­gi­jus Bub­nys,
Siau­liai Uni­ver­si­ty, Šiau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia
E-mail: rbub­nys@gmail.com

Vil­ma Žy­džiū­nai­tė
My­ko­las Ro­me­ris Uni­ver­si­ty, Vil­nius, Lit­hu­a­nia
E-mail: vil­ma.zy­dziu­nai­te@mru­ni.eu

Abst­ract

The ar­tic­le pre­sents re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning mo­dels in hig­her edu­ca­tion. Whi­le pre­sen­ting the re­flec­ting pos­
si­bi­li­ties in te­aching / le­ar­ning in hig­her edu­ca­tion, re­se­ar­chers re­fer to Kolb’s mo­del, which do­es not
ela­bo­ra­te the re­flec­tion as an es­sen­tial pro­cess and fe­a­tu­re by ap­ply­ing it in hig­her edu­ca­tion. The re­
se­ar­chers view re­flec­ting / re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning as a ba­sic for suc­ces­sful le­ar­ners’ ac­ti­vi­ty ana­ly­sis and
le­ar­ning from one’s own ex­pe­rien­ce. Re­se­arch fo­cus in the ar­tic­le is con­cep­tu­al re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en
re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning mo­dels and con­text of hig­her edu­ca­tion. The aim of re­se­arch is to sub­stan­tia­te the
re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning and con­text of hig­her edu­ca­tion by com­pa­ring re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­
ning mo­dels and il­lust­ra­ting pos­si­bi­li­ties of im­ple­men­ta­tion of re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning in hig­her edu­ca­tion.
Re­se­arch de­sign: con­cep­tu­al mo­de­ling. Met­hod: con­cep­tu­al ana­ly­sis. Re­se­arch out­co­mes: in­teg­ra­tion of
mo­dels whi­le or­ga­ni­zing te­aching/le­ar­ning at the hig­her edu­ca­tion en­han­ces the in­ter­re­la­tions­hip bet­we­
en le­ar­ning ex­pe­rien­ce and re­flec­ti­ve ac­ti­vi­ty. Re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning as a con­ti­nuo­us edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess at
the in­di­vi­du­al and col­lec­ti­ve le­vels en­com­pas­ses the con­tent, pro­cess, pre­mi­ses, and is an end­less lo­o­py
pro­cess. Such pro­cess starts with re­flec­tion for ac­tion, orien­ta­tion to­wards links of new in­for­ma­tion and
con­ti­nu­es with re­flec­tion in and on ac­tion.
Key words: re­flec­tion, re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning, hig­her edu­ca­tion, con­cept ana­ly­sis

In­tro­duc­tion

Scien­ti­fic so­cie­ty has paid a lot at­ten­tion to trai­ning and de­ve­lop­ment of young spe­cia­lists at
a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion, e. g. te­achers ap­plied dif­fe­rent te­aching met­hods, mo­del­led edu­ca­
tio­nal stra­te­gies, emp­ha­si­sed stu­dents’ le­ar­ning by se­pa­ra­ting it from te­aching, etc. Du­ring most
de­ca­des, re­se­ar­ches of edu­ca­tion scien­ce ha­ve be­en di­rec­ted to the ana­ly­sis of know­led­ge ren­de­
ring, which is do­ne by mo­re ex­pe­rien­ced pe­op­le to pe­op­le who know less (Strauss et al., 2002). At
pre­sent im­ple­men­ta­tion and de­ve­lop­ment of re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning in the con­text of hig­her edu­ca­tion
Remigijus BUBNYS, Vilma ŽYDŽIŪNAITĖ. Reflective Learning Models in the Context of Higher Education:
Concept Analysis PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
is the com­mon aim of most edu­ca­tio­nal pro­gram­mes at hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions. Re­flec­ti­ve le­ 59
ar­ning and de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dents’ re­flec­tion mo­re of­ten be­co­me the fo­cus of re­se­arch: re­flec­ti­ve
prac­ti­ce of stu­dies in the con­text of trans­for­ma­tion of hig­her edu­ca­tion pa­ra­digm (Ba­ra­naus­kie­nė,
1999, 2000, 2003), stu­dents’ em­po­wer­ment for mo­ti­va­ted stu­dies by re­fer­ring to pro­blem-ba­sed
te­aching and re­flec­tions (Žy­džiū­nai­tė, 2001), de­ve­lop­ment of self-re­flec­tion skills (Iva­naus­kie­nė,
Lio­bi­kie­nė, 2005), te­acher’s re­flec­tion in an aca­de­mic si­tu­a­tion (Ke­pa­lai­tė, 2005), mo­del­ling of
me­ta-cog­ni­ti­ve stra­te­gies at uni­ver­si­ty stu­dies (Zu­ze­vi­čiū­tė, 2005), re­flec­ti­ve te­achers and le­ar­ning
ac­ti­vi­ty (Sta­ni­kū­nie­nė, 2006; Ju­ce­vi­čie­nė, 2006). The fo­reign scien­tists ana­ly­se the phe­no­me­non
of re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning mo­re tho­rough­ly (Bo­yd, Fa­les, 1983; Us­her, 1985; At­kins, Murp­hy, 1993;
Cal­der­he­ad, Ga­tes, 1993; Lough­ran, 1996; Co­wan, 1998; Broc­kbank, McGill, 1998; Mo­on, 1999;
Ro­gers, 2001; Ram­sey, 2003; Os­ter­man, Kot­tkamp, 2004; Johns, 2004; Boud et al., 2005, etc.). In
the works of the abo­ve-men­tio­ned aut­hors the con­cept of re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning is most of­ten used to
de­fi­ne te­aching / le­ar­ning, du­ring which re­flec­tion is ap­plied as one of the main me­ans to ana­ly­se
the ex­pe­rien­ce. Ho­we­ver, com­pa­ri­son of dif­fe­rent re­flec­tion mo­dels and ana­ly­sis of its prac­ti­cal
ap­pli­ca­tion by sub­stan­tia­ting it are mis­sing be­cau­se this would fa­ci­li­ta­te their di­rect trans­for­ma­tion
to edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess of le­ar­ners in hig­her edu­ca­tion both in the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal stu­dies. Du­
ring re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning it is sought to iden­ti­fy, as­sess and chan­ge the es­sen­tial be­liefs and pre­mi­ses,
the­o­ries, which di­rec­tly in­flu­en­ce ac­tions. Know­led­ge can­not be sim­ply trans­for­med. In or­der the
le­ar­ning would ta­ke pla­ce, it is im­por­tant to be mo­ti­va­ted to le­arn and be ac­ti­ve in pro­jec­ting le­ar­
ning di­rec­tion through ad­van­ce­ments.
The cha­rac­ter and or­ga­ni­za­tion of re­se­arch on re­flec­tion mo­del­ling and im­ple­men­ting in­to cur­ri­
cu­lum (Lough­ran, 1996; Co­wan, 1998; Mo­on, 1999; Johns, 2004; Boud et al., 2005) is de­ter­mi­ned
by po­li­ti­cal and so­cial con­text of a coun­try, tra­di­tions and aims of a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion. The
ana­ly­sis of most works (Whi­ta­ker, 1995; Mo­on, 1999; Jar­vis, 1999, 2001; Su­ger­man et al., 2000;
Te­re­se­vi­čie­nė, Ged­vi­lie­nė, 2001; Iva­naus­kie­nė, Lio­bi­kie­nė, 2005, etc.) al­low sta­ting that co­he­ren­ce
of re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning con­cept to the con­cep­tion of Kolb’s (1984) ex­pe­rien­ce-ba­sed le­ar­ning (which
emp­ha­si­ses the im­por­tan­ce of le­ar­ners’ ex­pe­rien­ce in edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess) do­mi­na­tes. Ho­we­ver, it
do­es not ela­bo­ra­te re­flec­tion as es­sen­tial ele­ment in le­ar­ning from own ex­pe­rien­ce. Such con­cept of
re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning can be tre­a­ted as in­suf­fi­cient in disc­lo­sing pos­si­bi­li­ties of re­flec­tion ap­pli­ca­tion
in hig­her edu­ca­tion.
Re­se­arch qu­es­tion: What are the key sta­ges of re­flec­ting and re­flec­tion in hig­her edu­ca­tion?
Re­se­arch fo­cus is con­cep­tu­al re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning mo­dels and con­text of
hig­her edu­ca­tion.
The aim is to sub­stan­tia­te the re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning and con­text of hig­her
edu­ca­tion by com­pa­ring re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning mo­dels and il­lust­ra­ting pos­si­bi­li­ties of im­ple­men­ta­tion
of re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning in hig­her edu­ca­tion.

Re­se­arch Met­ho­do­lo­gy

Sam­ple

Se­lec­tion of scien­ti­fic li­te­ra­tu­re re­sour­ces had be­en cri­te­rion-ba­sed. The cri­te­rions we­re the
fol­lo­wing: (1) re­sour­ce should be scien­ti­fic (ba­sed on re­se­arch or con­cep­tu­al evi­den­ce and pub­lis­
hed as ar­tic­le, mo­nog­raph, PhD dis­ser­ta­tion or re­se­arch re­port); (2) ke­y­words for se­lec­tion we­re
re­flec­tion, re­flec­ting, hig­her edu­ca­tion, le­ar­ning, te­aching by in­teg­ra­ting them as a com­plex words,
whe­re re­flec­tion or re­flec­ting we­re the le­a­ding terms, e.g. re­flec­tion and hig­her edu­ca­tion, re­flec­ting
and hig­her edu­ca­tion, re­flec­tion and le­ar­ning, etc.; (3) re­sour­ce could be writ­ten in Lit­hu­a­nian or
En­glish lan­gu­a­ges.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

60
Met­hod

In this ar­tic­le as a met­hod was em­plo­y­ed a re­view of the li­te­ra­tu­re (Stum­me et al., 1998; Ta­y­
lor, 2010). A li­te­ra­tu­re re­view is an ac­count of what has be­en pub­lis­hed on a to­pic by ac­cre­di­ted
scho­lars and re­se­ar­chers. In wri­ting the li­te­ra­tu­re re­view, the pur­po­se is to con­vey to re­a­der what
know­led­ge and ide­as ha­ve be­en es­tab­lis­hed on a to­pic. As a pie­ce of wri­ting, the li­te­ra­tu­re re­view
is de­fi­ned by a gui­ding con­cept (e.g., re­se­arch aim, the pro­blem the aut­hor dis­cus­ses). It is not just
a desc­rip­ti­ve list of the ma­te­rial avai­lab­le, or a set of sum­ma­ries. The per­for­med steps of the re­view
of the li­te­ra­tu­re we­re fol­lo­wing (Ta­y­lor, 2010): (1) or­ga­ni­zing the li­te­ra­tu­re se­lec­tion and re­view by
re­la­ting it di­rec­tly to the re­se­arch qu­es­tion the aut­hor de­ve­lops; (2) synt­he­si­zing re­sults in­to a sum­
ma­ry of what is and is not known; (3) iden­ti­fy­ing are­as of con­tro­ver­sy in the li­te­ra­tu­re; (4) rai­sing
qu­es­tions that ne­ed furt­her re­se­arch.
A li­te­ra­tu­re re­view is a pie­ce of dis­cur­si­ve pro­se, not a list desc­ri­bing or sum­ma­ri­zing one pie­ce
of li­te­ra­tu­re af­ter anot­her (Stum­me et al., 1998; Ta­y­lor, 2010).

Re­flec­tion – the Pre­mi­se for Edu­ca­tio­nal Trans­for­ma­tion of Ex­pe­rien­ce in­to


Le­ar­ning

Phi­lo­sop­hy of le­ar­ning ba­sed on re­flec­tion be­gins from eve­ry­day ex­pe­rien­ce at a hig­her edu­ca­
tion ins­ti­tu­tion. Re­flec­tion, which can streng­then le­ar­ning and cor­po­ra­te per­so­nal as well as pro­fes­
sio­nal ef­fi­cien­cy help to out­li­ve and to gi­ve a sen­se of ex­pe­rien­ce; thus ana­ly­sis of ex­pe­rien­ce has to
be one of the main go­als of le­ar­ning at a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion. Re­flec­tion ac­ti­va­tes le­ar­ning,
self-ana­ly­sis, as well as so­lu­tion of pro­blems. It is im­por­tant and va­lu­ab­le both at the be­gin­ning of
ex­pe­rien­ce ac­cu­mu­la­tion as well as la­ter, i.e. when ob­tai­ned in­for­ma­tion is being sys­te­mi­zed and
by ana­ly­sing own psy­chic pro­ces­ses and sta­tes that for­med du­ring le­ar­ning. The abi­li­ty to spe­ak for
one­self and ot­hers what we ha­ve ex­pe­rien­ced al­lows re­ac­ting and rew­ri­ting sce­na­rios of eve­ry­day
li­fe; it enab­les for­ming sche­mes and nar­ra­ti­ves of men­tal re­fe­ren­ce, which gi­ve me­a­ning to our and
ot­her li­ves (Schratz, Wal­ker, 1998). Mo­dern pa­ra­digm of le­ar­ning and its im­ple­men­ta­tion in hig­her
edu­ca­tion trans­form the set­tled view­point to know­led­ge pro­duc­tion when stu­dents ‘are on­ly pas­si­
ve sta­tus quo know­led­ge re­ci­pients’ (Ba­ra­naus­kie­nė, 2003, p. 61). A le­ar­ner when in­te­rac­ting with
en­vi­ron­ment on the ba­sis of his / her pre­vio­us ex­pe­rien­ce cre­a­tes his / her in­di­vi­du­al know­led­ge. It
is not im­por­tant how dis­tinc­tly and pre­ci­se­ly the ren­de­red know­led­ge will be re­la­ted to pos­ses­sed
be­liefs and un­ders­tan­ding by cre­a­ting own per­so­nal im­pli­ca­tion (Jérôme, 2006).
Re­flec­tion should be in­teg­ra­ted in­to en­ti­re edu­ca­tion pro­cess by not se­pa­ra­ting it from self-edu­
ca­tion aims. Re­const­ruc­tion of ex­pe­rien­ce is cen­tral, as well as it is a con­ti­nuo­us aim. In or­der le­ar­
ners to ha­ve achie­ved this aim, they should re­flect by ana­ly­zing their va­lu­es, at­ti­tu­des and emo­tions,
which in their turn trans­form the un­ders­tan­ding as well as gi­ve new me­a­nings for ide­as by re­la­ting
them to pre­vio­us know­led­ge and ob­tai­ned in­for­ma­tion. Re­flec­tion, when le­ar­ning from own ex­pe­
rien­ce, sti­mu­la­tes ta­king of res­pon­si­bi­li­ty for one’s ac­tions and de­ci­sions. It is an ac­ti­ve cre­a­tion
of in­for­ma­tion, its re­vi­sion and cre­a­tion of new the­o­ries. In ac­qui­ring on­ly the­o­re­ti­cal know­led­ge,
the abi­li­ty to le­arn by one­self is lost, and this me­ans that re­flec­ti­ve abi­li­ties do not form and ‘the
es­sen­ce of a re­flec­ti­ve met­hod is for­got­ten, i.e. ‘le­ar­ning is not a re­sult but a pro­cess [...] when we
re­flec­ti­ve­ly think over not on­ly po­si­ti­ve but al­so ne­ga­ti­ve ex­pe­rien­ce we un­ders­tand our we­ak­nes­ses
and strengths’ (Ba­ra­naus­kie­nė, 1999, p. 65–66). Jar­vis (1999), con­tras­ting im­pul­si­ve and re­flec­ti­ve
ac­ti­vi­ty of a le­ar­ner, sta­tes that re­flec­ting stu­dents are sub­ject to think over mo­re al­ter­na­ti­ve stra­te­
gies be­fo­re de­ci­sion-ma­king in the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal stu­dies at a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion. Im­
pul­si­ve stu­dents, ha­ving ap­pro­a­ched pro­blem-so­lu­tion, try it. Ho­we­ver, they think it spon­ta­ne­ous­ly
do not re­flect in pro­jec­ting pos­sib­le choi­ces as well as per­for­ming their ac­ti­vi­ty.
Re­flec­tion should be re­la­ted to the abi­li­ty to le­arn li­fe-long as well as be con­si­de­red as one of
the most es­sen­tial pre­mi­ses for de­ve­lop­ment of abi­li­ty to le­arn, which cre­a­tes con­di­tions to cle­ar­ly
Remigijus BUBNYS, Vilma ŽYDŽIŪNAITĖ. Reflective Learning Models in the Context of Higher Education:
Concept Analysis PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
re­a­li­ze own ex­pe­rien­ce, to di­sas­so­cia­te from eve­ry day events and usu­al re­a­li­ty of things. Pos­si­bi­ 61
li­ties be­co­me one of the most im­por­tant edu­ca­tion aims, which in­du­ce fe­e­ling, ex­pe­rien­cing, and
un­ders­tan­ding. Re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning is trans­for­ma­tio­nal, enab­ling stu­dents for their per­so­nal un­rest­
ric­ted in­de­pen­dent ac­ti­vi­ty by ana­ly­zing own ex­pe­rien­ce, ha­bits of le­ar­ning, as well as re­la­ting
the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal know­led­ge, de­ve­lo­ping abi­li­ties to iden­ti­fy and sol­ve pro­blems, chan­ging
own at­ti­tu­des and be­co­ming mo­re to­le­rant (Mor­ri­son, 1996). Re­flec­tion as com­po­nent in re­flec­ti­ve
le­ar­ning emer­ges from pro­fes­sio­nal ex­pe­rien­ce as well as it in­vol­ves re­flec­ti­ve thin­king in for­ming
a si­tu­a­tion when it is re­fer­red to per­so­nal sys­tem of view­points, at­ti­tu­des and va­lu­es, cons­tant­ly le­a­
ving an open pos­si­bi­li­ty re-form. Re­flec­ti­ve thin­king is clo­se­ly re­la­ted to cri­ti­cal thin­king, as Li­pins­
kie­nė (2002) sta­tes; the lat­ter is the ba­sis of re­flec­ti­ve thin­king. The at­ten­tion should be paid so that
Schön (1991) calls this ac­ti­vi­ty as re­flec­ti­ve prac­ti­ce, which is a ‘key’ at­tri­bu­te of re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning.
Fol­lo­wing Schön’s ide­as, Bar­nett (1992), Broc­kbank et al. (2002) sta­te that all stu­dents of a hig­her
edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion can exer­ci­se re­flec­ti­ve prac­ti­ce, which, ac­cor­ding to Bal­čiū­nie­nė (2006), cre­
a­tes con­di­tions to ob­ser­ve the chan­ge of stu­dents’ de­ve­lop­ment as well as pro­vi­des te­achers with
new in­sights how to im­pro­ve the stu­dy sub­ject being de­li­ve­red and to stri­ve for te­aching / le­ar­ning
qu­a­li­ty. Along­si­de it is the pro­cess of rep­ro­duc­tion of past ex­pe­rien­ces, in­di­vi­du­al ex­pres­sion and
trans­for­ma­tion of pro­fes­sio­nal know­led­ge to spe­ci­fic si­tu­a­tions and con­texts (Yip, 2006). Re­flec­ti­ve
le­ar­ning is an ac­ti­ve ac­ti­vi­ty and in­te­rest is not on­ly in me­ans and tech­ni­cal ef­fi­cien­cy, but al­so in
le­ar­ning aims and its im­pact (Pol­lard, 2006). The ana­ly­sis of scien­ti­fic sour­ces (Schön, 1991; Cal­der­
he­ad, Ga­tes, 1993; Lough­ran, 1996; Broc­kbank, McGill, 1998; Mo­on, 1999; Os­ter­man, Kot­tkamp,
2004) Boud et al., 2005) sho­wed that by re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning a stu­dent is em­po­we­red to co­or­di­na­te
the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal know­led­ge, to cre­a­te own per­so­nal the­o­ries and un­ders­tan­ding about fu­tu­re
pro­fes­sio­nal ac­ti­vi­ty at a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion.

Mo­dels of Re­flec­ti­ve Le­ar­ning

Dif­fe­rent mo­dels of re­flec­tion for ana­ly­sis of ex­pe­rien­ce are of­fe­red in scien­ti­fic li­te­ra­tu­re sour­
ces. Dif­fe­rent aut­hors men­tion the lat­ter as the mo­dels of le­ar­ning from own ex­pe­rien­ce, re­flec­ti­ve
thin­king / le­ar­ning or ac­ti­vi­ty. In plan­ning stu­dents’ le­ar­ning at a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion it is
pos­sib­le to use suc­ces­sful­ly sche­mes of the­se mo­dels when for­mu­la­ting as­sign­ments for the­o­re­ti­cal
lec­tu­res, se­mi­nars and prac­ti­cal clas­ses, as well as when or­ga­ni­zing stu­dents’ in­de­pen­dent work or
prac­ti­cal clas­ses. In ana­ly­zing dif­fe­rent mo­dels of re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning and their sta­ges, most aut­hors
point out in­ter-co­or­di­na­tion of prac­ti­cal know­led­ge and its re­la­tion in this pro­cess (Shön, 1987,
1991; Ba­ra­naus­kie­nė, 1999; Su­ger­man et al., 2000; Jar­vis et al., 2004; Iva­naus­kie­nė, Lio­bi­kie­nė,
2005). The­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal know­led­ge are two in­se­pa­rab­le parts of cog­ni­tion pro­cess: the­o­ry
al­lows fin­ding new wa­ys for prac­ti­ce, and prac­ti­ce con­tri­bu­tes to im­pro­ve­ment of prac­ti­ce (Šer­nas,
2006). Thus, in any sta­ge of own per­for­med ac­ti­vi­ty, le­ar­ning / te­aching and re­flec­tions, the­o­re­ti­
cal ba­sic of scien­ces and prac­ti­cal as well as true-li­fe ex­pe­rien­ces al­wa­ys en­tan­gle. Ro­gers (2001),
ha­ving per­for­med the cri­ti­cal ana­ly­sis of re­flec­tion con­cept and its ap­pli­ca­tion in hig­her edu­ca­tion,
draw a conc­lu­sion that scien­tists use com­pli­ca­ted terms by stri­ving to de­fi­ne re­flec­ti­ve pro­ces­ses:
it is re­flec­tion in ac­tion, me­ta-cog­ni­ti­ve re­flec­tion, re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning, cri­ti­cal re­flec­tion, re­flec­ti­ve
thin­king. So­me aut­hors use the term of re­flec­tion al­ter­na­te­ly with terms of in­tros­pec­tion (Sher­man,
1994, in Ro­gers, 2001) and co­gi­ta­tion (Hol­land, 2000, in Ro­gers, 2001). The ana­ly­sis of con­cepts
disc­lo­ses im­por­tant com­mon fe­a­tu­res in de­fi­ning re­flec­ti­ve pro­cess. Re­flec­tion is a cog­ni­ti­ve pro­
cess or ac­ti­vi­ty (De­wey, 1933; Shön, 1987; Lough­ran, 1996; Co­wan, 1998). Along­si­de the cog­ni­ti­ve
as­pect Boud et al. (2005) point out the im­por­tan­ce of ex­pe­rien­ced emo­tions in re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning.
De­wey (1933, 1938) is re­cog­ni­sed as the main cre­a­tor of the re­flec­tion con­cept (Hat­ton, Smith,
2006). De­wey (1933) de­fi­nes le­ar­ning as dia­lec­tic pro­cess, which in­teg­ra­tes ex­pe­rien­ce and ide­as,
ob­ser­va­tions and ac­ti­vi­ty. ‘A rou­ti­ne ac­tion’ con­tras­ted to ‘a re­flec­ti­ve ac­tion’, whe­re the lat­ter in­
vol­ves the fra­me to cons­tant­ly as­sess and de­ve­lop one­self ‘a rou­ti­ne ac­tion’ is sta­tic, not re­soun­ding
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

62
to chan­ging pri­ori­ties and cir­cums­tan­ces (Pol­lard, 2006). The con­cept of re­flec­tion in the De­we­y’s
mo­del is com­pa­red to a re­se­arch pro­cess. Le­ar­ners re­flec­ti­ve­ly think over and ana­ly­se their ac­ti­vi­ty
by chec­king the hy­pot­he­ses they for­mu­la­ted (Ram­sey, 2003). Re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning is un­ders­to­od as
pro­blem so­lu­tion, a way of thin­king in or­der to sol­ve an is­sue, which con­tains ac­ti­ve con­ver­gen­ce,
as well as ca­re­ful co­or­di­na­tion of thoughts. De­we­y’s main ide­as are fun­da­men­tal and show that re­
flec­tion can be tre­a­ted as ac­ti­ve and de­li­be­ra­ti­ve cog­ni­tion pro­cess, which con­sists of the se­qu­en­ce
of in­ter­re­la­ted thoughts by con­si­de­ring the re­a­so­ning be­liefs and know­led­ge. In ge­ne­ral, re­flec­ti­ve
thin­king sol­ves prac­ti­cal pro­blems and it al­lows doub­ting and ad­dling be­fo­re ma­king pos­sib­le de­ci­
sions.
At­kins, Murp­hy (1993), Mo­on (1999), ha­ving per­for­med the ana­ly­sis of the dif­fe­rent re­flec­tion
pro­ces­ses pre­sen­ted by se­ve­ral aut­hors (Bo­yd, Fa­les, 1983; Gibbs, 1998), dis­tin­guish three main
sta­ges that are re­pe­a­ted in all mo­dels. The first sta­ge of re­flec­ti­ve pro­cess is emer­gen­ce of un­ple­a­
sant fe­e­lings and thoughts due to the ex­pe­rien­ce being out­li­ved and the ne­ed to sol­ve the si­tu­a­tion
that cau­sed the­se ex­pe­rien­ces. This emer­ges from un­ders­tan­ding that in cer­tain si­tu­a­tion it is not
enough to ex­plain what has hap­pe­ned through ap­plied know­led­ge. Bo­yd, Fa­les (1983) na­me this as
the sta­ge of emer­gen­ce of in­ter­nal dis­com­fort fe­e­ling. The se­cond sta­ge is cri­ti­cal and const­ruc­ti­ve
ana­ly­sis of a pro­blem or spe­ci­fic si­tu­a­tion as well as own fe­e­lings, which in­vol­ves pos­ses­sed and
ne­ces­sa­ry new know­led­ge to sol­ve a pro­blem. The third sta­ge is de­ve­lop­ment of new view­point to
a si­tu­a­tion by pro­jec­ting pos­sib­le wa­ys for ac­ting at par­ti­cu­lar fu­tu­re si­tu­a­tions. In this sta­ge emo­tio­
nal and cog­ni­ti­ve chan­ges, which le­ad to be­ha­vio­ur chan­ges, ta­ke pla­ce.
The mo­del of re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning by Boud et al. (2005) most tho­rough­ly il­lust­ra­tes the pro­cess
of re­flec­tion on ac­tion when ex­pe­rien­ce is tur­ned in­to le­ar­ning. Three main sta­ges of re­flec­tion are
dis­tin­guis­hed in the mo­del: re­turn to ex­pe­rien­ce, at­ten­tion to fe­e­lings and re­pe­a­ted as­ses­sment of
ex­pe­rien­ce (see Fi­gu­re 1).

Fi­gu­re 1. Re­flec­tion pro­cess (Ac­cor­ding to Boud et al., 2005).

Boud et al. (2005) sta­te that one of the wa­ys to sti­mu­la­te le­ar­ning is to streng­then in­ter­re­la­
tions­hip of le­ar­ning ex­pe­rien­ce and re­flec­ti­ve ac­ti­vi­ty, which forms by de­di­ca­ting so­me ti­me for
re­flec­tion in le­ar­ning ac­ti­vi­ty. First­ly it is sought by dia­lo­gue when thoughts are ex­pres­sed and the
ac­qui­red ex­pe­rien­ce is sha­red wit­hin a group; se­cond­ly, by in­di­vi­du­al wri­ting whe­re events and ex­
pe­rien­ced re­ac­tions are desc­ri­bed. Po­si­ti­ve sta­tes sti­mu­la­te re­flec­tion, for exam­ple, a suc­ces­sful­ly
per­for­med as­sign­ment, which earlier se­e­med to be overw­hel­ming. This can sti­mu­la­te to as­sess ot­her
as­sign­ments re­pe­a­ted­ly as well as to plan ot­her ex­pe­rien­ces. Per­so­nal synt­he­sis of know­led­ge, in­teg­
ra­tion and va­li­da­tion of per­so­nal know­led­ge, new emo­tio­nal sta­te or de­ci­sion to get in­vol­ved in­to a
fu­tu­re ac­ti­vi­ty can be­co­me a re­sult of re­flec­tion.
At the first sta­ge – re­turn to ex­pe­rien­ce – the ex­pe­rien­ce is a new re­flec­ted and ana­ly­sed by at­
temp­ting to rep­ro­du­ce and un­ders­tand what re­ac­tions as well as re­a­sons in­du­ced to be­ha­ve one way
Remigijus BUBNYS, Vilma ŽYDŽIŪNAITĖ. Reflective Learning Models in the Context of Higher Education:
Concept Analysis PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
or anot­her. Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, de­no­mi­na­tion as well as ana­ly­sis of the fe­e­lings cau­sed by the ex­pe­rien­ce 63
are im­por­tant at this sta­ge. Le­ar­ners who do not ob­ser­ve and do not ana­ly­se emo­tio­nal di­men­sion
of their ex­pe­rien­ce can harm the va­lue of their re­flec­tion in li­mi­ting it by any as­pect of re­ac­tion to
en­vi­ron­ment and thus cre­a­ting ar­ti­fi­cial obs­tac­les for their re­ac­tion to ex­pe­rien­ce.
At the se­cond sta­ge – at­ten­tion to fe­e­lings – two as­pects be­co­me im­por­tant: em­plo­y­ments of
po­si­ti­ve fe­e­lings and eli­mi­na­tion of ina­de­qu­a­te ones. Sub­ject to cir­cums­tan­ces and in­ten­tions it is
im­por­tant to ana­ly­se own emo­tio­nal ex­pe­rien­ces by fin­ding wa­ys to avoid them or to main­tain and
streng­then them if the lat­ter are po­si­ti­ve. In ex­pe­rien­cing po­si­ti­ve fe­e­lings both cog­ni­ti­ve and emo­
tio­nal are­as of le­ar­ning are being de­ve­lo­ped. It is im­por­tant to pay at­ten­tion to the im­pact of the
pro­ces­ses ta­king pla­ce in this sta­ge upon ex­pe­rien­ce le­ar­ning as well as to how an in­di­vi­du­al could
le­arn to hand­le own re­flec­ti­ve ac­ti­vi­ties (Boud et al., 2005). At the third sta­ge – re­pe­a­ted as­ses­sment
of ex­pe­rien­ce – on­ce mo­re it is get­ting de­e­per in­to ex­pe­rien­ce by re­la­ting new know­led­ge to the pos­
ses­sed and by in­teg­ra­ting the first one in­to le­ar­ner’s con­cep­tu­al sche­me. Such le­ar­ning is ap­plied in
or­der to check its aut­hen­ti­ci­ty and to plan furt­her ac­ti­vi­ty, du­ring which this le­ar­ning is im­ple­men­ted
in pro­fes­sio­nal ac­ti­vi­ty. At the last sta­ge – re­sults – four as­pects of re­flec­tion, which can im­pro­ve re­
sults, are dis­tin­guis­hed: as­so­cia­tion – re­la­tion of new da­ta to al­re­a­dy known; in­teg­ra­tion – se­arch of
re­la­tions among the­se da­ta; va­li­da­tion – iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of aut­hen­ti­ci­ty of emer­ged ide­as and fe­e­lings;
as­si­mi­la­tion – as­sump­tion of know­led­ge for one­self. In sum­ma­ry, it is pos­sib­le to sta­te that in this
mo­del the re­flec­tion pro­cess can ta­ke pla­ce con­sis­tent­ly. Ho­we­ver a lot of ot­her cyc­les, im­por­tant
ele­ments re­la­ted to re­pe­ti­tions of es­pe­cial­ly im­por­tant com­po­nents can emer­ge as well.
The mo­del of ex­pe­rien­ce le­ar­ning by Kolb (1984) is the most po­pu­lar and is ap­plied in the
prac­ti­ce of a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion. Co­wan (1998) points out that the mo­del usu­al­ly is re­fer­
red to Kolb (1984); ho­we­ver the ori­gin of the mo­del is at­ta­ched to Le­win (1951). The Kolb mo­del
is ef­fec­ti­ve in the ca­ses if one is ab­le to get in­vol­ved in­to so­lu­tion of most dif­fe­rent si­tu­a­tions com­
ple­te­ly open­ly and wit­hout pre­con­cei­ved at­ti­tu­des as well as to ac­qui­re new ex­pe­rien­ce; to ob­ser­ve
one­self on the out­si­de, to con­si­der own ex­pe­rien­ce in most dif­fe­rent as­pects, to re­flect it; to form
con­cepts and prin­cip­les that ge­ne­ra­li­ze what has be­en ob­ser­ved; to ap­ply the­o­re­ti­cal know­led­ge to
sol­ve pro­blems as well as to ac­cu­mu­la­te new ex­pe­rien­ce (Lin­kai­ty­tė, 2003). Le­ar­ning is un­ders­to­od
as four-sta­ge cyc­le: re­le­vant ex­pe­rien­ce, re­flec­ti­ve ob­ser­va­tion, abst­ract con­cep­tu­a­li­sa­tion and ac­ti­
ve ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion. The­se abi­li­ties in­vol­ve two di­men­sions of cog­ni­ti­ve de­ve­lop­ment and le­ar­ning:
re­le­vant abst­ract di­men­sion and ac­ti­ve / re­flec­ti­ve di­men­sion. The es­sen­ce of the mo­del is le­ar­ning
cyc­le when ex­pe­rien­ce is tur­ned in­to con­cepts (the­o­ries, con­cep­tions), which in their turn in­to gui­
de­li­nes to cho­o­se new ex­pe­rien­ces. Di­rect re­le­vant ex­pe­rien­ce is the ba­sis of re­flec­ti­ve ob­ser­va­tion.
Le­ar­ning ma­te­rial con­sis­ting of dif­fe­rent in­for­ma­tion, facts or events is con­ve­y­ed to stu­dents. Iden­
ti­fi­ca­tion of a pro­blem is the main fac­tor, which in­du­ces mo­ving for­ward by the cyc­le to re­flec­ti­ve
ob­ser­va­tion. Scien­tists (Mo­on, 1999) dis­cuss the im­por­tan­ce of pro­ces­ses of par­ti­cu­lar ex­pe­rien­ce,
when ex­pe­rien­ce can be in­ter­pre­ted as phy­si­cal in­vol­ve­ment in­to si­tu­a­tion – ‘pu­re ex­pe­rien­ce’ – le­
ar­ning in prac­ti­ce or as con­cep­tu­al ma­te­rial, which has be­en per­cei­ved at a lec­tu­re. It is re­cog­ni­zed
that ex­pe­rien­ce in le­ar­ning pro­cess should be sta­ted as su­stai­na­bi­li­ty of ‘pu­re’ and con­cep­tu­al ma­te­
rial, i.e. con­di­tions to trans­form con­cep­tu­al ex­pe­rien­ce in­to pu­re ex­pe­rien­ce would be cre­a­ted. The
sta­ge of re­flec­ti­ve ob­ser­va­tion in the Kolb’s cyc­le is es­sen­tial be­cau­se stu­dents re­flect their ac­ti­vi­ty
by col­lec­ting in­for­ma­tion to ex­pand and to un­ders­tand ex­pe­rien­ce; they ana­ly­se their be­ha­vio­ur,
view­points, aims, fe­e­lings and ex­pe­rien­ces. Ot­her (e.g.: Bo­yd, Fa­les, 1983; John, 2004) mo­dels of
re­flec­ti­ve / ex­pe­rien­ce le­ar­ning use the con­cept of re­flec­tion. In the sta­ge of abst­ract con­cep­tu­a­li­za­
tion a stu­dent ela­bo­ra­tes new ide­as by pro­jec­ting the per­spec­ti­ves, which would help mo­re ef­fec­ti­
ve­ly sol­ve pro­blems in the fu­tu­re: the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal know­led­ge are re­la­ted, new in­for­ma­tion
and ide­as are in­teg­ra­ted in­to prac­ti­ce (Li­pins­kie­nė, 2002). The sta­ge of ac­ti­ve ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion – is
ap­pli­ca­tion and chec­king of new wa­ys, pre­mi­ses and ide­as by ac­ti­ve and pur­po­se­ful ac­ting at par­ti­cu­
lar prac­ti­cal si­tu­a­tions. Kolb’s (1984) mo­del of le­ar­ning from ex­pe­rien­ce, cal­led le­ar­ning cyc­le, be­
gins with pri­ma­ry ex­pe­rien­ce and af­ter re­flec­ti­ve ob­ser­va­tion and con­cep­tu­a­li­za­tion the idea, which
can sti­mu­la­te ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion and new ex­pe­rien­ce, is being for­med. Ac­cor­ding to King (2002), in
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

64
the cyc­le of le­ar­ning from ex­pe­rien­ce it is pos­sib­le to iden­ti­fy three dif­fe­rent ty­pes of re­flec­tion: re­
flec­tion in ac­tion, re­flec­tion on ac­tion, and re­flec­tion for ac­tion (see Fi­gu­re 2).

Reflection in
Action
Concrete
Experience

Active Reflective
Experimentation O bservation

Abstract
Reflection for Conceptualisation Reflection on

Fi­gu­re 2. In­teg­ra­tion of ex­pe­rien­ce le­ar­ning and re­flec­tion mo­dels


(Ac­cor­ding to King, 2002).

Schön’s (1987) re­flec­tion in ac­tion can be re­la­ted to a par­ti­cu­lar ex­pe­rien­ce, which ex­pres­ses
re­flec­tion that re­flects im­pli­cit / ta­cit know­led­ge ap­plied in ac­ti­vi­ty by trans­fer­ring ex­pe­rien­ce. New­
ly out­li­ved ex­pe­rien­ces as well as fu­tu­re ine­vi­tab­le ex­pe­rien­ce are con­si­de­red. It in­vol­ves im­pli­cit
/ ta­cit thoughts and their ana­ly­sis. This is re­flec­tion-orien­ted to mo­re in­no­va­ti­ve or at le­ast de­li­be­ra­
te­ly thought-out ac­ti­vi­ty. Though it can be­co­me the re­a­son of ac­ti­ve ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion at the pla­ce,
re­flec­tion in ac­tion has gre­at im­por­tan­ce, but it is le­ast pre­sump­ti­ve that it will be re­fer­red when
le­ar­ning and per­for­ming such as­sign­ments as re­flec­ti­ve wri­ting. Schön’s (1987) re­flec­tion on ac­tion
is the first sta­ge of cre­a­tion of me­a­ning af­ter emer­gen­ce of ex­pe­rien­ce. In fact one turns back to the
ac­tion of pre­vio­us ex­pe­rien­ce, tries to ana­ly­se and to sum up the pre­vio­us ex­pe­rien­ce and thus to ma­
ke ge­ne­ra­li­za­tions, which will be use­ful in the fu­tu­re. Such re­flec­tion can al­so ma­ni­fest in the sta­ge
of re­flec­ti­ve ob­ser­va­tion whe­re it fluc­tu­a­tes from sub­stan­tia­tion of ex­pe­rien­ce im­por­tan­ce to iden­
ti­fi­ca­tion of pro­blems or qu­es­tions that emer­ge from ex­pe­rien­ce as well as in the sta­ge of abst­ract
con­cep­tu­a­li­za­tion, whe­re con­cepts and hy­pot­he­ses are being for­mu­la­ted and being ap­plied. Re­flec­
tion for ac­tion (Co­wan, 1998) is na­tu­ral­ly in­di­ca­ted at the cyc­le’s sta­ge of ac­ti­ve ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion
whe­re me­a­nings of ide­as, con­cep­tions are being chec­ked, as well as ty­pes of pro­blems, which we­re
ho­ped to ha­ve be­en sol­ved mo­re ef­fec­ti­ve­ly than in the past, we­re co­gi­ta­ted. This is the re­flec­tion,
which de­ter­mi­nes pri­ori­ties for fu­tu­re le­ar­ning by iden­ti­fy­ing ne­eds, ob­jec­ti­ves and go­als, which
af­ter­wards will re­main in the me­mo­ry of a le­ar­ner. Ho­we­ver it can al­so ma­ni­fest in the cyc­le of hy­
pot­he­ses’ for­ma­tion, i.e. in the cyc­le of abst­ract con­cep­tu­a­li­sa­tion. The­se two re­flec­tion forms – re­
flec­tion on ac­tion and re­flec­tion for ac­tion – can most suc­ces­sful­ly be im­ple­men­ted and ap­plied for
de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dents’ re­flec­ti­ve com­pe­ten­ce as well as sti­pu­la­te the re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning pro­cess
at a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion.
In sum­ma­ry it is pos­sib­le to sta­te that in the mo­del of le­ar­ning from ex­pe­rien­ce re­flec­tion is a
com­po­nent of cer­tain se­qu­en­ce, which com­bi­nes cer­tain ex­pe­rien­ce and ap­pro­a­ching ge­ne­ra­li­za­tion.
Ac­cor­ding to Schön (1987), re­flec­tion (it do­es not mat­ter which va­ria­tion is cho­sen) is un­fi­nis­hed ac­ti­
vi­ty even though for short ti­me wit­hdrawn from an ac­tion by pos­ses­sing out­co­mes that re­al­ly are not
pre­dic­ted in ad­van­ce, but they are thought-out du­ring the pro­cess and which exis­ten­ce is not ne­ces­sa­ry
for an ac­tion to ta­ke pla­ce. At a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion, when im­ple­men­ting the lat­ter mo­del for
the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal edu­ca­tion of stu­dents, spe­ci­fic ex­pe­rien­ce, re­flec­ti­ve ob­ser­va­tion, abst­ract
con­cep­tu­a­li­za­tion and ac­ti­ve ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion is ‘yet im­ple­men­ted hard enough’ at tra­di­tio­nal uni­ver­si­
ty stu­dies (Ali­fa­no­vie­nė, 2005, p. 51). Kolb (1984), ac­cor­ding to Co­wan (1998), do­es not dis­cuss the
Remigijus BUBNYS, Vilma ŽYDŽIŪNAITĖ. Reflective Learning Models in the Context of Higher Education:
Concept Analysis PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
cha­rac­ter of ob­ser­va­tion and re­flec­tion sta­ge in de­tail by disc­lo­sing the ve­ry re­flec­tion pro­cess and its 65
ele­ments; thus this mo­del is of­ten men­tio­ned as not tho­rough enough and not disc­lo­sing the ve­ry re­
flec­tion pro­cess, which is al­most the most im­por­tant in the cyc­le of le­ar­ning from ex­pe­rien­ce. Co­wan
(1998) al­so sta­tes that end­less mo­ve­ment of the Kolb’s cyc­le is op­pres­si­ve and mis­le­a­ding from the
be­gin­ning, which is hard to be iden­ti­fied. Thus in or­der to pre­sent a cle­a­rer sche­me of ana­ly­sis, he
pre­sen­ted the diag­ram, which in­teg­ra­tes Schön’s con­cepts and co­he­sions po­stu­la­ted by Kolb. This
diag­ram is a sub­stan­tia­ted prac­ti­cal mo­del, which ex­plains or at le­ast pre­dicts how le­ar­ning in prac­
ti­ce can ta­ke pla­ce and be in­flu­en­ced by it (see Fi­gu­re 3).

Fi­gu­re 3. Re­flec­tion diag­ram (Ac­cor­ding to Co­wan, 1998).

Co­wan (1998) ela­bo­ra­tes that eve­ry stu­dent when le­ar­ning pos­ses­ses ve­ry im­por­tant pre­vio­us
ex­pe­rien­ce. Its part is ge­ne­ral ‘true-li­fe’ ex­pe­rien­ce, which stu­dents ac­qui­red by le­ar­ning at scho­ol
be­fo­re stu­dies at a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion. A wi­de spec­trum of pre­vio­us si­tu­a­tions of le­ar­ning
ac­qui­red in stu­dy­ing at uni­ver­si­ty ma­kes a sig­ni­fi­cant part of ex­pe­rien­ce. When le­ar­ning, stu­dents
re­flect their pre­vio­us ex­pe­rien­ce by get­ting re­a­dy for ac­ti­vi­ty, i.e. they per­form a spe­ci­fic as­sign­
ment or sol­ve a pro­blem (re­flec­tion for ac­tion). Du­ring re­flec­tion for ac­tion (see Fi­gu­re 3, Lo­op
A) stu­dents are sti­mu­la­ted to ana­ly­se and re­flect their ac­ti­vi­ty, which is well thought (Lo­op B). Stu­
dents stri­ve to re­la­te new in­for­ma­tion to what they ha­ve al­re­a­dy le­arnt, and, ha­ving ana­ly­sed it, to
use what can be ne­ces­sa­ry to per­form a new ac­ti­vi­ty. When ac­ting, it can be sug­ges­ted to ana­ly­se
and to try ne­ces­sa­ry ide­as, which a te­acher or col­le­a­gu­es-stu­dents pre­sent and which emer­ge from
cor­po­ra­te group re­flec­tion ex­pe­rien­ce. In tran­si­tio­nal re­flec­tion in ac­tion (Lo­op C), ho­we­ver, it is in
prin­cip­le ana­ly­ti­cal though an eva­lu­a­ti­ve ele­ment is en­vi­sa­ged. The es­sen­ce of ana­ly­ti­cal re­flec­tion
– is to find ans­wers to the fol­lo­wing qu­es­tions: ‘How ha­ve I to do it?’ and ‘How should I do it?’
Re­flec­tion is va­lu­ab­le na­me­ly due to its clo­se­ness to an ac­tion. Du­ring it, clas­si­fi­ca­tion and ge­ne­ra­
li­za­tion ta­kes pla­ce by de­fi­ning what has be­en le­arnt. Ad­van­ta­ges, dif­fi­cul­ties and their re­a­sons, the
ne­ed for help at dif­fe­rent sta­ges of as­sign­ment ac­com­plis­hment, as well as li­mi­ta­tions, which ha­ve
to be eli­mi­na­ted, are iden­ti­fied and na­med. The lat­ter se­qu­en­ce of the Co­wan’s (1998) diag­ram cor­
res­ponds two cyc­les of Kolb’s (1984) le­ar­ning from ex­pe­rien­ce: re­flec­ti­ve ob­ser­va­tion and abst­ract
con­cep­tu­a­li­za­tion. In the next sta­ge (Lo­op D) ac­tion-con­so­li­da­ting ma­te­rial, which is of­fe­red by
te­achers, is con­si­de­red. Le­ar­ners, by using the pro­vi­ded ma­te­rial, plan and ap­ply the of­fe­red ide­as
in prac­ti­ce, and this is the es­sen­tial mo­ment in this sta­ge of ac­ti­vi­ty, which cor­res­ponds the cyc­le of
abst­ract con­cep­tu­a­li­sa­tion in the Kolb’s (1984) mo­del. Stu­dents are mo­ti­va­ted to cor­rect draw­backs,
which they ha­ve ob­ser­ved in le­ar­ning, by try­ing to con­so­li­da­te re­flec­ti­ve ana­ly­sis of achie­ved pro­
gress, but yet wit­hout fi­nal re­flec­tion of own ac­ti­vi­ty per­for­man­ce. Though dis­tant­ly but stu­dents
al­re­a­dy fa­ce the op­por­tu­ni­ty to ap­ply new ac­qui­red know­led­ge in prac­ti­ce (Lo­op E). This is re­flec­
tion ac­ti­vi­ty con­cen­tra­ted to what eve­ry stu­dent ha­ve le­arnt about le­ar­ning, how he / she re­flec­ted
his / her thin­king be­cau­se it is being orien­ted to re­flec­tion in com­pa­ri­son to for­mer ac­ti­vi­ty and
thin­king at pre­vio­us lo­ops. In this lo­op the in­ter­ve­ned le­ar­ning and de­ve­lop­ment is iden­ti­fied and
de­fi­ned, i.e. such le­ar­ning, which has to be con­ti­nu­ed and the know­led­ge ac­qui­red du­ring re­flec­tion
has be ap­plied for le­ar­ning pro­cess in the fu­tu­re. A pos­si­bi­li­ty that the last lo­op of ac­tion re­flec­tion
is al­wa­ys ac­ces­sib­le; if the ne­ed or aim oc­curs, re­flec­tion for ac­tion can chan­ge. If it hap­pe­ned, a
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

66
le­ar­ner would mo­ve to anot­her se­qu­en­ce, in which his / her ac­ti­vi­ty would pre­vio­us ex­pe­rien­ce in­
teg­ra­ting in­to the next se­qu­en­ce. Thus the Co­wan’s (1998) diag­ram is not clo­sed and fi­nal, op­po­si­te
than the Kolb’s (1984) mo­del. When thin­king re­flec­ti­ve­ly, it is im­por­tant not to ma­ke pre­con­cei­ved
de­ci­sions ba­sed on­ly on own ex­pe­rien­ce; to the con­tra­ry, it is ne­ces­sa­ry to cri­ti­cal­ly es­ti­ma­te a si­tu­
a­tion (event), to gi­ve a sen­se and to as­sess it by con­si­de­ring new the­o­ries, as well as iden­ti­fy­ing its
strengths and we­ak­nes­ses. Johns (2004) for­mu­la­tes a lot of qu­es­tions, which help to fol­low cer­tain
con­sis­ten­cy in re­flec­tion pro­cess, in the mo­del of struc­tu­red re­flec­tion (see Fi­gu­re 4).

Fi­gu­re 4. Mo­del of struc­tu­ri­zed re­flec­tion (by Johns, 2004).

The qu­es­tions ma­ke fi­ve se­pa­ra­te blocks (desc­rip­tion of a si­tu­a­tion, re­flec­tion, al­ter­na­ti­ve stra­
te­gies, in­flu­en­cing fac­tors, le­ar­ning), which are con­sis­tent­ly ran­ged one by one. Four blocks of the
qu­es­tions are in­teg­ra­ted in­to the en­ti­re­ty by the fifth block – le­ar­ning. Le­ar­ning re­sults are iden­ti­fied
not on­ly in ana­ly­sing and se­ar­ching for an ans­wer to the qu­es­tions of the last block, but al­so they
emer­ge in per­for­ming the desc­rip­tion of a si­tu­a­tion.
The use of mo­dels or sche­mes for in­du­ce­ment of stu­dents’ re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning is not ans­we­ring
par­ti­cu­lar qu­es­tions, but it is sup­port to disc­lo­se the ac­qui­red ex­pe­rien­ce by re­la­ting the­o­re­ti­cal and
prac­ti­cal know­led­ge, by ana­ly­sing ex­pe­rien­ce and by iden­ti­fy­ing what has be­en le­arnt. As the mo­
dels are desc­rip­ti­ve but not nor­ma­ti­ve, it is me­a­ning­ful to tre­at them as fil­ters of the pro­cess, which
al­low se­eing what can be le­arnt. In­teg­ra­tion of mo­dels’ sche­mes in or­ga­ni­zing stu­dents’ te­aching /
le­ar­ning at a hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion in­du­ces stu­dents’ re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning, as well as it streng­
thens the in­ter­re­la­tions­hip of le­ar­ning ex­pe­rien­ce and re­flec­ti­ve ac­ti­vi­ty, which forms in de­di­ca­ting
enough ti­me for re­flec­tion in le­ar­ning ac­ti­vi­ty.
Remigijus BUBNYS, Vilma ŽYDŽIŪNAITĖ. Reflective Learning Models in the Context of Higher Education:
Concept Analysis PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Conc­lu­sions 67

Re­flec­tion orien­ted to in­teg­ra­tion of the­o­ry and prac­ti­ce as well as con­tem­pla­tion of le­ar­ning ac­
ti­vi­ty at the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal stu­dies cre­a­tes pre­mi­ses for im­pro­ve­ment of ‘struc­tu­res’ of the pos­
ses­sed know­led­ge and un­ders­tan­ding of le­ar­ners, which con­sist of in­ter­re­la­ted and in­ter­de­pen­dent
di­men­sions. The first di­men­sion is in­teg­ral and in­vol­ves co­or­di­na­tion of pos­ses­sed true-li­fe prac­ti­
cal ex­pe­rien­ce and the­o­re­ti­cal know­led­ge ac­qui­red at uni­ver­si­ty. The se­cond di­men­sion cre­a­tes con­
di­tions for edu­ca­tio­nal en­vi­ron­ment and ac­ti­vi­ty being per­for­med to re­flect as well as in­vol­ves ele­
ments of the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal le­ar­ning con­texts. The third di­men­sion in­vol­ves in­te­rac­tions with
par­ti­ci­pants of edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess and di­rec­tly in­flu­en­ces stu­dents’ in­vol­ve­ment in­to re­flec­tion.
The lat­ter di­men­sion cre­a­tes pre­mi­ses for the fourth di­men­sion to form – for­ma­tion of pro­fes­sio­nal
iden­ti­ty of a stu­dent as fu­tu­re spe­cia­list and his / her au­to­no­my when stu­dy­ing.
Re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning as con­cep­tion is trans­for­ma­tio­nal pro­cess of fu­tu­re spe­cia­lists at a hig­her
edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion being ac­tu­a­li­sed at the­o­re­ti­cal stu­dies in two le­vels: per­so­nal (in­di­vi­du­al re­
flec­tion) le­vel by re­flec­ting the­o­re­ti­cal ma­te­rial of le­ar­ning and by cre­a­ting in­di­vi­du­al know­led­ge
re­la­ted to out­li­ved ex­pe­rien­ce; in­ter­per­so­nal le­vel (cor­po­ra­te re­flec­tion) with te­achers ini­tia­ting and
sup­por­ting re­flec­tion pro­ces­ses in pro­vi­ding and get­ting fe­ed­back as well as col­le­a­gu­es-stu­dents
to­get­her re­flec­ting out­li­ved ex­pe­rien­ce. Re­flec­tion is a con­ti­nuo­us pro­cess, which is in­se­pa­rab­le
from the trans­fer of the­o­re­ti­cal know­led­ge in prac­ti­cal stu­dies by ac­ting in­di­vi­du­al­ly and re­flec­ting
ac­ti­vi­ties being per­for­med in in­te­rac­tions with col­le­a­gu­es, te­achers-prac­ti­tio­ners, chil­dren, te­achers
and re­la­ti­ves.
Re­flec­ti­ve le­ar­ning as con­ti­nuo­us edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess ta­king pla­ce at in­di­vi­du­al and cor­po­ra­te
le­vels in­vol­ves con­tent (ana­ly­sis of a pro­blem / si­tu­a­tion by pro­jec­ting ac­tion wa­ys and stra­te­gies),
pro­cess (choi­ce of pro­blem-so­lu­tion stra­te­gies and as­ses­sment of their ef­fec­ti­ve­ness), pre­mi­ses (ana­
ly­sis of per­so­nal pre­mi­ses orien­ted to de­ci­sion-ma­king) and it is end­less lo­op pro­cess be­gin­ning
from re­flec­tion for ac­tion by orien­ting to links of new in­for­ma­tion in re­flec­ting with what is known
as well as pro­jec­ting what can be ne­ces­sa­ry to per­form new ac­ti­vi­ty. This pro­cess con­ti­nu­es in the
ac­ti­vi­ty when a per­son re­flects pre­sent si­tu­a­tion as well as orients to dif­fi­cul­ties and their re­a­sons by
es­ti­ma­ting the ne­ed for help at dif­fe­rent sta­ges of as­sign­ment ac­com­plis­hment, iden­ti­fy­ing strengths
and we­ak­nes­ses of ac­tions being per­for­med. Re­flec­tion on ac­tion con­ti­nu­es af­ter the ac­ti­vi­ty when
a le­ar­ner ret­ros­pec­ti­ve­ly re­flects and as­ses­ses ac­qui­red new un­ders­tan­ding by re­flec­ting in ac­tion as
well as what he / she can ap­ply in his / her furt­her le­ar­ning.

Re­fe­ren­ces

Ali­fa­no­vie­nė, D. (2005). Re­flek­sy­vi­nė so­cia­li­nio pe­da­go­go prak­ti­ka. So­cia­li­nių pe­da­go­gų prak­ti­kos


(pp. 48–51). Šiau­liai: Šiau­lių uni­ver­si­te­to lei­dyk­la.

At­kins, S., Murp­hy, K. (1993). Re­flec­tion: a re­view of the li­te­ra­tu­re. Jour­nal of Ad­van­ced Nur­sing, 18,
1188–1192.

Bal­čiū­nie­nė, I. (2006) Re­flek­sy­vių me­to­dų ana­li­zė ir įver­ti­ni­mas dir­bant pa­gal ko­o­pe­ruo­tų stu­di­jų pro­gra­
mą. Jau­nų­jų moks­li­nin­kų dar­bai, 4(11), 44–53.

Ba­ra­naus­kie­nė, R. (1999). Re­flek­ty­vaus mąs­ty­mo me­to­do tai­ky­mas ren­giant mo­ky­to­jus uni­ver­si­te­te.


Šiuo­lai­ki­nės spe­cia­lio­sios ir so­cia­li­nės pe­da­go­gi­kos pro­ble­mos: moks­li­nės kon­fe­ren­ci­jos me­džia­ga
(pp. 65–66). Šiau­liai: Šiau­lių uni­ver­si­te­tas.

Ba­ra­naus­kie­nė, R. (2000). Re­flek­ty­vaus stu­di­jų mo­de­lio ypa­tu­mai mo­ky­mo­si kon­teks­te. So­cia­li­niai


moks­lai: Edu­ko­lo­gi­ja, 5(26), 60–67.

Ba­ra­naus­kie­nė, R. (2003). An­glų kal­bos mo­ky­to­jų stu­di­jų re­flek­ty­vio­ji prak­ti­ka-aukš­to­jo moks­lo pa­ra­
dig­mos vir­smo ir jo raiš­kos įga­li­ni­mo veiks­nys. So­cia­li­niai moks­lai, 2(39), 61–69.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

68
Bar­nett, R. (1992). Im­pro­ving Hig­her Edu­ca­tion. Buc­king­ham: Open Uni­ver­si­ty Press.

Bo­yd, E., Fa­les, A. (1983). Re­flec­ti­ve Le­ar­ning: Key to le­ar­ning from ex­pe­rien­ce. Jour­nal of Hu­ma­nis­tic
Psy­cho­lo­gy, 23(2), 99–117.

Boud, D., Ke­ogh, R., Wal­ker, D. (2005). Re­flec­tion: Tur­ning Ex­pe­rien­ce in­to Le­ar­ning. Lon­don and
New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Broc­kbank, A., McGill, I. (1998). Fa­ci­li­ta­ting Re­flec­ti­ve Le­ar­ning in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion. Buc­king­ham:
SRHE and Open Uni­ver­si­ty.

Broc­kbank, A., McGill, I., Be­ech, N. (2002). Re­flec­ti­ve Le­ar­ning in Prac­ti­ce. Bur­ling­ton: Go­wer Pub­
lis­hing.

Cal­der­he­ad, J., Ga­tes, P. (1993). Con­cep­tu­a­li­zing in Te­acher De­ve­lop­ment. Lon­don, Was­hing­ton, D. C.:
The Fal­mer Press.

Co­wan, J. (1998). On Be­co­ming an In­no­va­ti­ve Uni­ver­si­ty Te­acher. Buc­king­ham: Open Uni­ver­si­ty.

De­wey, J. (1933). How We Think. New York: D. C. He­ath.

De­wey, J. (1938). Ex­pe­rien­ce in Edu­ca­tion. New York: Col­lier Bo­oks.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Le­ar­ning by Doing: A gui­de to te­aching and le­ar­ning met­hods. Ox­ford: Furt­her Edu­
ca­tion Unit, Ox­ford Bro­o­kes Uni­ver­si­ty.

Hat­ton, N., Smith, D. (2006). Re­flec­tion in Te­acher Edu­ca­tion: to­wards De­fi­ni­tion and Im­ple­men­ta­tion.
Aust­ra­lia: Syd­ney Uni­ver­si­ty, Scho­ol of Te­aching and Cur­ri­cu­lum Stu­dies. Avai­lab­le on li­ne at <http://
alex.ed­fac.usyd.edu.au/LocalResource/ori­gi­nals/hat­to­nart.rtf> [ac­ces­sed on 2008-04-12].

Iva­naus­kie­nė V., Lio­bi­kie­nė N. (2005). So­cia­li­nio dar­bo stu­den­tų sa­vi­ref­lek­si­jos ge­bė­ji­mų ug­dy­mas te­
ori­niuo­se kur­suo­se. So­cia­li­nis dar­bas, 4(1), 118–121.

Yip, K. (2006). Self-re­flec­tion in Re­flec­ti­ve Prac­ti­ce: a No­te of Cau­tion. Bri­tish Jour­nal of So­cial Work,
36, 777–788.

Jar­vis, P. (1999). The Practitioner–Researcher. De­ve­lo­ping The­o­ry from Prac­ti­ce. San Fran­cis­co: Jos­
sey-Bass.

Jar­vis, P. (2001). Mo­ky­mo­si pa­ra­dok­sai. Kau­nas: VDU Švie­ti­mo stu­di­jų cen­tras.

Jar­vis, P., Hol­ford, J., Grif­fin, C. (2004). The The­o­ry and Prac­ti­ce of Le­ar­ning. Lon­don: Rout­led­ge Fal­
mer.

Jérôme, P. (2006). Const­ruc­ti­vism: A re-equi­lib­ra­tion and cla­ri­fi­ca­tion of the con­cepts, and so­me po­
ten­tial im­pli­ca­tions for te­aching and pe­da­go­gy. Ra­di­cal Pe­da­go­gy, 8(1). USA: At­ha­bas­ca Uni­ver­si­ty,
In­ter­na­tio­nal Con­sor­tium for the Ad­van­ce­ment of Aca­de­mic Pub­li­ca­tion. Avai­lab­le on li­ne at <http://ra­
di­cal­pe­da­go­gy.ica­ap.org/con­tent/is­sue8_1/proulx.html> [ac­ces­sed on 2009-09-20].

Johns, C. (2004). Be­co­ming a Re­flec­ti­ve Prac­ti­tio­ner. A re­flec­ti­ve and ho­lis­tic ap­pro­ach to cli­ni­cal nur­
sing, prac­ti­ce de­ve­lop­ment and cli­ni­cal su­per­vi­sion. Ox­ford: Blac­kwell Pub­lis­hing.

Ju­ce­vi­čie­nė, P. (2006). Mo­ky­mas aukš­ta­ja­me moks­le: dės­ty­to­jas kaip be­si­mo­kan­ty­sis. So­cia­li­niai moks­
lai, 3 (53), 72–79.

Ke­pa­lai­tė, A. (2005). Pe­da­go­go re­flek­si­jos ypa­tu­mai aka­de­mi­nė­je si­tu­a­ci­jo­je. Ac­ta Pa­e­da­go­gi­ca Vil­nen­
sia, 14, 51–56.

King, T. (2002). De­ve­lop­ment of Stu­dent Skills in Re­flec­ti­ve Wri­ting. Aust­ra­lia: Wes­tern Aust­ra­lia Uni­
ver­si­ty, Or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal and Staff De­ve­lop­ment Ser­vi­ces. Avai­lab­le on li­ne at <http://www.osds.uwa.
edu.au/__da­ta/pa­ge/37666/Ter­ry_King.doc> [ac­ces­sed on 2009-10-13].
Remigijus BUBNYS, Vilma ŽYDŽIŪNAITĖ. Reflective Learning Models in the Context of Higher Education:
Concept Analysis PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Ex­pe­rien­tial le­ar­ning: ex­pe­rien­ce as the sour­ce of le­ar­ning and de­ve­lop­ment. New 69
Jer­sey: Pren­ti­ce-Hall.

Le­win, K. (1951). Field The­o­ry in So­cial Scien­ces. New York: Har­per and Row.

Lin­kai­ty­tė, G. M. (2003). Lie­tu­vos su­au­gu­sių­jų švie­ti­mo nau­jo­vės: kon­teks­tas ir pa­tir­tis. Pro­fe­si­nis ren­
gi­mas. Ty­ri­mai ir ak­tu­a­li­jos, 6, 52–65.

Li­pins­kie­nė, D. (2002). Edu­ka­ci­nė stu­den­tą įga­li­nan­ti stu­di­juo­ti ap­lin­ka. Dak­ta­ro di­ser­ta­ci­ja: So­cia­li­niai
moks­lai (edu­ko­lo­gi­ja). Kau­nas: Kau­no tech­no­lo­gi­jos uni­ver­si­te­tas.

Lough­ran, J. (1996). De­ve­lo­ping Re­flec­ti­ve Prac­ti­ce: Le­ar­ning about Te­aching and Le­ar­ning Through
Mo­del­ling. Lon­don: Fal­mer Press.

Me­zi­row, J. (1990). How Cri­ti­cal Re­flec­tion Trig­gers Trans­for­ma­ti­ve Le­ar­ning. In J. Me­zi­row and As­so­
cia­tes, Fos­te­ring Cri­ti­cal Re­flec­tion in Adult­ho­od. (pp. 1-20). San Fran­cis­co: Jos­sey-Bass Pub­lis­hers.

Mo­on, J. A. (1999). Re­flec­tion in Le­ar­ning and Pro­fes­sio­nal De­ve­lop­ment. The­o­ry and Prac­ti­ce. Lon­don
and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Mor­ri­son, K. (1996). De­ve­lo­ping re­flec­ti­ve prac­ti­ce in hig­her de­gree stu­dents through a le­ar­ning jour­nal.
Stu­dies in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion, 2(1), 317–332.

Os­ter­man, K. F., Kot­tkamp, R. B. (2004). Re­flec­ti­ve Prac­ti­ce for Edu­ca­tors. Pro­fes­sio­nal De­ve­lop­ment
to Im­pro­ve Stu­dent Le­ar­ning. Ca­li­for­nia: Cor­win Press.

Pol­lard, A. (2006). Re­flek­sy­vu­sis mo­ky­mas. Veiks­min­ga ir duo­me­ni­mis pa­rem­ta pro­fe­si­nė prak­ti­ka. Vil­
nius: Gar­ne­lis.

Ram­sey, S. H. (2003). Re­flec­ting on the Fu­tu­re Edu­ca­tion in the Third Mil­len­nium. Cur­ri­cu­lum and Te­
aching Dia­lo­gue, 5(2), 123–130.

Ro­gers, R. (2001). Re­flec­tion in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion: A Con­cept Ana­ly­sis. In­no­va­ti­ve Hig­her Edu­ca­tion,
26(1), 37–57.

Schön, D. (1987). Edu­ca­ting the Re­flec­ti­ve Prac­ti­tio­ner. San Fran­cis­co: Jos­sey-Bass. 

Schön, D. (1991). The Re­flec­ti­ve Prac­ti­tio­nier. How pro­fes­sio­nals think in ac­tion. Gre­at Bri­tain, Lon­
don: Mau­ri­ce Tem­ple Smith Ltd.

Schratz, M., Wal­ker, R. (1998). To­wards Et­hnog­rap­hy of Le­ar­ning: Re­flec­tion-on ac­tion as an ex­pe­rien­
ce of ex­pe­rien­ce. Stu­dies in Cul­tu­res, Or­ga­ni­za­tions and So­cie­ties, 4, 197–209.

Sta­ni­kū­nie­nė, B. (2006). Re­flek­ty­vūs dės­ty­to­jai aukš­ta­ja­me moks­le: skir­tin­gas su­vo­ki­mas ir veik­la jų


mo­ky­mo­si ap­lin­ko­se. So­cia­li­niai moks­lai, 3(53), 59–71.

Strauss, S., Ziv, M., Stein, A. (2002). Te­aching as a Na­tu­ral Cog­ni­tion and its Re­la­tions to
Preschoolers‘Development of The­o­ry of Mind. Cog­ni­ti­ve Dve­lop­ment, 7, 473–787.

Stum­me, G., Wil­le, R., Wil­le, U. (1998). Con­cep­tu­al Know­led­ge Dis­co­ve­ry in Da­ta­ba­ses Using For­mal
Con­cept Ana­ly­sis Met­hods. Ber­lin-Hei­del­berg: Sprin­ger-Ver­lag.

Su­ger­man, D. A., Do­her­ty, K. L., Gar­vey, D. E., Gass, M. A. (2000). Re­flec­ti­ve Le­ar­ning. The­o­ry and
Prac­ti­ce. Ken­dall / Hunt Pub­lis­hing Com­pa­ny.

Šer­nas, V. (2006). Stu­di­jos, jų or­ga­ni­za­vi­mo prin­ci­pai. Lie­tu­vos moks­las. Aka­de­mi­nė edu­ko­lo­gi­ja. Vil­
nius: VĮ Moks­lo­ty­ros ins­ti­tu­tas.

Ta­y­lor, D. (2010). The Li­te­ra­tu­re re­view: A Few Tips On Con­duc­ting It. Ca­na­da: To­ron­to Uni­ver­si­ty.
Avai­lab­le on li­ne at <http://www.wri­ting.uto­ron­to.ca/ad­vi­ce/spe­ci­fic-ty­pes-of-wri­ting/ li­te­ra­tu­re-re­
view> [ac­ces­sed on 2010-01-21].
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

70
Te­re­se­vi­čie­nė, M., Ged­vi­lie­nė, G. (2001). Mo­ky­to­jo pro­fe­si­nio to­bu­lė­ji­mo ga­li­my­bės: pa­tir­tis ir re­flek­si­
ja. Pe­da­go­gi­ka, 51, 133–145.

Us­her, R. (1985). Be­yond the anec­do­tal: Adult le­ar­ning and the use of ex­pe­rien­ce. Stu­dies in the Edu­ca­
tion of Adults, 17, 59–75.

Whi­ta­ker, P. (1995). Ma­na­ging to Le­arn: As­pects of re­flec­ti­ve ex­pe­rien­tial le­ar­ning in scho­ols. New
York: Cas­sell.

Zu­ze­vi­čiū­tė, V. (2005). Me­ta­kog­ni­ty­vi­nių stra­te­gi­jų mo­de­lia­vi­mas uni­ver­si­te­ti­nė­se stu­di­jo­se. Edu­ko­lo­gi­


jos dak­ta­ro di­ser­ta­ci­ja. Kau­nas: Vy­tau­to Di­džio­jo uni­ver­si­te­tas.

Žy­džiū­nai­tė, V. (2001). Far­ma­ko­tech­ni­kos spe­cia­ly­bės stu­den­tų įga­li­ni­mas mo­ty­vuo­toms stu­di­joms, re­


mian­tis pro­ble­mi­niu mo­ky­mu ir re­flek­si­jo­mis. Stu­di­ja. Kau­nas: Kau­no me­di­ci­nos mo­kyk­la.

Ad­vi­ced by Da­rius Ge­ru­lai­tis, Uni­ver­si­ty of Šiau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia

Re­mi­gi­jus Bub­nys PhD., As­so­cia­ted Pro­fes­sor, Siau­liai Uni­ver­si­ty, Vi­sins­kio 25-201 Stre­et, LT-76351 Šiau­
liai, Lit­hu­a­nia.
Pho­ne: +370 686 84 841.
E-mail: rbub­nys@gmail.com
Web­si­te: http://www.su.lt

Vil­ma Žy­džiū­nai­tė Pro­fes­sor, PhD of So­cial Scien­ces (Edu­ca­tion), My­ko­las Ro­me­ris Uni­ver­si­ty, At­ei­ties
Stre­et 20, LT - 08303 Vil­nius, Lit­hu­a­nia
E-mail: vil­ma.zy­dziu­nai­te@mru­ni.eu
Web­si­te: http://www.mru­ni.eu/lt/
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

71

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
OF STUDY PROGRAM MANAGERS:
TOPICALITY AND ESSENCE

Dai­na Cel­ma
Uni­ver­si­ty of Lie­pa­ja, Lat­via
E-mail: dai­na.cel­ma@lie­pu.lv

Aus­ma Go­lu­be­va
Uni­ver­si­ty of Lat­via, Lat­via
E-mail: aus­ma.go­lu­be­va@lu.lv

Abst­ract

As to­day is the ti­me of ra­pid chan­ges, the ac­ti­vi­ties of aca­de­mic per­son­nel be­co­me mo­re and mo­re com­
pli­ca­ted. This al­so re­fers to stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers, who are the res­pon­sib­le per­sons for hig­her edu­ca­
tion stu­dy pro­grams.
Stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers are not spe­cial­ly trai­ned to ma­na­ge stu­dy pro­grams. It is usu­al­ly as­su­med that
any­o­ne with enough aca­de­mic ex­pe­rien­ce and spe­ci­fic aca­de­mic de­gree can be­co­me a stu­dy pro­gram
ma­na­ger and ma­na­ge it through its exis­ten­ce. Ho­we­ver, being a stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger en­tails a wi­de
ran­ge of dif­fe­rent res­pon­si­bi­li­ties which un­der­lies a ne­ed for stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger to pos­sess ma­ny
com­pe­ten­ces that a ma­na­ger in any ot­her or­ga­ni­za­tion or po­si­tion should ha­ve - spe­ci­fic know­led­ge,
skills, abi­li­ties and al­so -pre­fe­rab­ly- cer­tain per­so­nal traits. Ta­king this re­le­vant is­sue in­to ac­count, a re­
se­arch was car­ried out in two Uni­ver­si­ties of Lat­via, whe­re both lec­tu­rers and stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers
we­re as­ked to fill in qu­es­tion­nai­res in or­der to de­fi­ne a set of pro­fes­sio­nal com­pe­ten­ces a suc­ces­sful and
ef­fec­ti­ve stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger should pos­sess. Be­si­des, it was conc­lu­ded that stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­
gers do ne­ed furt­her edu­ca­tion and trai­ning re­gards im­pro­ving their com­pe­ten­ces and ac­qui­ring new
ones. Not sur­pri­sin­gly, this ne­ed for furt­her edu­ca­tion was mo­re stres­sed by the lec­tu­rers than by stu­dy
pro­gram ma­na­gers them­sel­ves.
Key words: com­pe­ten­ces, ma­na­ge­ment, pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment, stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger.

In­tro­duc­tion

The so­cial and eco­no­mic pro­ces­ses that ta­ke pla­ce in the ra­pid­ly chan­ging so­cie­ty of to­day af­
fect all sphe­res of li­fe, all eco­no­mic sec­tors and edu­ca­tion, of cour­se, as well.
Per­son­nel em­plo­y­ed in the area of edu­ca­tion can play an ef­fec­ti­ve ro­le du­ring the pro­cess of
chan­ges; they can be both – ac­ti­ve par­ti­ci­pants and sup­por­ters of this pro­cess. It is being con­sis­tent­
ly re­qui­red that hig­her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions are ab­le to sa­tis­fy per­ma­nent­ly gro­wing and di­ver­si­
fy­ing stu­dents’ le­ar­ning ne­eds. Thus, the qu­a­li­ty of edu­ca­tion in hig­her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions be­
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

72
co­mes mo­re and mo­re im­por­tant and it is the­re­fo­re es­sen­tial that the hig­her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions
can main­tain their po­ten­tial at a high le­vel and even inc­re­a­se it.
It is pos­sib­le in va­rio­us wa­ys – by pro­mo­ting and sup­por­ting the de­ve­lop­ment of scien­ce, by
ef­fec­ti­ve­ly ma­na­ging work of hig­her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions and their struc­tu­ral di­vi­sions, by suc­
ces­sful­ly or­ga­ni­zing stu­dy pro­cess etc. As re­gards the la­ter, it ne­eds to be no­ted that be­si­des go­od
ad­mi­nist­ra­tion of stu­dy pro­cess, al­so the is­sue of stu­dy pro­grams is re­le­vant – whet­her stu­dy pro­
grams are up-to-da­te and con­sis­tent with la­bor mar­ket ne­eds, whet­her they sa­tis­fy the re­qui­re­ments
of the so­cie­ty and how co­or­di­na­ted and tar­ge­ted the ac­tions of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers and lec­tu­
rers are. Con­se­qu­ent­ly, mo­re fo­cus is laid on the di­ver­si­ty of stu­dy pro­grams and their com­plian­ce
with mar­ket ne­eds, as well as on the qu­a­li­ty of stu­dy pro­grams’ con­tent, pos­si­bi­li­ties to im­pro­ve it,
pro­fes­sio­na­lism of lec­tu­rers im­ple­men­ting stu­dy pro­grams and ef­fec­ti­ve ma­na­ge­ment of pro­grams.
This ar­tic­le will fo­cus on the la­ter, na­me­ly, the ma­na­ge­ment of stu­dy pro­grams, and com­pe­ten­ces
and pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of per­sons res­pon­sib­le for it – stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers. Stu­dy pro­
gram ma­na­ger can be de­fi­ned as a per­son who is res­pon­sib­le for a hig­her edu­ca­tion stu­dy pro­gram
and who­se ac­ti­vi­ties be­co­me inc­re­a­sin­gly com­pli­ca­ted.
The aim of the re­se­arch, which is dis­cus­sed in this ar­tic­le, was to exa­mi­ne whet­her stu­dy pro­
gram ma­na­gers ne­ed pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment and what its es­sen­ce should be. Thus, the­se two
pre­vio­us­ly men­tio­ned is­su­es we­re the re­se­arch ob­jects. The re­se­arch qu­es­tions we­re as fol­lo­wing:
• do stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers sup­port furt­her pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment on pro­gram ma­na­ge­
ment is­su­es;
• do lec­tu­rers in­vol­ved in the pro­grams con­si­der such furt­her pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of stu­
dy pro­gram ma­na­gers re­le­vant and ne­ces­sa­ry;
• what is­su­es/to­pics should be inc­lu­ded in the con­tent of furt­her pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment.

De­fi­ning the Pro­blem

In or­der to per­form suc­ces­sful­ly in an or­ga­ni­za­tion, ins­ti­tu­tion or en­ter­pri­se, its ma­na­ger ne­eds


know­led­ge, and skills and abi­li­ties that are ob­tai­ned through le­ar­ning and prac­ti­ce, as well as his/
her own po­si­tion and mo­ti­ves for ac­tions and the abi­li­ty to cre­a­te a com­pe­ti­ti­ve wor­king en­vi­ron­
ment through pur­po­se­ful ac­ti­vi­ties (Dāvid­so­ne, 2008; De­la­ma­re le Deist & Win­ter­ton, 2005; Gre­en,
1999; Spen­cer & Spen­cer, 1993; Svei­by, 2003).
Com­pe­ti­ti­ve­ness is one of the ne­ces­sa­ry le­a­ding mo­ti­ves for suc­ces­sful per­for­man­ce. In this
con­text, ma­na­ger’s per­so­nal traits, re­a­di­ness and skills to ma­na­ge pe­op­le, wil­lin­gness and abi­li­ty to
ta­ke risks and be res­pon­sib­le, wil­lin­gness to achie­ve hig­her re­sults, wish to le­arn on an on­going ba­
sis, al­so from one’s mis­ta­kes and ot­her’s ex­pe­rien­ce and abi­li­ty to orien­ta­te one­self to­wards chan­ge
be­co­me ve­ry im­por­tant (Tam­kin, Bar­ber, 1998).
To­day al­so know­led­ge and skills in the area of in­for­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gies and know­led­ge of
fo­reign lan­gu­a­ges are of gre­at re­le­van­ce for ma­na­gers. Be­si­des, the ac­tions of the ma­na­ger are al­so
in­flu­en­ced by the fol­lo­wing fac­tors - how he/she per­cei­ves his/her ro­le, func­tions and tasks, what
po­si­tion he/she ta­kes as re­gards the em­plo­y­e­es and what his/her wor­king sty­le is – how the ma­na­ge­
ment pro­cess is im­ple­men­ted, how ma­na­ger uses his/her po­wer, whet­her the ma­na­ger has aut­ho­ri­ty,
whet­her he/she is al­so a le­a­der, what com­pe­ten­ces ma­na­ger pos­ses­ses in or­der to per­form ma­na­ge­
ment ef­fec­ti­ve­ly and suc­ces­sful­ly. It should be emp­ha­si­zed, ho­we­ver, that it is re­le­vant that the ma­
na­ger de­ve­lops him/her­self on an on­going ba­sis as it is pos­sib­le to le­arn to be a go­od ma­na­ger.
Alt­hough the­o­ries on ma­na­gers and com­pe­ten­ces ha­ve main­ly be­en de­ve­lo­ped wit­hin the con­
text of bu­si­ness ma­na­ge­ment, it has be­en ad­mit­ted that the­re is no go­od re­a­son why they could not
be equ­al­ly used and at­tri­bu­ted to ma­na­gers in edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions (Gait­her, 2007). Of cour­se,
the pe­cu­lia­ri­ties of aca­de­mic en­vi­ron­ment and spe­ci­fic fe­a­tu­res of ac­ti­vi­ties that are per­for­med in
this area ne­ed to be ta­ken in due ac­count.
It has be­en conc­lu­ded in the re­se­ar­ches on ma­na­ge­ment is­su­es that com­pe­ten­ces can be uni­
ver­sal (thus can be ap­plied to any wor­king en­vi­ron­ment). Ho­we­ver, dif­fe­ren­ces al­so can be ob­ser­
Daina CELMA, Ausma GOLUBEVA. Professional Development of Study Program Managers: Topicality and Essence
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
ved – ma­na­ger in an aca­de­mic or­ga­ni­za­tion dif­fers from that in a bu­si­ness en­ter­pri­se be­cau­se the for­ 73
mer along­si­de with being a ma­na­ger is al­so a re­se­ar­cher, he/she ma­na­ges pro­cess of cre­a­tion among
aca­de­mic per­son­nel, ma­na­ges stu­dy pro­cess and is en­ga­ged in ot­her spe­ci­fic ac­ti­vi­ties (Spend­lo­ve,
2007; Wis­niew­ski, 2007).
As re­gards stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers, it has to be no­ted that they are not spe­ci­fi­cal­ly trai­ned to
ma­na­ge stu­dy pro­grams. It is usu­al­ly as­su­med that any­o­ne from the aca­de­mic per­son­nel of the hig­
her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tion af­ter ha­ving wor­ked in a uni­ver­si­ty for so­me ti­me and ob­tai­ning cer­tain
scien­ti­fic de­gree, as well as pro­fes­sio­nal and so­cial sta­tus, at the sa­me ti­me ac­qui­res skills ne­eded
to be a ma­na­ger. Thus, stu­dy pro­gram can be ma­na­ged by any aca­de­mic em­plo­y­ee, of cour­se, ac­cor­
ding to the Ru­les on the stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger, adop­ted by the hig­her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tion.
Un­mis­ta­kab­ly, work ex­pe­rien­ce has to be ta­ken in­to an ac­count, it ne­eds to be ana­ly­zed, as­ses­
sed and used when ap­pli­cants are cho­sen. Qui­te of­ten a per­son who is in­vi­ted to be­co­me stu­dy pro­
gram ma­na­ger or who brings for­ward his/her own can­di­da­cy cle­ar­ly has an out­stan­ding com­pe­ten­ce
in a scien­ti­fic area he/she rep­re­sents, is ve­ry skil­lful and know­led­ge­ab­le lec­tu­rer, has ob­tai­ned nu­me­
rous aca­de­mic de­gre­es, is ve­ry suc­ces­sful re­se­ar­cher, of­ten ta­kes part in con­fe­ren­ces etc. Ho­we­ver,
in the pro­cess of pro­gram ma­na­ge­ment this per­son has to de­al with ma­ny pro­blems that can be of
or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal na­tu­re or lin­ked to is­su­es of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and co­o­pe­ra­tion etc. This is be­cau­se a
tight in­te­rac­tion exists bet­we­en stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger and lec­tu­rers, stu­dents, rep­re­sen­ta­ti­ves of
ad­mi­nist­ra­tion, em­plo­y­e­es of ot­her struc­tu­ral units/de­part­ments/uni­ver­si­ties, and this co­o­pe­ra­tion is
es­pe­cial­ly im­por­tant to gain and inc­re­a­se re­sults. The abo­ve men­tio­ned me­ans that al­so the ma­na­ger
in a hig­her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tion just li­ke in any ot­her or­ga­ni­za­tion ne­eds to be ab­le to cri­ti­cal­ly
eva­lu­a­te and de­al with dif­fe­rent kinds of in­for­ma­tion; he/she has to be com­pe­tent in ma­ny is­su­es,
such as or­ga­ni­za­tion, co­o­pe­ra­tion, com­mu­ni­ca­tion or any ot­her ac­ti­vi­ty; to use his/her know­led­ge
and skills in prac­ti­ce; to adapt to chan­ging cir­cums­tan­ces, to ta­ke risks, to be re­a­dy to ac­qui­re new
ex­pe­rien­ce through le­ar­ning new things or to de­ve­lop al­re­a­dy exis­ting com­pe­ten­ces. To conc­lu­de,
in or­der to be a go­od ma­na­ger, al­so in an edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tion, an in­di­vi­du­al ne­eds to pos­sess dif­
fe­rent com­pe­ten­ces. In this con­text, abi­li­ty to ma­na­ge one­self can be na­med as one of the im­por­tant
com­pe­ten­ces a go­od ma­na­ger should ha­ve.
It is even being stres­sed that it is not pos­sib­le to suc­ces­sful­ly ma­na­ge ot­hers be­fo­re one has
ob­tai­ned the abi­li­ty to ma­na­ge one­self – his/her wor­king sty­le, at­ti­tu­de; be­fo­re an in­di­vi­du­al has
re­cog­ni­zed the ne­ces­si­ty to de­ve­lop him/her­self (McCaffery, 2004).
Con­ti­nuo­us le­ar­ning and gai­ning ex­pe­rien­ce du­ring work pro­cess is one of its ma­ni­fes­ta­tions.
Ac­tu­al­ly, wil­lin­gness and re­a­di­ness to de­ve­lop one­self is con­si­de­red as one of the most re­le­vant
traits of a go­od and po­wer­ful ma­na­ger. Alt­hough it is not an easy pro­cess, a ma­na­ger ne­eds to de­
ve­lop him/her­self, to ta­ke ca­re of him/her­self and try to be him/her­self. An in­di­vi­du­al can de­ve­lop
him/her­self pro­fes­sio­nal­ly all li­fe long, in­de­pen­dent­ly to the pro­fes­sion and job po­si­tion. Ho­we­ver,
eve­ry­bo­dy has a spe­ci­fic vi­sion on the pro­cess of his/her furt­her edu­ca­tion which is in­flu­en­ced by
par­ti­cu­lar ne­eds, ne­ces­si­ties, pos­si­bi­li­ties, wis­hes and ma­ny ot­her fac­tors.
As Fu­lan no­tes, chan­ge is ine­vi­tab­le, de­ve­lop­ment – pos­sib­le; it is not pos­sib­le to cho­o­se whet­
her to chan­ge or not, but it is pos­sib­le to cho­o­se how to re­act (Fu­lan, 1999).
The to­pi­ca­li­ty of pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment is de­ter­mi­ned by whet­her the ma­na­ger – stu­dy pro­
gram ma­na­ger – pos­ses­ses com­pe­ten­ces that are re­qui­red for per­for­ming a spe­ci­fic job and what
the le­vel of tho­se com­pe­ten­ces is. The most com­mon way, how to de­ter­mi­ne if one is su­ited for ma­
na­ger’s ro­le, is to eva­lu­a­te one’s com­pe­ten­ces, then - to fo­cus on de­fi­cien­cies and we­ak points and
to ela­bo­ra­te an ac­tion plan to era­di­ca­te tho­se draw­backs and to de­ve­lop ne­ces­sa­ry skills and gain
ne­ces­sa­ry know­led­ge.
Be­si­des, it is al­so ve­ry im­por­tant whet­her the pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­
ger as a ma­na­ger, not on­ly as a pro­fes­sio­nal in a spe­ci­fic aca­de­mic do­main is being high­ligh­ted and
sup­por­ted by the work pla­ce, in this ca­se – edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tion. (Bol­den, Gos­ling, 2006).
It can be do­ne in va­rio­us wa­ys, for ins­tan­ce, by as­ses­sing stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger’s com­pe­ten­
ces and their le­vel, by emp­ha­si­zing the op­por­tu­ni­ties a go­od stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger as a ma­na­ger
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

74
can pro­vi­de for the stu­dy pro­gram and eve­ry­bo­dy lin­ked to it or – qui­te on the con­tra­ry – how ac­
ti­vi­ties of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger or lack of such ac­ti­vi­ties could en­dan­ger the exis­ten­ce of stu­dy
pro­gram, and its furt­her de­ve­lop­ment, and thus – even­tu­al­ly – even stu­dy qu­a­li­ty.
“Con­ti­nuo­us pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment should not be, nor should you con­si­der it, a mat­ter of
op­tio­na­li­ty. It is no less than a li­fe­ti­me ob­li­ga­tion and res­pon­si­bi­li­ty.” (McCaffery, 2004, p. 294).

Met­ho­do­lo­gy of Re­se­arch

A qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve and qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve re­se­arch was car­ried out in year 2008-2009 in two Uni­ver­si­ties
of Lat­via in or­der to stu­dy the ro­le and ac­ti­vi­ties of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger in the pro­cess of stu­dy
pro­gram im­ple­men­ta­tion.
Du­ring the first pha­se of the re­se­arch both stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers and lec­tu­rers par­ti­ci­pa­ted
in a sur­vey which was car­ried out in or­der to exa­mi­ne:
1. what are the ne­ces­sa­ry com­pe­ten­ces for stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers – know­led­ge, skills, abi­li­
ties, per­so­nal traits;
2. how is the work du­ring the stu­dy pro­cess or­ga­ni­zed;
3. what is the or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal ro­le of the stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers du­ring the im­ple­men­ta­tion of
the stu­dy pro­cess;
4. whet­her stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers ne­ed pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment;
5. what the es­sen­ce of furt­her pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment should be.
To in­qui­re in­to the abo­ve men­tio­ned is­su­es, a qu­es­tion­nai­re was ela­bo­ra­ted; stu­dy pro­gram ma­
na­gers and lec­tu­rers, who are in­vol­ved in the im­ple­men­ta­tion of stu­dy pro­grams, we­re as­ked to fill
in the ano­ny­mous qu­es­tion­nai­re.
Du­ring the se­cond pha­se of the re­se­arch rep­re­sen­ta­ti­ves of the ad­mi­nist­ra­tions, as well as he­ads
of fa­cul­ties and de­part­ments, un­der the gui­dan­ce of who or in clo­se co­o­pe­ra­tion with who stu­dy pro­
gram ma­na­gers work, we­re in­ter­vie­wed. In­ter­views we­re re­cor­ded (au­dio re­cor­ding) and al­lo­wed
to stu­dy the opi­nions of the pre­vio­us­ly men­tio­ned uni­ver­si­ty of­fi­cials on the fol­lo­wing is­su­es – the
com­pe­ten­ces that are re­le­vant for stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers in or­der to ma­na­ge pro­grams ef­fec­ti­ve­ly;
the or­ga­ni­za­tion of the stu­dy pro­cess and the ro­le of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers in suc­ces­sful im­ple­
men­ta­tion of the pro­grams. The re­sults and ana­ly­sis of is­su­es inc­lu­ded in the in­ter­views are ho­we­ver
not inc­lu­ded in this ar­tic­le.
The re­se­arch was a ca­se stu­dy due to the par­ti­cu­lar in­te­rest of the re­se­ar­chers to stu­dy the ro­les
and ac­ti­vi­ties of stu­dy pro­gram di­rec­tors in the­se ins­ti­tu­tions - two fa­cul­ties of Uni­ver­si­ty of Lat­via
and Uni­ver­si­ty of Lie­pa­ja. Both Uni­ver­si­ties dif­fer in terms of num­ber of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers,
stu­dents and lec­tu­rers and ty­pes and qu­an­ti­ty of stu­dy pro­grams that are im­ple­men­ted the­re. To­tal
num­ber of res­pon­dents - stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers, lec­tu­rers, rep­re­sen­ta­ti­ves of ad­mi­nist­ra­tions, as
well as he­ads of fa­cul­ties and de­part­ments of two uni­ver­si­ty ty­pe hig­her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions –
Uni­ver­si­ty of Lat­via (two fa­cul­ties) and Uni­ver­si­ty of Lie­pa­ja – was – 292 (85.38% from 342).
260 res­pon­dents – 51 stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger and 209 lec­tu­rers in­vol­ved in im­ple­men­ta­tion of the
pro­grams – to­ok part in the qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve sur­vey; 91% of all qu­es­tion­nai­res (48 and 191 ac­cor­din­gly)
we­re re­cei­ved back. 32 res­pon­dents we­re in­ter­vie­wed.
This ar­tic­le sum­ma­ri­zes the re­sults from one part of the re­se­arch, na­me­ly, the ans­wers of the
res­pon­dents to the qu­es­tions inc­lu­ded in the qu­es­tion­nai­re as re­gards the re­le­van­ce and ne­ces­si­ty
of pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers and the es­sen­ce of furt­her pro­fes­sio­nal
de­ve­lop­ment.
A qu­es­tion “Is furt­her edu­ca­tion – pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment – ne­ces­sa­ry in or­der to ma­na­ge a
stu­dy pro­gram or ma­na­ge it bet­ter?” was inc­lu­ded in the qu­es­tion­nai­re. Both stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­
gers and lec­tu­rers we­re as­ked to ans­wer this qu­es­tion. Ans­wer op­tions we­re the fol­lo­wing - “ful­ly
ag­ree”, “ag­ree”, “do not ag­ree”, “ot­her ans­wer”, “no ans­wer”.

The to­tal num­ber of aca­de­mic em­plo­y­e­es wor­king in the two fa­cul­ties of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Lat­via and Uni­ver­si­ty
of Lie­pa­ja.
Daina CELMA, Ausma GOLUBEVA. Professional Development of Study Program Managers: Topicality and Essence
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers and lec­tu­rers we­re al­so as­ked to pro­vi­de ans­wers to the qu­es­tion 75
“What are the is­su­es on which stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers should re­cei­ve furt­her edu­ca­tion and trai­
ning?”. As re­gards lec­tu­rers, their ex­pe­rien­ce wor­king with dif­fe­rent stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers was
to be ta­ken in­to an ac­count. Both groups of res­pon­dents could cho­o­se from al­re­a­dy pre­pa­red ans­wer
list; they we­re as­ked to rank the ans­wers in the or­der of pri­ori­ty; the­re was al­so an op­tion to wri­te
in their own re­plies.

Re­sults of Re­se­arch

The ana­ly­sis of the ob­tai­ned ans­wers to the qu­es­tion – “Is furt­her edu­ca­tion – pro­fes­sio­nal
de­ve­lop­ment – ne­ces­sa­ry in or­der to ma­na­ge a stu­dy pro­gram or ma­na­ge it bet­ter?” shows that
43.8% of the res­pon­dents – stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers – ful­ly ag­ree and 25.0% ag­ree to it (tab­le 1).
That te­sti­fies – the ma­jo­ri­ty stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers re­a­li­ze the re­le­van­ce and ne­ces­si­ty of furt­her
de­ve­lop­ment; be­si­des, al­most half of the res­pon­dents, as men­tio­ned be­fo­re, sup­port this prin­cip­le
un­con­di­tio­nal­ly.

Tab­le 1. Pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers.

Ma­na­gers (n=48) Lec­tu­rers (n=191)


Ans­wers’ op­tions
n % n %
Ful­ly ag­ree 21 43.8 129 67.5
Ag­ree 12 25 53 27.7
Do not ag­ree 6 12.5 5 2.6
Ot­her ans­wer 8 16.7 0 0
No ans­wer 1 2.1 4 2.1
In to­tal: 48 100 191 100

Ho­we­ver, qu­ar­ter of the res­pon­dents, whi­le ag­re­eing to it in prin­cip­le, are not ab­so­lu­te­ly con­
vin­ced, and, ob­vio­us­ly, con­si­der that cer­tain con­di­tions should be met be­fo­re furt­her de­ve­lop­ment
be­co­mes a pen­ding mat­ter. Such con­di­tions could be, for ins­tan­ce, inc­re­a­sing re­qui­re­ments for
qu­a­li­ty of edu­ca­tion and stu­dy pro­grams, chan­ging pro­vi­sions for stu­dy pro­gram ela­bo­ra­tion and
eva­lu­a­tion, etc.
Alt­hough this cle­ar­ly shows a po­si­ti­ve trend among stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers to­wards pro­fes­
sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment, as ma­ny as 12.5% of all res­pon­dents do not ag­ree that furt­her de­ve­lop­ment is
ne­ces­sa­ry and 16.7% ha­ve anot­her ans­wer. In their ex­ten­ded ans­wers res­pon­dents main­ly use such
ex­pla­na­tions – ad­di­tio­nal edu­ca­tion and trai­ning as re­gards ma­na­ge­ment is not ne­eded be­cau­se this
pro­cess do­es not re­qui­re any spe­ci­fic know­led­ge and skills; pre­vio­us ex­pe­rien­ce in ma­na­ging pro­
grams and aca­de­mic ex­pe­rien­ce is suf­fi­cient for being ab­le to ma­na­ge pro­grams ef­fec­ti­ve­ly; it is
enough to ha­ve re­gu­lar pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment in the par­ti­cu­lar aca­de­mic do­main or spe­cial­ty,
the­re is no ne­ed for spe­ci­fic trai­ning in ma­na­ge­ment is­su­es. In this con­text an in­te­res­ting cor­re­la­tion
was ob­ser­ved bet­we­en stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers’ ex­pe­rien­ce in pro­gram ma­na­ge­ment and opi­nions
on the re­le­van­ce of pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment – ma­na­gers with lon­ger ma­na­ge­ment ex­pe­rien­ce and
lon­ger aca­de­mic ex­pe­rien­ce sup­port furt­her pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment less. As un­ders­tan­ding the
re­le­van­ce of pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment is a ve­ry im­por­tant pre­con­di­tion for en­ga­ging in furt­her edu­
ca­tion and trai­ning ac­ti­vi­ties, so­me con­cerns ari­se that the lack of such un­ders­tan­ding might ne­ga­ti­
ve­ly in­flu­en­ce not on­ly the de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger him/her­self, but a wi­der ran­ge
of is­su­es that are de­pen­dent on the ma­na­ger – stu­dy pro­cess smo­oth func­tio­ning, its qu­a­li­ty etc.
The re­plies of the lec­tu­rers pro­vi­de a dif­fe­rent per­spec­ti­ve – as 67.5% of the res­pon­dents ful­ly
sup­port and 27.7% of the res­pon­dents sup­port pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of the ma­na­gers, and on­ly
2.6% think that it is not ne­ces­sa­ry. A conc­lu­sion can be drawn from the­se res­pon­ses that the is­sue
of furt­her edu­ca­tion and trai­ning of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers is not on­ly re­le­vant for lec­tu­rers; it is
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

76
even mo­re im­por­tant for them than for the stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers them­sel­ves. And, in­de­ed, lec­tu­
rers in their ela­bo­ra­ted ans­wers wro­te that stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers of­ten lack know­led­ge and skills
for po­si­ti­ve and open com­mu­ni­ca­tion and co­o­pe­ra­tion wit­hin the pro­gram, they are we­ak le­a­ders
in the pro­gram or do not pos­sess le­a­der traits at all, they are not ab­le or do not want to mo­ti­va­te
tho­se wor­king in the pro­gram, they so­me­ti­mes are cha­o­tic in de­a­ling with ad­mi­nist­ra­ti­ve is­su­es;
fre­qu­ent­ly are not sa­tis­fied and lack self-con­trol ex­pres­sing their emo­tions; are not in­te­res­ted in the
de­ve­lop­ment of the pro­gram; so­me are desc­ri­bed as aut­ho­ri­ta­rian.
Pro­bab­ly, one of the re­a­sons, why ma­na­gers are mo­re skep­ti­cal to­wards furt­her edu­ca­tion and
trai­ning, is their per­cep­tion of it as so­met­hing un­de­si­rab­le; if ad­mit­tan­ce that so­me pro­fes­sio­nal de­
ve­lop­ment is ne­ces­sa­ry and go­od might un­der­mi­ne their qu­a­li­fi­ca­tion.
To sum up, as re­gards is­sue of furt­her pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers,
the ma­jo­ri­ty of the res­pon­dents – stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers (68.8%), sup­port it. As the ap­pro­val of
such ne­ces­si­ty was ob­tai­ned al­so from lec­tu­rers (95.2%) in­vol­ved in im­ple­men­ta­tion of stu­dy pro­
grams, a conc­lu­sion can be drawn that this is­sue is to­pi­cal and re­le­vant.
In or­der to stu­dy what are the is­su­es, on which stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers should re­cei­ve furt­her
edu­ca­tion and trai­ning, res­pon­ses we­re re­cei­ved from stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers and lec­tu­rers. As
re­gards lec­tu­rers, their ex­pe­rien­ce wor­king with dif­fe­rent stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers was to be ta­ken
in­to an ac­count. Dif­fe­ren­ces we­re ob­ser­ved af­ter com­pa­ri­son of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers’ and lec­
tu­rers’ res­pon­ses. (Tab­le 2).

Tab­le 2. The con­tent of pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dy pro­gram




ma­na­gers.

Ma­na­gers Lec­tu­rers
Con­tent is­su­es
n1
% n2
%
Ma­na­ge­ment the­o­ry 14 10.7 92 14.2
Qu­a­li­ty ma­na­ge­ment 28 21.4 118 18.2
Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and co­o­pe­ra­tion 19 14.5 136 20.9
He­alth 7 5.3 38 5.8
Com­pe­ten­ces 22 16.8 129 19.8
Le­ar­ning and im­pro­ving know­led­ge of fo­reign
23 17.6 64 9.8
lan­gu­a­ges
Work with In­ter­net re­sour­ces 14 10.7 63 9.7
Anot­her ans­wer 4 3.1 10 1.5
In to­tal: 131 100 650 100

Tab­le 2 shows that 21.4% of the res­pon­dents – stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers – con­si­der pro­gram
qu­a­li­ty ma­na­ge­ment to be the pri­ori­ty. Le­ar­ning fo­reign lan­gu­a­ges and im­pro­ving the exis­ting know­
led­ge (17.6%), to­pics on the is­sue of com­pe­ten­ces (16.8%) and co­o­pe­ra­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­tion
(14.5%) re­cei­ved lit­tle less sup­port; ho­we­ver, the per­cen­ta­ge dif­fe­ren­ce bet­we­en the abo­ve men­
tio­ned is­su­es is not sig­ni­fi­cant. Ap­pa­rent­ly, as the hig­her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions la­te­ly pay par­ti­
cu­lar at­ten­tion to the qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve func­tio­ning of stu­dy pro­cess, as the re­qui­re­ments of stu­dents and
so­cie­ties in ge­ne­ral to­wards the qu­a­li­ty of edu­ca­tion ha­ve chan­ged in the past years, as the stu­dy
pro­grams tend to be­co­me mo­re and mo­re com­pe­ti­ti­ve, stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers mo­re than ever ne­
ed to fo­cus on pro­mo­ting qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve stu­dy pro­cess, on con­tri­bu­ting to pro­gram de­ve­lop­ment and
at­trac­ting high­ly pro­fes­sio­nal lec­tu­rers, al­so gu­est lec­tu­rers, to work in the pro­gram. Cle­ar­ly, it is
lin­ked to the im­pro­ve­ment of know­led­ge and skills – ma­na­gers ne­ed to know and un­ders­tand la­test
de­ve­lop­ments in the Eu­ro­pe­an edu­ca­tion spa­ce, ne­ed to be ab­le to in­teg­ra­te them in the ma­na­ged
pro­gram; it is al­so im­por­tant to be ab­le to orien­ta­te in the “re­cord ke­e­ping tun­nels”; to know how
to de­ve­lop pro­gram in or­der to ma­ke it com­pe­ti­ti­ve, to pro­mo­te furt­her edu­ca­tion and pro­fes­sio­nal
de­ve­lop­ment of lec­tu­rers.

Num­ber of ti­mes men­tio­ned as the first pri­ori­ty.
Daina CELMA, Ausma GOLUBEVA. Professional Development of Study Program Managers: Topicality and Essence
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Is­su­es con­nec­ted with ma­na­ge­ment the­o­ry – 10.7% and wor­king with In­ter­net re­sour­ces – 77
10.7% re­cei­ved equ­al, but less sup­port. Go­od work or­ga­ni­za­tion and dis­tan­ce com­mu­ni­ca­tion to­day
can not be ima­gi­ned wit­hout usa­ge of mo­dern tech­no­lo­gies and pos­si­bi­li­ties of­fe­red by the In­ter­net.
Ho­we­ver, li­ke­ly, this ex­pe­rien­ce is being ob­tai­ned du­ring the eve­ry day wor­king pro­cess and no
ad­di­tio­nal trai­ning is par­ti­cu­lar­ly re­qui­red. The­re­fo­re it is rat­her un­ders­tan­dab­le and ex­plai­nab­le
why this is­sue do­es not se­em to be of the hig­hest re­le­van­ce. On the ot­her hand, sur­pri­sin­gly, that
ma­na­ge­ment the­o­ry is­sue re­cei­ved as much (or – mo­re pre­ci­se­ly – as lit­tle) sup­port and, ac­cor­din­
gly, in the opi­nion of the res­pon­dents do­es not se­em that im­por­tant. Aut­hors of the ar­tic­le be­lie­ve
this is­sue is not ir­re­le­vant and should ha­ve re­cei­ved mo­re sup­port. Ho­we­ver, as al­re­a­dy men­tio­ned
abo­ve, pro­bab­ly, ma­na­gers per­cei­ve their pre­vio­us pro­gram ma­na­ge­ment and aca­de­mic ex­pe­rien­ce
as suf­fi­cient grounds for suc­ces­sful and ef­fec­ti­ve ma­na­ge­ment of stu­dy pro­grams.
Lec­tu­rers’ opi­nions dif­fer from the point of view of ma­na­gers as re­gards the pri­ma­ry to­pics
on which ma­na­gers should re­cei­ve furt­her edu­ca­tion and trai­ning. Lec­tu­rers hold the view that the
pri­ori­ty for the stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers should be the im­pro­ve­ment of their know­led­ge on com­mu­
ni­ca­tion and co­o­pe­ra­tion is­su­es – 20.9%. The­se re­plies show that from the view­point of lec­tu­rers,
the most sig­ni­fi­cant are so­cial and per­so­nal com­pe­ten­ces – co­o­pe­ra­tion, in­te­rac­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­
tion skills. The­se skills should be ob­tai­ned and de­ve­lo­ped. In eve­ry work pla­ce po­si­ti­ve emo­tio­nal
bac­kground cre­a­tes ple­a­sant and fa­vo­rab­le wor­king con­di­tions, mo­ti­va­tes em­plo­y­e­es, inc­re­a­ses
their pro­duc­ti­vi­ty and im­pro­ves their per­for­man­ces. The is­su­es of co­o­pe­ra­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­tion
are fol­lo­wed by to­pics on com­pe­ten­ce – 19.8%, qu­a­li­ty ma­na­ge­ment – 18.2%, and ma­na­ge­ment the­
o­ry – 14.2%. Lec­tu­rers com­pre­hend that to­day is­su­es li­ke stu­dent in­te­rest in the pro­gram and the
num­ber of stu­dents par­ti­ci­pa­ting in it, as well as po­si­ti­ve fe­ed­back and eva­lu­a­tion of the pro­gram,
sup­port for the pro­gram from the ma­na­ge­ment of the uni­ver­si­ty etc. are ve­ry sig­ni­fi­cant for the pro­
gram.
Ho­we­ver, on­ly a small num­ber of res­pon­dents from both res­pon­dent groups (5.3% of the pro­
gram ma­na­gers and 5.8% of the lec­tu­rers) ag­re­ed that he­alth is­su­es should be inc­lu­ded in the es­sen­
ce of pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment. Not­wit­hstan­ding the fact that pro­gram ma­na­ge­ment re­qui­res ma­jor
emo­tio­nal ef­forts, cre­a­ti­ve ap­pro­ach and that fre­qu­ent ten­sion and stress si­tu­a­tions and ex­haus­tion
mo­ments oc­cur, most of the stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers and al­so lec­tu­rers did not think that ad­di­tio­nal
in­for­ma­tion and know­led­ge as re­gards he­alth pro­mo­tion is­su­es is ne­ces­sa­ry. One of the ex­pla­na­
tions could be that long work ex­pe­rien­ce and pro­fes­sio­nal ap­pro­ach, as well as the way ma­na­gers
per­cei­ve and in­ter­pret events al­low them to de­al with stress ef­fec­ti­ve­ly. Anot­her ex­pla­na­tion – res­
pon­dents are sup­por­ters of he­alt­hy li­fe sty­le al­re­a­dy and thus they do no ha­ve any he­alth pro­blems,
or do not see the ne­ces­si­ty to pub­lic­ly men­tion any.
Me­anw­hi­le, an as­sump­tion can be ma­de that this ans­wer do­es in ge­ne­ral com­ply with the par­
ti­cu­la­ri­ties of Lat­via’s so­cie­ty, na­me­ly, ta­king in­to ac­count ove­rall eco­no­mic and so­cial pro­blems,
it might se­em inap­prop­ria­te and ir­re­le­vant to emp­ha­si­ze such a per­so­nal and even ob­vio­us is­sue.
Ho­we­ver, as no­wa­da­ys stress in the work pla­ce and its ne­ga­ti­ve con­se­qu­en­ces is a ve­ry com­mon and
se­rio­us pro­blem, it would not be cor­rect to dis­re­gard it.
Ho­we­ver, des­pi­te the low re­le­van­ce of per­so­nal he­alth is­su­es, the fol­lo­wing ex­tra is­su­es and
to­pics we­re stres­sed by res­pon­dents in their open ans­wers as rat­her im­por­tant – ti­me ma­na­ge­ment,
“self-ma­na­ge­ment”, con­flict re­cog­ni­tion and sol­ving, new trends in the area of edu­ca­tion, wa­ys of
re­la­xa­tion. That pro­ves that lec­tu­rers and – mo­re im­por­tant – al­so ma­na­gers re­a­li­ze that ma­ny is­su­
es and as­pects are im­por­tant for a go­od ma­na­ger – ma­na­ger. They un­ders­tand that not on­ly for­mal
ad­mi­nist­ra­ti­ve skills and ge­ne­ral com­mu­ni­ca­tion abi­li­ties are im­por­tant; but a bro­ad set of va­rio­us
is­su­es has to be co­ve­red if one wants to be a go­od, ef­fec­ti­ve and suc­ces­sful ma­na­ger. Be­si­des, it is
not on­ly pos­sib­le, but al­so ne­ces­sa­ry to ac­qui­re the­se com­pe­ten­ces.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

78 Conc­lu­sions

The aim of the re­se­arch was to exa­mi­ne whet­her stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers ne­ed furt­her pro­fes­
sio­nal edu­ca­tion and de­ve­lop­ment and what its con­tent should be.
It has be­en conc­lu­ded du­ring the re­se­arch that in ge­ne­ral both - stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers and
lec­tu­rers - sup­port furt­her de­ve­lop­ment of the ma­na­gers. It was al­so conc­lu­ded that:
• stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers re­a­li­ze the ne­ces­si­ty of furt­her pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment, be­si­des,
al­most half of all res­pon­dents ac­cept such prin­cip­le un­con­di­tio­nal­ly, but a qu­ar­ter of res­
pon­dents ap­pa­rent­ly con­si­der that pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment be­co­mes a pen­ding mat­ter in
cer­tain cir­cums­tan­ces, when cer­tain con­di­tions are met. Con­se­qu­ent­ly, in ge­ne­ral, a po­si­ti­ve
trend can be ob­ser­ved as re­gards pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment;
• the is­sue of furt­her pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers as ma­na­gers is not
on­ly re­le­vant for lec­tu­rers, who work un­der their gui­dan­ce and su­per­vi­sion, but even mo­re
im­por­tant than for ma­na­gers them­sel­ves;
• views on the pri­ori­ties of the con­tent of furt­her trai­ning and edu­ca­tion va­ry: stu­dy pro­gram
ma­na­gers mo­re sup­port is­su­es that are lin­ked to qu­a­li­ty ma­na­ge­ment, le­ar­ning fo­reign lan­
gu­a­ges or im­pro­ving the exis­ting know­led­ge; on the ot­her hand, lec­tu­rers stress to­pics on
com­mu­ni­ca­tion and co­o­pe­ra­tion, and, then, al­so qu­a­li­ty ma­na­ge­ment and com­pe­ten­ces.
The ana­ly­sis of the ob­tai­ned da­ta al­lows con­si­de­ring the is­sue of pro­gram ma­na­gers’ furt­her
pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment to be to­pi­cal; it al­so gi­ves the pos­si­bi­li­ty to out­li­ne the es­sen­ce of furt­her
pro­fes­sio­nal edu­ca­tion and trai­ning.
Ho­we­ver, it should be un­der­li­ned that is­su­es of pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment and its con­tent spe­
ci­fi­cal­ly for ma­na­gers – stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers – ha­ve be­en ra­re­ly exa­mi­ned and stu­died in the
the­o­re­ti­cal li­te­ra­tu­re. The­re­fo­re this re­se­arch was built main­ly on ge­ne­ral the­o­re­ti­cal conc­lu­sions on
ma­na­ge­ment and ma­na­gers of dif­fe­rent le­vels in the hig­her edu­ca­tion.
Yet, this dis­cus­sion has so­me li­mi­ta­tions – first­ly, opi­nions of rep­re­sen­ta­ti­ves of edu­ca­tio­nal
ins­ti­tu­tions’ ad­mi­nist­ra­tions and he­ads of the de­part­ments, in sub­or­di­na­tion of who or in co­o­pe­ra­
tion with who stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers work, we­re not dis­cus­sed in this ar­tic­le. Ho­we­ver, their
view­points and at­ti­tu­des are im­por­tant, as the sup­port from edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tion’s ad­mi­nist­ra­tion
or re­qui­re­ment to be a pro­fes­sio­nal em­plo­y­ee - stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger – can pro­mo­te furt­her pro­fes­
sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment. Se­cond­ly, as re­gards the re­se­arch - the re­sults of it ap­ply to the par­ti­cu­lar group
that was co­ve­red in this re­se­arch, na­me­ly, stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­gers of the­se two edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­
tions, and thus can be furt­her used for pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment of them; the re­sults, ho­we­ver, do
not al­low con­si­de­ring, whet­her is­su­es of stu­dy pro­gram ma­na­ger’s pro­fes­sio­nal de­ve­lop­ment and its
con­tent in the pro­vi­ded in­ter­pre­ta­tion are re­le­vant and to­pi­cal for all hig­her edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions
of Lat­via.

Re­fe­ren­ces
Bru­man, A. (2007). Ef­fec­ti­ve Le­a­ders­hip in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion. Re­se­arch and De­ve­lop­ment Se­ries. Le­a­
ders­hip Foun­da­tion for Hig­her Edu­ca­tion.
Bol­den, R., Gos­ling J. (2006). Le­a­ders­hip Com­pe­ten­cies: Ti­me to Chan­ge the Tu­ne. Sa­ge Pub­li­ca­tions. 
Dāvid­so­ne, G. (2008). Or­ga­nizāci­ju efek­ti­vitātes mo­de­lis. [Mo­del of Or­ga­ni­za­tions’ Ef­fec­ti­ve­ness] Rīga:
Or­ga­ni­za­tion De­ve­lop­ment Aca­de­my.
Le Deist, F.D., Win­ter­ton, J. (2005).What is Com­pe­ten­ce? Hu­man Re­sour­ce De­ve­lop­ment In­ter­na­tio­nal.
8 (1), pp. 27–46.
Fu­lans, M. (1999). Pārmaiņu spēki. [Chan­ge for­ces] Rīga: Zvaigz­ne ABC.
Gait­her, G. H. (2007). De­ve­lo­ping Le­a­ders­hip Skills in Aca­de­mia: http://www.aca­de­mic­le­a­ders­hip.org.
Gre­en, P. C. (2009). Buil­ding Ro­bust Com­pe­ten­cies: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/aw­cga­te/doc/.
Daina CELMA, Ausma GOLUBEVA. Professional Development of Study Program Managers: Topicality and Essence
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
McCaffery, P. (2004). The Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Ma­na­ger’s Hand­bo­ok. Ef­fec­ti­ve le­a­ders­hip and ma­na­ge­ 79
ment in Uni­ver­si­ties and col­le­ges. Lon­don: Rout­led­ge Fal­mer.
Spen­cer, L. M. & Spen­cer, S. M. (1993). Com­pe­ten­ce at Work. Mo­dels for Su­pe­rior Per­for­man­ce. John
Wi­ley&Sons Inc.
Spend­lo­ve, M. (2007). Com­pe­ten­cies for ef­fec­ti­ve le­a­ders­hip in hig­her edu­ca­tion. In­ter­na­tio­nal Jour­nal
of Edu­ca­tio­nal Ma­na­ge­ment, 21 (5) pp. 407–417.
Svei­by, K.E. (2008). Or­ga­ni­zing for ef­fec­ti­ve Know­led­ge Work: http://svei­by.com/ar­tic­les/Kwor­kerdvl­
pment.htm .
Tam­kin, P., Bar­ber, L. (1998). Le­ar­ning to Ma­na­ge. Suc­cess Uni­ver­si­ty. The Ins­ti­tu­te Em­plo­y­ment Stu­
dies.
Wis­niew­ski, M. A. (2007). Le­a­ders­hip in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion: Im­pli­ca­tions for Le­a­ders­hip De­ve­lop­ment
Pro­grams: http://www.aca­de­mic­le­a­ders­hip.org/le­a­der_ac­tion_tips?LEADERSHIP_IN_HIGHER.

Ad­vi­ced by Os­kar Zids, Uni­ver­si­ty of Lie­pa­ja, Lat­via

Cel­ma Dai­na Dr.oec., Uni­ver­si­ty of Lie­pa­ja, Di­rec­tor of Ins­ti­tu­te of Ma­nag­ment Scien­ces, Lie­la ie­la
14, Lie­pa­ja, Lat­via.
Pho­ne: +37129113568.
E-mail: dai­na.cel­ma@lie­pu.lv

Go­lu­be­va Aus­ma Mag.pa­ed., Lec­tu­rer, stu­dy pro­gram di­rec­tor, Uni­ver­si­ty of Lat­via, Bri­vi­bas ie­la 45-3a,
Ri­ga, Lat­via.
E-mail: dai­na.cel­ma@lie­pu.lv
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

80

Dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en le­ar­ning


facts and com­plex phe­no­me­na:
A le­ar­ning stu­dy in his­to­ry
ba­sed on Va­ria­tion The­o­ry

Mo­na Holm­qvist, Kar­men Björkman, Ma­lin Oh­lin


Kris­tians­tad Uni­ver­si­ty, Swe­den
E-mail: mo­na.holm­qvist@hkr.se; ma­lin_oh­lin@edu.sol­ves­borg.se;
Kar­men.Bjor­kman@iuc-olof­strom.se

Abst­ract

This stu­dy has be­en car­ried out as part of a pro­ject en­tit­led “The Pe­da­go­gy of Le­ar­ning” (Holm­qvist,
2002) who­se ob­jec­ti­ve is to use the­o­ry and prac­ti­ce to ex­tend our know­led­ge of le­ar­ning and te­aching.
The stu­dy was im­ple­men­ted at the up­per se­con­da­ry scho­ol le­vel and in­vol­ved stu­dents in the first year
of the so­cial scien­ce pro­gram­me. Two clas­ses we­re even­ly di­vi­ded in­to three groups. The “le­ar­ning stu­
dy” mo­del (Holm­qvist, 2006) was em­plo­y­ed and three re­se­arch les­sons in his­to­ry we­re the fo­cus of the
stu­dy. The aim was to desc­ri­be what stu­dents could po­ten­tial­ly le­arn, and then com­pa­re this with what
they ac­tu­al­ly le­ar­ned with re­gard to cri­ti­cal as­pects of his­to­ri­cal know­led­ge of the le­ar­ning ob­ject. The
le­ar­ning ob­ject was exem­pli­fied by the pe­riod when Skåne, the sout­hern part of the pre­sent coun­try of
Swe­den, be­ca­me Swe­dish af­ter a pe­riod of Da­nish ru­le. By exa­mi­ning dif­fe­rent as­pects of the le­ar­ning
ob­ject, the as­pects ne­ces­sa­ry to bring about le­ar­ning we­re cla­ri­fied. The les­sons them­sel­ves we­re ana­ly­
sed in ac­cor­dan­ce with Va­ria­tion The­o­ry (Holm­qvist, Gus­tav­sson & Wern­berg, 2008; Holm­qvist & Mat­
tis­son, 2008), ac­cor­ding to the cons­ti­tu­ent con­cepts of dis­cern­ment, si­mul­ta­nei­ty, and va­ria­tion. What
va­ries and what is in­va­riant in a le­ar­ning si­tu­a­tion are im­por­tant in de­ter­mi­ning what can be le­ar­ned
(Mar­ton & Bo­oth, 1997). Chan­ges we­re im­ple­men­ted in how cer­tain cri­ti­cal as­pects of the sub­ject we­re
pre­sen­ted to stu­dents with the go­al of im­pro­ving the stu­dent le­ar­ning out­co­mes. The re­sults con­fir­med
that the na­tu­re of what was taught re­sul­ted in dif­fe­rent le­ar­ning pos­si­bi­li­ties. One such ele­ment was the
abi­li­ty to iden­ti­fy with tho­se who li­ved du­ring the pe­riod stu­died. Cre­a­ting a kind of com­pas­sion for one
or mo­re fic­ti­tio­us per­sons enab­led stu­dents to dis­cern mo­re easi­ly the cri­ti­cal as­pects. One conc­lu­sion of
this stu­dy was that an ef­fec­ti­ve le­ar­ning stra­te­gy for stu­dents is hard to de­ve­lop be­cau­se they try to fo­cus
both on un­ders­tan­ding the le­ar­ning ob­ject it­self, and on gat­he­ring hints from the te­acher about what will
be on the up­co­ming exa­mi­na­tion (which cons­ti­tu­tes a se­cond im­pli­cit le­ar­ning ob­ject). This is amounts
to a ‘Gu­ess what he is thin­king’ ga­me with the te­acher, rat­her than de­ve­lo­ping a re­al un­ders­tan­ding of
the le­ar­ning ob­ject it­self. Anot­her conc­lu­sion un­ders­co­red the im­por­tant ro­le pla­y­ed by the de­ve­lo­ped un­
ders­tan­ding of the le­ar­ning ob­ject in pro­du­cing long-term or so-cal­led ‘ge­ne­ra­ti­ve le­ar­ning’. Our stu­dy
de­monst­ra­ted that the­re is a dif­fe­ren­ce in the long term bet­we­en dec­re­a­sed le­ar­ning of iso­la­ted facts and
inc­re­a­sed com­pre­hen­sion of ove­rall his­to­ri­cal phe­no­me­na.
Key words: le­ar­ning stu­dy, va­ria­tion the­o­ry, his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness.
Mona HOLMQVIST, Karmen BJÖRKMAN, Malin OHLIN. Differences between Learning Facts and Complex
Phenomena: a Learning Study in History Based on Variation Theory PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
In­tro­duc­tion 81

Dis­cus­sions cons­tant­ly ta­ke pla­ce about stu­dent le­ar­ning in re­la­tion to a te­acher’s abi­li­ty to te­
ach. Carl­gren & Mar­ton (2001) ha­ve ex­ten­ded this dis­cus­sion furt­her to a con­si­de­ra­tion of so­cie­ty’s
ex­pec­ta­tions of what cons­ti­tu­tes a te­acher’s most im­por­tant task. No­wa­da­ys te­achers se­em to be vie­
wed less as pur­ve­y­ors of know­led­ge than as ma­na­gers of stu­dent le­ar­ning. In ad­di­tion, it has be­en
clai­med that com­pu­ters will one day ta­ke over tasks for­mer­ly pro­vi­ded by te­achers, na­me­ly, the pre­
sen­ta­tion of the sub­ject mat­ter and the eva­lu­a­tion of le­ar­ning. To­get­her with the abo­ve-men­tio­ned
aut­hors, we ta­ke as our point of de­par­tu­re the be­lief that a te­acher’s most im­por­tant ro­le – now and
in the fu­tu­re – is the fa­ci­li­ta­tion of stu­dent le­ar­ning.
The qu­es­tion con­si­de­red he­re is how a te­acher’s words and ac­tions af­fect a stu­dent’s pos­si­bi­li­ty
to le­arn. The pre­sent stu­dy desc­ri­bes what three groups of stu­dents le­ar­ned from a his­to­ry les­son,
whe­re­by the cri­ti­cal as­pects (i.e., tho­se ne­eded to un­ders­tand a phe­no­me­non) are de­fi­ned. The the­o­
re­ti­cal fra­me­work of our stu­dy is va­ria­tion the­o­ry, which as­su­mes that le­ar­ning is a va­ria­tion of the
cri­ti­cal as­pects of the le­ar­ning ob­ject. Dis­cern­ment of a phe­no­me­non de­mands the abi­li­ty to dis­cern
it as in so­me way from ot­her phe­no­me­na. In ot­her words, if you dis­cern so­me­o­ne as tan­ned, you
most li­ke­ly ha­ve se­en ot­hers who you dis­cer­ned as not tan­ned. Va­ria­tion the­o­ry has be­en de­ve­lo­ped
by Mar­ton & Both 1997), along with a num­ber ot­her re­se­ar­chers (Ru­nes­son 1999; Mar­ton & Tsui
2004; Holm­qvist 2004; Holm­qvist, Gus­tav­sson & Wern­berg, 2007; Holm­qvist, Gus­tav­sson & Wern­
berg, 2008; Holm­qvist, Lind­gren, Mat­tis­son & Svar­vell, 2008; Holm­qvist & Mat­tis­son, 2008).
The stu­dy is part of a pro­ject cal­led “The Pe­da­go­gy of Le­ar­ning”, and has be­en car­ried out by
re­se­ar­chers from Kris­tians­tad Uni­ver­si­ty Col­le­ge and Got­hen­burg Uni­ver­si­ty. The pro­ject was led
by Mo­na Holm­qvist of Kris­tians­tad Uni­ver­si­ty Col­le­ge, and was fun­ded by the Swe­dish Re­se­arch
Coun­cil. The aim was to exa­mi­ne the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal as­pects of le­ar­ning and te­aching in or­der
to de­ve­lop know­led­ge about le­ar­ning and te­aching which could be used in both te­acher edu­ca­tion
pro­grams as well as in-ser­vi­ce trai­ning.
The pre­sent le­ar­ning stu­dy is the first in Swe­den to fo­cus on his­to­ry as a scho­ol sub­ject wit­hin
the pro­ject “The Pe­da­go­gy of Le­ar­ning”, which has al­re­a­dy con­duc­ted stu­dies con­cen­tra­ting on En­
glish as Se­cond Lan­gu­a­ge (ESL), Swe­dish, and Mat­he­ma­tics from pre-scho­ol to up­per se­con­da­ry
scho­ol. Our aim was to stu­dy dif­fe­ren­ces in how stu­dents de­ve­lop an un­ders­tan­ding of a le­ar­ning
ob­ject on the ba­sis of the va­ria­tion the­o­ry. The stu­dy spe­ci­fi­cal­ly in­ves­ti­ga­ted his­to­ri­cal phe­no­me­na
of the se­ven­te­enth cen­tu­ry, the pe­riod when Skåne be­ca­me Swe­dish (1650 to 1660). The qu­es­tions
we ad­dres­sed we­re:
1. What we­re stu­dents gi­ven the op­por­tu­ni­ty to le­arn and what did they ac­tu­al­ly le­arn?
2. What cri­ti­cal as­pects of the le­ar­ning ob­ject im­pac­ted stu­dent le­ar­ning?
3. In what wa­ys is a te­acher’s abi­li­ty to of­fer stu­dents di­men­sions of va­ria­tion in the le­ar­ning
si­tu­a­tion im­por­tant to bring about le­ar­ning?

The­o­re­ti­cal As­sump­tions

His­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness is a well-known con­cept, but in the se­con­da­ry scho­ol syl­la­bus it is an ad­
van­ced no­tion. The de­fi­ni­tion of his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness is unc­le­ar, both among re­se­ar­chers and on the
ba­sis of the syl­la­bus. Re­se­ar­chers in the field of his­to­ri­cal di­dac­tics and his­to­rians ha­ve va­ry­ing con­
cep­tions of his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness. This is furt­her com­pli­ca­ted by the dif­fe­ren­ce bet­we­en “his­to­ri­cal
awa­re­ness” and “awa­re­ness of his­to­ry”. His­to­rians ha­ve fo­cus­sed on what has hap­pe­ned in the past
(awa­re­ness of his­to­ry), whi­le edu­ca­tio­nal re­se­ar­chers ha­ve lo­o­ked to the past in or­der to un­ders­tand
the pre­sent and pre­pa­re for the fu­tu­re (his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness).
The dif­fe­rent de­fi­ni­tions of the con­cept of his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness his­to­rians and edu­ca­tio­nal re­se­
ar­chers re­ly on are pre­sen­ted by Jeis­mann in the ar­tic­le “Ges­chich­tsbe­wus­stsein” in the “Hand­buch
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

82
der Ges­chich­tsdi­dak­tik” [“his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness” in the Hand­bo­ok of His­to­ri­cal Di­dac­tics”]. Jen­sen
(1997) sum­ma­ri­zes Jeis­mann’s main points as fol­lows:

1. His­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness is the per­ma­nent pre­sent know­led­ge about that all pe­op­le and all di­rec­
tion and sha­pes of li­fe they cre­a­ted in ti­me i.e., they ha­ve an ori­gin and a fu­tu­re and cons­ti­tu­
te so­met­hing uns­tab­le, in­cons­tant, and un­con­di­tio­ned.
2. His­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness inc­lu­des the con­text of in­ter­pre­ta­tions of the past, un­ders­tan­ding of the
pre­sent, and per­spec­ti­ves on the fu­tu­re.
3. His­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness is how what has trans­pi­red in the past has sha­ped cur­rent views and
at­ti­tu­des.
4. His­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness rests on a com­mon un­ders­tan­ding of emo­tio­nal ex­pe­rien­ces. This com­
mon un­ders­tan­ding is a ne­ces­sa­ry com­po­nent in the for­ma­tion and growth of hu­man so­cie­
ties. (Jen­sen 1997)

The emp­ha­sis on the di­men­sion of ti­me is an as­pect that di­vi­des the four dif­fe­rent points. Hart­
smar (2001) desc­ri­bes the con­cept of his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness as ha­ving ma­ny in­ter­pre­ta­tions which,
in turn, af­fect the con­tent and met­ho­do­lo­gy used in te­aching his­to­ry. In this pa­per, the de­fi­ni­tion of
his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness is ba­sed on awa­re­ness of ti­me. Such an awa­re­ness of ti­me inc­lu­des in­ter­pre­ta­
tions of past events, pre­sent si­tu­a­tions, and fu­tu­re ex­pec­ta­tions. Such in­ter­pre­ta­tions may be­co­me
part of one’s iden­ti­ty.  In or­der to de­ve­lop his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness, the com­po­nents or ‘small parts of
his­to­ry’ ha­ve to be se­en as part of the ‘en­ti­re his­to­ry’. Hart­smar is cri­ti­cal of te­aching stu­dents about
the past wit­hout ma­king con­nec­tions to the stu­dent’s pre­sent re­a­li­ty. Le­ar­ning about iso­la­ted his­to­ri­
cal facts se­ems to pro­mo­te ro­le me­mo­ri­za­tion ins­te­ad of de­e­per un­ders­tan­ding. Tosh (2000) de­fi­nes
his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness as:

. . . a ge­ne­ral ca­te­go­ry that co­vers all sha­pes of his­to­ri­cal thin­king. It is a kind


of awa­re­ness of the sur­roun­ding world whe­re the chan­ge over ti­me is cen­tral.
The re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en the last, pre­sent and the fu­tu­re is inc­lu­ded as cru­cial
ele­ment in this kind of awa­re­ness (p. 128).

The edu­ca­tio­nal re­se­arch tra­di­tion has in ma­ny wa­ys tried to te­ach eve­ryt­hing to eve­ry­o­ne.
But is that pos­sib­le? Säljö (2000) claims ac­ting in dif­fe­rent prac­ti­ces me­ans dif­fe­rent wa­ys to ex­pe­
rien­ce the world. Sin­ce pe­op­le ha­ve had dif­fe­rent ex­pe­rien­ces, in­di­vi­du­als re­act to new phe­no­me­na
dif­fe­rent­ly. “If we could dis­cern all as­pects and ta­ke them in­to con­si­de­ra­tion at the sa­me ti­me, each
si­tu­a­tion would be con­si­de­red in the sa­me way by all per­sons” (p. 131). Ins­te­ad, we know that in­di­vi­
du­als ex­pe­rien­ce the sa­me phe­no­me­non in va­rio­us wa­ys. It se­ems as though “to dis­cern so­met­hing
from the con­text and to re­la­te it to this con­tex­t – or to ot­her con­texts” (Carl­gren & Mar­ton 2001,
p. 132) [aut­hor’s tran­sla­tion] re­sults in dif­fe­rent wa­ys of se­eing which, in turn, cre­a­te va­ria­tions in
the pos­sib­le wa­ys to dis­cern a phe­no­me­non.
Va­ria­tion the­o­ry is still un­der de­ve­lop­ment (Mar­ton & Both 1997; Ru­nes­son 1999; Mar­ton &
Tsui 2004; Holm­qvist 2004; Holm­qvist ed, 2006, Holm­qvist, Gus­tav­sson & Wern­berg, 2007, Holm­
qvist, Gus­tav­sson & Wern­berg, 2008; Holm­qvist, Lind­gren, Mat­tis­son & Svar­vell, 2008; Holm­qvist
& Mat­tis­son, 2008). It is used to stu­dy pe­op­le’s dif­fe­rent wa­ys to un­ders­tand or to ex­pe­rien­ce phe­no­
me­non. Dif­fe­ren­ces in ex­pe­rien­ces de­pend on how the phe­no­me­non is dis­cer­ned; in terms of parts
dis­cer­ned from the who­le and in what way the parts on the ot­her hand are se­en as a who­le. How to
dis­cern a part from the who­le and the parts against each ot­her is de­pen­ding on how one con­si­ders
a le­ar­ning ob­ject. Or as Ru­nes­son (1999) claims ‘in or­der to know what so­met­hing is you ha­ve to
what it is not’ [aut­hors’ tran­sla­tion] (a.a.s.31).
Va­ria­tion the­o­ry is ba­sed on the as­sump­tion that le­ar­ning re­qui­res va­ria­tion (Ru­nes­son 1999).
Three dif­fe­rent con­cepts are im­por­tant in or­der to le­arn: dis­cern­ment, si­mul­ta­nei­ty, and va­ria­tion.
Dis­cern­ment me­ans that stu­dents in a le­ar­ning si­tu­a­tion chan­ge per­spec­ti­ves and see so­met­hing they
ha­ve pre­vio­us not se­en. Con­si­der, for exam­ple, the dif­fe­rent met­hods by which chil­dren le­arn to
Mona HOLMQVIST, Karmen BJÖRKMAN, Malin OHLIN. Differences between Learning Facts and Complex
Phenomena: a Learning Study in History Based on Variation Theory PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
re­ad (Holm­qvist 2004). In the be­gin­ning, the in­di­vi­du­al let­ters are the on­ly things in fo­cus, but as 83
the child le­arns to re­ad the let­ters be­co­me the bac­kground: the child’s way of se­eing has chan­ged,
with the let­ters now vie­wed as parts of a who­le. Si­mul­ta­nei­ty is cru­cial in or­der to un­ders­tand the
sur­roun­ding world. A who­le can in it­self be a part of anot­her who­le, as well as the en­ti­re­ty it­self. The
me­a­ning of a part or a who­le va­ries, de­pen­ding on which as­pect is the in­ten­ded fo­cus. For exam­ple,
50% can be rep­re­sen­ted as half a circ­le; but 50% of a half circ­le is at the sa­me ti­me 25% of a who­le
circ­le. In or­der to un­ders­tand this re­qui­res si­mul­ta­nei­ty. Fi­nal­ly, va­ria­tion me­ans that a phe­no­me­non
is dis­cer­ned be­cau­se it in so­me way dif­fers from the ‘na­tu­ral sta­te’. Thus, in or­der to know what
cold is one must ha­ve ex­pe­rien­ced the con­tras­ting phe­no­me­non, i.e., not-cold or warmth (Holm­
qvist 2004). The cri­ti­cal mo­ment for le­ar­ning is when ‘we no­ti­ce a chan­ge in un­ders­tan­ding the
en­vi­ron­ment’ (Holm­qvist 2004, p. 75). In or­der to find the cri­ti­cal mo­ment in a le­ar­ning si­tu­a­tion,
va­ria­tion of so­me kind is re­qui­red. Te­aching is not about fin­ding the best ge­ne­ral met­hod. Ins­te­ad,
“va­ria­tion of the cri­ti­cal as­pects of a le­ar­ning ob­ject is used in in­struc­tion” (Holm­qvist 2004, p. 74).
In or­der to fa­ci­li­ta­te this, a met­ho­do­lo­gy ne­ed to be cho­sen, on­ce the qu­es­tion of what it ta­kes to
grasp the le­ar­ning ob­ject has be­en ans­we­red.
An as­sump­tion ba­sed on va­ria­tion the­o­ry is that in each le­ar­ning si­tu­a­tion stu­dents are of­fe­red
at le­ast one le­ar­ning ob­ject. By of­fe­ring se­ve­ral di­men­sions or dif­fe­rent as­pects of the le­ar­ning
ob­ject, it al­so be­co­mes pos­sib­le for the in­di­vi­du­al to dis­cern so­met­hing against the bac­kground of
va­ria­tion. Ho­we­ver, if a stu­dent ex­pe­rien­ces too ma­ny va­ry­ing as­pects, the re­sult will be the sa­me
as if s/he has not ex­pe­rien­ced va­ria­tion at all. An abun­dan­ce of im­pres­sions se­em to neut­ra­li­ze each
ot­her. The te­acher’s chal­len­ge is to find the cri­ti­cal as­pects of the le­ar­ning ob­ject in or­der to pre­sent
stu­dents with va­rio­us wa­ys of con­si­de­ring it. What kind of prior know­led­ge do stu­dents pos­sess
about the le­ar­ning ob­ject? This must be un­ders­to­od, in ad­di­tion to iden­ti­fy­ing the ob­ject’s cri­ti­cal
as­pects. If a stu­dent le­arns to tell ti­me wit­hout kno­wing how the hands are re­la­ted to each ot­her, it
will pro­bab­ly be dif­fi­cult to un­ders­tand the con­cept of the clock. If one of the hands we­re to re­main
cons­tant whi­le the ot­her va­ried to show the hours, it would pro­bab­ly be easier to dis­cern how the
hands re­la­te to each ot­her. When stu­dents grasp this know­led­ge, their ne­ed to dis­cern new as­pects
si­mi­la­ri­ty ma­kes the ne­ed of va­ria­tion to inc­re­a­se. It is mo­re im­por­tant for the te­acher to dis­cern
which fac­tors may be held cons­tant and which should va­ry than it is to find the “right” met­hod.
Va­ria­tion the­o­ry can be used at scho­ol as a to­ol for the te­achers to cre­a­te bet­ter pos­si­bi­li­ties for the
stu­dents to le­arn (Wern­berg 2005).

Met­ho­do­lo­gy of Re­se­arch

The met­hod we used was the le­ar­ning stu­dy mo­del that Mar­ton (2003) desc­ri­bes as fol­lows:

A le­ar­ning stu­dy is a sys­te­ma­tic at­tempt to achie­ve an edu­ca­tio­nal aim and to le­arn from
this ex­pe­ri­ment. It is a de­sign ex­pe­ri­ment that can, but do­es not ha­ve to be, a les­son stu­dy.
(p. 44)

The aim is to ma­ke le­ar­ning pos­sib­le for all in­vol­ved—­stu­dents, te­achers, and re­se­ar­chers
(Holm­qvist & Nils­son, 2005). Thus, le­ar­ning stu­dy me­ans:

...dif­fe­rent wa­ys to pre­sent the as­pects that are cri­ti­cal for the stu­dents in or­der to un­ders­
tand a le­ar­ning ob­ject. (Holm­qvist & Nils­son, 2005, p. x).

Le­ar­ning stu­dy, used as a re­se­arch mo­del, de­pends upon clo­se co­o­pe­ra­tion bet­we­en te­achers
and re­se­ar­chers in the plan­ning and im­ple­men­ta­tion of a les­son. By com­pri­sing mo­re than two les­
sons in a cyc­le, whe­re­by the re­sults of the first les­son will al­wa­ys in­flu­en­ce the de­sign of the fol­lo­
wing one, les­sons will gra­du­al be im­pro­ved and the­re­by fa­ci­li­ta­te stu­dent le­ar­ning. Using le­ar­ning
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

84
stu­dy as in-ser­vi­ce trai­ning for te­achers aims to de­ve­lop li­fe­long edu­ca­tio­nal ha­bits which, when
mo­del­led by the te­acher, will ho­pe­ful­ly ins­til cu­rio­si­ty in stu­dents to inc­re­a­se their own le­ar­ning.
Holm­qvist & Nils­son (2005) see le­ar­ning as a te­acher’s main task. If the te­acher do­es not le­arn from
her/his stu­dents, the­re is a risk that the te­acher ce­a­ses to de­ve­lop.

Stu­dy de­sign

As part of “The Pe­da­go­gy of Le­ar­ning” re­se­arch pro­ject ba­sed on va­ria­tion the­o­ry and using
le­ar­ning stu­dy met­ho­do­lo­gy, our stu­dy mo­re or less inc­lu­des the fol­lo­wing sta­ges:
1. Cho­o­se a le­ar­ning ob­ject. What will stu­dents le­arn?
2. What kind of pre­vio­us know­led­ge do stu­dents ha­ve?
3. De­sign a les­son on the ba­sis of the know­led­ge stu­dents are sup­po­sed to ac­qui­re.
4. Im­ple­ment the les­son ac­cor­ding to the plan.
5. Eva­lu­a­tion of Les­son One: what ha­ve the stu­dents le­ar­ned?
6. Im­ple­ment Les­son Two ac­cor­ding to a new le­ar­ning de­sign, ba­sed on the fin­dings in
Les­son One.
7. Eva­lu­a­tion of Les­son Two.
8. Im­ple­ment Les­son Three ac­cor­ding to a new le­ar­ning de­sign, ba­sed on the fin­dings in
Les­sons One and Two.
9. Eva­lu­a­tion of Les­son Three.
10. Im­ple­ment post-test.
11. Com­ple­te do­cu­men­ta­tion of all re­sults and eva­lu­a­tions.
(Holm­qvist & Nils­son 2005, p. 48–51)

Par­ti­ci­pants

As part of “The Pe­da­go­gy of Le­ar­ning” pro­ject, one of the aut­hors of this in­ves­ti­ga­tion (MH)
con­tac­ted a com­pre­hen­si­ve up­per se­con­da­ry scho­ol in a mu­ni­ci­pa­li­ty in sout­hern Swe­den whe­re
two te­achers we­re in­te­res­ted in par­ti­ci­pa­ting in this le­ar­ning stu­dy on his­to­ry edu­ca­tion. (A third
te­acher whom we ho­ped to inc­lu­de was not avai­lab­le.) Te­acher A nor­mal­ly te­aches his­to­ry in both
clas­ses inc­lu­ded in the sur­vey. Te­acher B al­so te­aches his­to­ry at the sa­me scho­ol, but has had no
prior con­tact with stu­dents who are par­ti­ci­pa­ting in the pro­ject. Te­acher A, the­re­fo­re, was re­qu­es­ted
to te­ach Les­sons One and Three, whi­le Te­acher B taught Les­son Two. The two clas­ses in­vol­ved are
pa­ral­lel sec­tions wit­hin the so­cial scien­ces pro­gram­me (their first year). Stu­dents in each class re­ad
the sa­me ma­te­rial du­ring the pe­riod of this sur­vey, and the cour­se was im­ple­men­ted in the sa­me
way in both clas­ses. In to­tal, the two clas­ses con­sis­ted of 63 stu­dents (47 girls and 16 bo­ys). On the
ba­sis of scre­e­ning, the stu­dents we­re di­vi­ded as even­ly as pos­sib­le in­to three groups, which en­ded
up ha­ving 16, 17, and 18 stu­dents.

Le­ar­ning ob­ject

Ini­tial­ly, the aut­hors and te­achers met in or­der to de­ci­de which his­to­ry sub­ject area would be
the pri­me fo­cus. The bro­ad field of his­to­ry and the lack of prior stu­dies of this ty­pe ma­de the choi­ce
dif­fi­cult. In a le­ar­ning stu­dy, te­achers ty­pi­cal­ly de­fi­ne the pro­blem in co­o­pe­ra­tion with re­se­ar­chers.
On the ba­sis of their pre­vio­us clas­sro­om ex­pe­rien­ce, the te­achers sug­ges­ted conc­re­te pro­blems that
stu­dents had found dif­fi­cult to un­ders­tand. It was ini­tial­ly de­ci­ded to exa­mi­ne the area of sour­ce
cri­ti­cism and emp­ha­si­ze wa­ys in which stu­dents could jud­ge a sour­ce’s re­lia­bi­li­ty. This to­pic had to
be re­jec­ted be­cau­se we de­ter­mi­ned it was im­pos­sib­le to de­li­mit the pro­blem wit­hin the ti­me fra­me
avai­lab­le. Ins­te­ad, the group cho­se to stu­dy the his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness of stu­dents re­gar­ding the pe­riod
from 1650 to 1660, when Skåne, the sout­hern part of what is now Swe­den, bro­ke away from Da­nish
ru­le. This to­pic ap­pe­a­red mo­re com­pa­tib­le with the scho­ol’s cur­ri­cu­lum, which inc­lu­ded a stu­dy of
his­to­ri­cal events du­ring the se­ven­te­enth and eigh­te­enth cen­tu­ries. The te­achers con­si­de­red the im­
Mona HOLMQVIST, Karmen BJÖRKMAN, Malin OHLIN. Differences between Learning Facts and Complex
Phenomena: a Learning Study in History Based on Variation Theory PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
por­tan­ce of fo­cu­sing on the dif­fe­ren­ce bet­we­en stu­dents’ his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness, as op­po­sed to their 85
awa­re­ness of his­to­ry as laid out in the cour­se plan for the stu­dy of his­to­ry. The­se we­re con­si­de­red
dif­fi­cult con­cepts to me­a­su­re, par­ti­cu­lar in the short term.

Da­ta col­lec­tion

The da­ta col­lec­ted for this stu­dy ca­me from scre­e­nings, pre-tests, post-tests, de­la­y­ed post tests,
vi­deo ob­ser­va­tions, ta­pe re­cor­ded group dis­cus­sions in class, and ta­pe re­cor­ded plan­ning ses­sion
with te­achers. The first item was a scre­e­ning gi­ven to all stu­dents be­fo­re their clas­ses be­fo­re they
we­re di­vi­ded up in­to three groups. The stu­dents we­re told of the aim of the stu­dy and of why they
we­re not al­lo­wed to see the re­sults of the tests. Eve­ry ti­me they the re­sults would could be yet anot­
her op­por­tu­ni­ty to le­arn, or a de­pen­dent va­riab­le which would ha­ve com­pli­ca­ted the ana­ly­sis of the
stu­dents’ le­ar­ning.
Du­ring a pe­riod of three we­eks, pre-tests, clas­sro­om in­struc­tion on his­to­ri­cal re­se­arch, and
post-tests we­re car­ried out in all three groups. In each ca­se, fi­ve da­ys we­re per­mit­ted to elap­se bet­
we­en the pre-test and the les­son. The post-test was ad­mi­nis­te­red to stu­dents im­me­dia­te­ly af­ter the
les­son, and fi­ve we­eks la­ter each group was gi­ven a de­la­y­ed post test.

Tab­le 1. Sche­du­le of the le­ar­ning stu­dy.

We­ek Mon­day Tu­es­day Wed­nes­day


We­ek 39 Plan­ning les­son 1   Pre-tests group 1
We­ek 40 Re­se­arch les­son group 1 Ana­ly­sis, plan­ning les­son 2 Pre-tests group 2
We­ek 41 Re­se­arch les­son group 2  Ana­ly­sis, plan­ning les­son 3 Pre-tests group 3
We­ek 42 Re­se­arch les­son group 3 Ana­ly­sis  
We­ek 45 De­la­y­ed post-test group 1    
We­ek 46 De­la­y­ed post-test group 2    
We­ek 47 De­la­y­ed post-test group 3    

On­ly tho­se who to­ok all three tests (pre-test, post-test, and de­la­y­ed post test) ha­ve be­en inc­
lu­ded in re­por­ting the re­sults. Sin­ce scre­e­ning was not used to ana­ly­ze the le­ar­ning out­co­me, but
in or­der to desc­ri­be a stu­dent’s un­ders­tan­ding of the le­ar­ning ob­ject, stu­dents who did not ta­ke the
scre­e­ning are inc­lu­ded in the ana­ly­sis of the ot­her three test re­sults. The sur­vey pro­du­ced both qu­
an­ti­ta­ti­ve and qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve da­ta. Ans­wers to qu­es­tions 1–8 on the test we­re ana­ly­zed qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve­ly,
whi­le the scre­e­ning, ta­pe, and vi­deo re­cor­dings we­re ana­ly­zed qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve­ly.

Scre­e­ning

Scre­e­ning was em­plo­y­ed to de­ter­mi­ne what prior know­led­ge stu­dents had of the le­ar­ning ob­
ject. This enab­le us to de­sign the tests and to di­vi­de stu­dents in­to three groups with si­mi­lar le­vels
of know­led­ge of the sub­ject mat­ter. The scre­e­ning con­sis­ted of two open qu­es­tions re­gar­ding when
Skåne be­ca­me Swe­dish. It was ad­mi­nis­te­red on two dif­fe­rent oc­ca­sions: at the start of the pro­ject
and at its conc­lu­sion. The qu­es­tions we­re: 1) When did Skåne be­co­me Swe­dish, and what hap­pe­ned
at the ti­me? 2) What do you think li­fe in Skåne was li­ke then?
The­se open qu­es­tions we­re ba­sed on [the] par­ti­ci­pa­ting te­achers’ as­sump­tions that ve­ry few
stu­dents had any de­ep un­ders­tan­ding of this ti­me pe­riod. The aim of the scre­e­ning was to gi­ve stu­
dents a chan­ce to ex­press what they thought or knew of the era, with as few ex­ter­nal in­flu­en­ces as
pos­sib­le. An ana­ly­sis was ma­de ba­sed on the phe­no­me­nog­rap­hic re­se­arch tra­di­tion. The re­sul­ting
ca­te­go­ries cons­ti­tu­ted the ans­wer al­ter­na­ti­ves to qu­es­tions on the test. The­se re­sults, as men­tio­ned
earlier, we­re used to di­vi­de the stu­dents in­to three ap­pro­xi­ma­te­ly equ­al groups (Fi­gu­re 1). 
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Class A Class B 1. Before the lesson
86

A B A B A B 2. Lesson on research

3. After the lesson


Class A Class B

Fi­gu­re 1. Sub­di­vi­sion of two clas­ses in­to three groups


(Wern­berg in Holm­qvist ed, 2007).

The three ca­te­go­ries of know­led­ge that emer­ged from the phe­no­me­nog­rap­hic ana­ly­sis of the
scre­e­ning, as rep­re­sen­ted in Tab­le 2, we­re:

A. De­ve­lo­ped con­cept of ti­me, de­ve­lo­ped his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness, de­ve­lo­ped lo­gi­cal thin­king,


go­od ana­ly­tic abi­li­ty.
B. Fair­ly ac­cu­ra­te con­cept of ti­me, ave­ra­ge his­to­ri­cal view, li­mi­ted lo­gi­cal thin­king, po­or ana­
ly­tic abi­li­ty.
C. Un­de­ve­lo­ped con­cept of ti­me, we­ak his­to­ri­cal view, lack of lo­gi­cal thin­king abi­li­ty, de­fi­
cient ana­ly­ti­cal abi­li­ty.

Tab­le 2. Two clas­ses di­vi­ded in­to three groups.

Num­bers of stu­dents per ca­te­go­ry af­ter scre­e­ning


Group/ca­te­go­ry A B C No ans­wer
1 3 8 5 0
2 3 7 7 1
3 2 7 8 0

In de­sig­ning the pre-test on the ba­sis of the scre­e­ning re­sults, we used both what stu­dent’s
knew, as well as their mis­con­cep­tions about the pe­riod, to for­mu­la­te se­ven mul­tip­le choi­ce qu­es­
tions. From the scre­e­ning it was cle­ar that so­me stu­dents pro­fes­sed ge­ne­ral his­to­ri­cal know­led­ge
wit­hout dis­cer­ning the pe­riod from which the know­led­ge de­ri­ved. The­se stu­dents had a non-li­ne­ar
view of his­to­ry, i.e., they he­a­ped to­get­her all of their his­to­ri­cal know­led­ge but we­re ge­ne­ral­ly unab­
le to si­tu­a­te what they knew wit­hin a spe­ci­fic ti­me pe­riod. The scre­e­ning al­so at­temp­ted to dis­cern
cri­ti­cal ele­ments in the know­led­ge of the le­ar­ning ob­ject: his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness of the de­ca­de from
1650 to 1660, when Skåne be­ca­me Swe­dish. An ana­ly­sis of the scre­e­ning found the fol­lo­wing cri­ti­
cal as­pects of the le­ar­ning as­pect: 
• The con­di­tions pe­op­le li­ved in du­ring tho­se da­ys com­pa­red with to­day.
• The re­la­tion bet­we­en this pe­riod, its his­to­ri­cal con­text and ti­me, and the ti­me be­fo­re and af­
ter.
• The dif­fe­ren­ces of how wars we­re con­duc­ted at tho­se years com­pa­red to no­wa­da­ys.
• What could be the cau­ses of wars at tho­se da­ys.

Test de­sign and im­ple­men­ta­tion

The first pre-test that we de­ve­lo­ped was re­jec­ted by the te­achers. It con­tai­ned a se­ries of true/
fal­se qu­es­tions con­tras­ting the past and the pre­sent. The te­achers felt such a test could not yield
Mona HOLMQVIST, Karmen BJÖRKMAN, Malin OHLIN. Differences between Learning Facts and Complex
Phenomena: a Learning Study in History Based on Variation Theory PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
me­a­ning­ful re­sults, sin­ce the­re was a 50/50 chan­ce that stu­dents would be gu­es­sing as the­re was 87
that they we­re de­monst­ra­ting know­led­ge. The in­struc­tio­nal go­al was to con­vey a ge­ne­ral his­to­ri­cal
un­ders­tan­ding to stu­dents, along with know­led­ge of the spe­ci­fic ti­me pe­riod. Te­achers al­so sought
to de­ve­lop the abi­li­ties of stu­dents to a) pla­ce their know­led­ge in­to con­text, b) ana­ly­ze a pic­tu­re
or text, and c) de­ve­lop so­me un­ders­tan­ding of his­to­ry’s in­flu­en­ce on mo­dern ti­mes. Ba­sed on the
te­achers’ aims and the re­sults from the scre­e­ning, a se­cond at­tempt was ne­eded to de­sign a pre-test,
which was then ta­ken by group 1. Ana­ly­sis re­ve­a­led that an ad­di­tio­nal qu­es­tion was re­qui­red in or­
der to gain a de­e­per un­ders­tan­ding of the pu­pils’ ana­ly­ti­cal abi­li­ty. The­re­fo­re, at the sug­ges­tion of
the te­achers, the fol­lo­wing open-en­ded qu­es­tion was ad­ded to the test: “Why did the Swe­dish king
view the ac­qui­si­tion of Skåne as so suc­ces­sful?” Group 1 be­gan the first les­son by ans­we­ring this
qu­es­tion. For the se­cond and third groups, this qu­es­tion was inc­lu­ded on the pre-test.
The pre-tests, post-test, and de­la­y­ed post tests we­re iden­ti­cal, apart from the or­der in which the
mul­tip­le choi­ce ans­wers we­re pre­sen­ted. This was do­ne to pre­vent the stu­dents from re­mem­be­ring
the or­der of the ans­wers from test to test and al­so to ma­ke it mo­re dif­fi­cult for stu­dents of dif­fe­rent
groups to sha­re ans­wers. The test was ma­de up of mul­tip­le choi­ce qu­es­tions (qu­es­tions 4–7) and
open en­ded qu­es­tions (qu­es­tions 1–3, 8 and 9). The first se­ven we­re di­vi­ded in­to two groups: facts
(1–3) and com­pre­hen­sion-ba­sed know­led­ge (4–7). Qu­es­tions 4–7 re­qui­red an abi­li­ty to re­la­te sin­
gle facts to their con­text. The pre-test was used to me­a­su­re the le­vel of ini­tial va­ria­bi­li­ty, whi­le the
post-test me­a­su­red the le­vel of va­ria­bi­li­ty af­ter the les­son (Hart­man, 1998). In so­me of the le­ar­ning
stu­dies car­ried out in Kris­tians­tad, a de­la­y­ed post-test was used to exa­mi­ne pat­terns of the stu­dents’
un­ders­tan­ding—­how and if it de­ve­lops, re­mains stab­le, or dec­re­a­ses over the long term (Holm­qvist,
Gus­tav­sson & Wern­berg 2007).

Re­cor­dings

Vi­deo re­cor­ding was used in the le­ar­ning stu­dy mo­del as one way of gat­he­ring da­ta. The three
les­sons in this stu­dy we­re vi­de­o­ta­ped by two ca­me­ras, one being a di­gi­tal and one an ana­lo­gue
vi­deo ca­me­ra. The lat­ter ca­me­ra was used as a bac­kup. Du­ring the les­son the au­dio of the te­acher
was re­cor­ded with a mic­rop­ho­ne con­nec­ted to the di­gi­tal vi­deo ca­me­ra. Du­ring all three re­se­arch
les­sons, fi­ve ta­pe re­cor­ders we­re pla­ced around the clas­sro­om to ta­pe re­cord stu­dents du­ring both te­
acher-led and group dis­cus­sions. In this stu­dy, ta­pe and vi­deo re­cor­ding of the re­se­arch les­sons was
as an ob­ser­va­tio­nal to­ol and to col­lect qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve da­ta. Both te­achers and stu­dents ap­pe­ar to ha­ve
be­en in­flu­en­ced by the pre­sen­ce of the ca­me­ra. The ca­me­ra ma­de so­me of them fe­el un­com­for­tab­le
and, con­se­qu­ent­ly, the les­son may not ha­ve be­en as na­tu­ral a si­tu­a­tion it was ho­ped to be. At the
be­gin­ning of the les­sons, the te­achers felt that the ca­me­ra in­flu­en­ced their be­ha­vio­ur. They found
that being re­cor­ded ma­de the les­sons mo­re de­man­ding than they would or­di­na­ri­ly ha­ve be­en. In this
stu­dy each group was equ­al­ly af­fec­ted by the pro­cess of re­cor­ding be­cau­se the met­hod of re­cor­ding
was con­sis­tent ac­ross groups.

Transc­rip­tion

In or­der to ana­ly­ze the re­se­arch les­sons, the vi­deo re­cor­dings we­re transc­ri­bed ver­ba­tim. The
Tran­sa­na sof­twa­re pac­ka­ge (www.tran­sa­na.org) was used for the transc­rip­tion. This pro­gram­me
al­lows one to link the text with its cor­res­pon­ding ima­ge. It al­so fa­ci­li­ta­tes ana­ly­sis by ma­king it
pos­sib­le to se­arch for ke­y­words which can be lin­ked to a vi­deo re­cor­ded se­qu­en­ce. The vi­deo ob­
ser­va­tions, along with the transc­ripts, we­re ana­ly­zed and chec­ked on­ce again in or­der to inc­re­a­se
their re­lia­bi­li­ty. When so­met­hing was inau­dib­le it was in­di­ca­ted in the text by el­lip­ses marks (...).
On so­me oc­ca­sions, au­dio ta­pes we­re used to iden­ti­fy who said what. When the te­acher po­in­ted to
a stu­dent or ma­de so­me ot­her mo­ve­ment re­le­vant to the te­aching si­tu­a­tion, it was in­di­ca­ted wit­hin
pa­rent­he­sis, such as: (points at stu­dent) or (wri­tes on the bo­ard).  The te­acher’s no­tes on the bo­ard
we­re in­di­ca­ted as fol­lows: [xxx.].
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

88
Ana­ly­sis

The ana­ly­sis con­sis­ted of the da­ta from all the tests, the vi­deo re­cor­ded les­sons, and the me­e­
tings with the te­achers. This ma­te­rial was ana­ly­sed se­ve­ral ti­mes in or­der to cap­tu­re the dif­fe­rent
di­men­sions of the te­aching si­tu­a­tions and to con­nect the­se to chan­ges in the stu­dents’ know­led­ge,
as shown by the test re­sults. The ana­ly­sis was ba­sed on the va­ria­tion the­o­ry, na­me­ly, it desc­ri­bed
what the stu­dents we­re pre­sen­ted with for dis­cern­ment, the wa­ys in which si­mul­ta­nei­ty was used,
and the va­ria­tions of­fe­red by the te­acher to the stu­dents in or­der to fa­ci­li­ta­te stu­dent dis­cern­ment
of the le­ar­ning ob­ject. Pre-tests, post-tests, and de­la­y­ed post-tests we­re ana­ly­zed on the ba­sis of a
tem­pla­te which ga­ve a ma­xi­mum of 30 points for qu­es­tions 1–8. The re­sults we­re com­pa­red, both
con­cer­ning the per­for­man­ce of each group (i.e., bet­we­en pre-, post-, and de­la­y­ed post post-test in
the sa­me group) as well as bet­we­en the dif­fe­rent groups, in or­der to me­a­su­re dif­fe­ren­ces in the stu­
dents’ know­led­ge. By using re­pe­a­ted tests, it was pos­sib­le to ma­ke com­pa­ri­sons of what stu­dents
knew be­fo­re and af­ter the re­se­arch les­son, and fi­ve we­eks la­ter. Sin­ce the aim of the stu­dy was to
de­ve­lop his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness and desc­ri­be what it ta­kes to de­ve­lop this in a te­aching si­tu­a­tion, both
vi­deo re­cor­dings and au­dio re­cor­dings we­re ana­ly­zed qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve­ly to re­flect the re­sults of the tests.
The ana­ly­sis of the test re­sults sum­ma­ri­zed how ma­ny cor­rect ans­wers each stu­dent ga­ve. Eve­ry
cor­rect ans­wer ga­ve the stu­dent one point. A cor­rect al­ter­na­ti­ve ans­wer which the stu­dent has not
mar­ked as cor­rect, did not re­sult in any re­duc­tion. If a stu­dent’s ans­wer was in­cor­rect, this has al­so
not in­flu­en­ced the to­tal sum of cor­rect ans­wers. The in­cor­rect ans­wers we­re be­en sum­ma­ri­zed se­pa­
ra­te­ly, so that both the cor­rect and in­cor­rect ans­wers could be me­a­su­red as in­de­pen­dent clus­ters, and
al­so to fa­ci­li­ta­te as­ses­sment of the dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en the two groups.

Re­sults of Re­se­arch

The re­sult of cor­rect stu­dent ans­wers from the three re­se­arch les­sons are pre­sen­ted as in­te­gers
in the tab­le be­low.

Tab­le 3. Re­sults for all tests in all groups.

% Cor­rect ans­wers Qu­es­tions


Group 1 1–3 4–7 8 Sum n = 16
Pre-test 8 59 39 51
Post-test 46 70 70 68
De­la­y­ed post-test 31 72 54 65
Group 2 n = 18
Pre-test 13 59 31 50
Post-test 94 73 86 77
De­la­y­ed post-test 44 72 66 69
Group 3 n = 17
Pre-test 29 63 34 55
Post-test 98 79 56 77
De­la­y­ed post-test 39 76 49 68

A ge­ne­ral fin­ding was the dec­re­a­se in the per­cen­ta­ge of cor­rect ans­wers bet­we­en post-test and
de­la­y­ed post post-test in qu­es­tions about facts (1–3), es­pe­cial­ly in groups 2 and 3. Anot­her fin­ding
was the si­mi­lar amount of cor­rect ans­wers on com­pre­hen­sion-ba­sed qu­es­tions (4–7) bet­we­en post-
test and de­la­y­ed post-test in all groups. We conc­lu­ded that the know­led­ge of facts se­ems har­der to
re­tain than com­pre­hen­sion-ba­sed know­led­ge. Stu­dent re­sults from the te­sting we­re al­so ana­ly­zed
on the ba­sis of the num­ber of in­cor­rect ans­wers. (An in­cor­rect rep­ly was de­fi­ned as when a stu­dent
in­di­ca­ted an in­cor­rect al­ter­na­ti­ve as cor­rect.
Mona HOLMQVIST, Karmen BJÖRKMAN, Malin OHLIN. Differences between Learning Facts and Complex
Phenomena: a Learning Study in History Based on Variation Theory PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Tab­le 4. Per­cen­ta­ges of in­cor­rect ans­wers. 89

Group 1 %
Pre-test 20
Post-test 18
De­la­y­ed post-test 19
Group 2  
Pre-test 11
Post-test 9
De­la­y­ed post-test 13
Group 3  
Pre-test 8
Post-test 4
De­la­y­ed post-test 9

The re­sults show how the per­cen­ta­ge of in­cor­rect ans­wers was mo­re or less the sa­me in all
re­se­arch les­sons/groups. In each re­se­arch les­son the num­ber of in­cor­rect ans­wers sho­wed a mi­nor
dec­re­a­se from pre-test to post-test. On the ot­her hand, a mi­nor inc­re­a­se in in­cor­rect ans­wers was
found bet­we­en post-test and de­la­y­ed post post-test in each re­se­arch les­son and group. The to­tal sco­
res se­em to be mo­re or less si­mi­lar in all three groups, but a de­e­per ana­ly­sis shows so­me dif­fe­ren­ces.
In or­der to see the dif­fe­ren­ces mo­re cle­ar­ly, each les­son’s re­sults ha­ve be­en pre­sen­ted se­pa­ra­te­ly by
pre-test, post-test, and de­la­y­ed post-test. The ac­count of the re­sult is re­flec­ted by an ana­ly­sis of how
the les­sons we­re car­ried out.

Re­sult of Re­se­arch Les­son One

The re­sults of the de­la­y­ed post-test show a mi­nor chan­ge in the me­an when the sum of cor­rect
ans­wers are com­pa­red bet­we­en the two tests; in group 1, this chan­ge is from 68% to 65%. The­re is a
mi­nor inc­re­a­se in qu­es­tions 4–7, from 70% to 72%. The­se qu­es­tions all re­qui­re a de­e­per un­ders­tan­
ding of a phe­no­me­non, a know­led­ge which se­ems to ha­ve be­en re­tai­ned over ti­me. The re­sults of qu­
es­tions 1–3 dec­re­a­sed from post-test to de­la­y­ed post post-test: 46% cor­rect ans­wers on the post-test,
com­pa­red to 8% on the pre-test. On the de­la­y­ed post post-test, we found 31% of the ans­wers we­re
cor­rect. When com­pa­ring tho­se re­sults, the per­cen­ta­ge of in­cor­rect ans­wers on qu­es­tions 4–7 al­so
has to be con­si­de­red. On­ly mi­nor chan­ges in the per­cen­ta­ge of in­cor­rect ans­wers on the­se qu­es­tions
are se­en, from pre-test (20%) to post-test (18%) and de­la­y­ed post-test (19%).  
The re­sult of the first les­son did not show any cle­ar pat­tern of de­ve­lop­ment. Ho­we­ver, it is ob­
vio­us that de­sign of the les­son was ef­fec­ti­ve, as shown by the inc­re­a­sed in cor­rect ans­wers on the
first post-test (+38 and +21 per­cen­ta­ge points). A furt­her im­pro­ve­ment of the les­son was sug­ges­ted
by fo­cu­sing on the con­trast bet­we­en pre­sent and past ti­me, rat­her than on­ly te­aching past ti­me per­
spec­ti­ve. The stu­dents we­re not gi­ven any op­por­tu­ni­ty of ta­king the per­spec­ti­ve of the pe­op­le who
li­ved at the ti­me being stu­died, as the les­son was not de­sig­ned to gi­ve stu­dents so­me kind of re­al
em­pat­hy for a per­son or si­tu­a­tion. Stu­dent fo­cus had to mo­ve bet­we­en past and pre­sent, ma­king it
hard to de­ve­lop a pro­found un­ders­tan­ding for the li­ving con­di­tions du­ring the tar­ge­ted ti­me pe­riod.
Si­mul­ta­nei­ty was not em­plo­y­ed. In this first les­son, the stu­dents did not get any ove­rall pic­tu­re; ins­te­
ad, they fo­cus­sed on one part at a ti­me, wit­hout re­la­ting the parts to a con­text. Anot­her pat­tern found
in the ana­ly­sis of the vi­deo re­cor­ded les­son was the mo­ve­ment in the stu­dents’ in­cor­rect ans­wers.
They chan­ged de­pen­ding on what as­pects the te­acher cho­se to pre­sent or not. The re­sult sho­wed a
di­rec­tion to­wards mar­king ans­wers as cor­rect on­ly if the as­pect re­fer­red to in the qu­es­tion was men­
tio­ned by the te­acher du­ring the les­son. Even if the stu­dent had a cor­rect ini­tial un­ders­tan­ding, s/he
chan­ged to an in­cor­rect ans­wer if the te­acher did not men­tion this as­pect in the te­aching si­tu­a­tion.
Thus, the stu­dents’ fo­cus on the im­pli­cit le­ar­ning ob­jec­t – cap­tu­ring what the te­acher thinks when
s/he do­es not ex­pli­cit­ly say it – im­pacts pos­si­bi­li­ty of re­tai­ning the tar­ge­ted le­ar­ning ob­ject. In or­der
to de­ve­lop inc­re­a­sed know­led­ge du­ring Re­se­arch Les­son Two, the stu­dents should ha­ve be­en gi­ven
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

90
mo­re op­por­tu­ni­ties to par­ti­ci­pa­te in class. It was as­su­med that this might be a way to open stu­dents
up to new di­men­sions in le­ar­ning.

Re­sult of Re­se­arch Les­son Two

This les­son was al­so ef­fec­ti­ve, with the re­sults inc­re­a­sing bet­we­en pre- and post-test (+81 and
+14 per­cen­ta­ge points). In the de­la­y­ed post-test the ove­rall re­sult for qu­es­tions 1–8 shows a mi­nor
dec­re­a­se when com­pa­ring the num­ber of cor­rect ans­wers bet­we­en the post-test and de­la­y­ed post
post-test in group two (from 77% to 69%). The ma­jor chan­ge is found in the de­la­y­ed post post-test
on qu­es­tions 1–3, which per­tai­ned to his­to­ri­cal facts. He­re stu­dent know­led­ge dec­re­a­sed 50 per­cen­
ta­ge points bet­we­en post-test and de­la­y­ed post-test (from 94% to 44%). It should be no­ted that the
re­sult for this group on qu­es­tions 1–3 al­so shows the lar­gest im­pro­ve­ment of all groups from pre-test
to post-test (from 13% to 94% , that is, +81 per­cen­ta­ge points). On qu­es­tions 4–7 the ans­wers se­em
to be rat­her si­mi­lar bet­we­en post-test and de­la­y­ed post post-test (73% and 72%). The in­ter­pre­ta­tion
he­re is that know­led­ge ha­ving the cha­rac­ter of facts which stu­dents me­mo­ri­zed se­ems to di­sap­pe­ar.
On the ot­her hand, the stu­dents ap­pe­ar to re­tain know­led­ge which re­qui­res a de­e­per un­ders­tan­ding.
In com­pa­ring re­sults, the in­cor­rect ans­wers al­so ha­ve to be­en ta­ken in­to con­si­de­ra­tion (qu­es­tions
4–7). The num­ber of in­cor­rect ans­wers sho­wed a mi­nor dec­re­a­se (pre-tests 11% and post-test 9%),
but inc­re­a­sed again in the de­la­y­ed post-test (13%).
Sin­ce furt­her im­pro­ve­ments might be ex­pec­ted by re­qui­ring a gre­a­ter de­gree of stu­dent par­ti­
ci­pa­tion and a stron­ger fo­cus on the per­spec­ti­ve of tho­se pe­op­le who li­ved du­ring the pe­riod being
stu­died, we dis­cus­sed this at a me­e­ting in which Les­son Three was de­sig­ned. A dia­log to cap­tu­re the
stu­dents’ ex­pe­rien­ces was not as­su­med to be suf­fi­cient; con­tras­ting per­spec­ti­ves with small dif­fe­ren­
ces we­re ma­de. The stu­dents’ fol­lo­wed a coup­le via four texts in two ver­sions per text (one cor­rect
and one in­cor­rect) that we­re al­most si­mi­lar. This was in­ten­ded to fa­ci­li­ta­te dis­cus­sions among stu­
dents which could ex­po­se them to dif­fe­rent di­men­sions of the sa­me phe­no­me­non and of­fer mo­re
le­ar­ning pos­si­bi­li­ties for the group.

Re­sult of Re­se­arch Les­son Three

As in the earlier les­sons, an inc­re­a­se in sco­res bet­we­en the pre- and post-test was no­ted in Les­
son Three (+69 and +16 per­cen­ta­ge units). The de­la­y­ed post-test (qu­es­tions 1–8) sho­wed a dec­re­a­se
in the per­cen­ta­ge of cor­rect ans­wers bet­we­en post-test and de­la­y­ed post post-test (from 77% to
68%). The lar­gest chan­ge was again on qu­es­tions 1–3, the fac­tu­al qu­es­tions, whe­re the­re was a drop
of 59 per­cen­ta­ge points on cor­rect ans­wers bet­we­en post-test and de­la­y­ed post-test (from 98% to
39%). On the ot­her hand, on qu­es­tions 4–7, the qu­es­tions of com­pre­hen­sion-ba­sed know­led­ge, the
re­sults we­re re­la­ti­ve­ly cons­tant (79% and 76%). The stu­dents we­re ab­le to re­tain this kind of know­
led­ge. Fi­nal­ly, a com­pa­ri­son was al­so ma­de bet­we­en cor­rect and in­cor­rect ans­wers on qu­es­tions
4–7. Com­pa­red with the ot­her two groups, group three had lo­west num­ber of in­cor­rect ans­wers on
all tests. This num­ber dec­re­a­ses sligh­tly from pre-tests (8%) to post-test (4%), but inc­re­a­ses to mo­re
or less the sa­me le­vel in the de­la­y­ed post-test (9%).

Dis­cus­sion

The aim of this stu­dy was to res­pond to the fol­lo­wing qu­es­tions:


1. What we­re stu­dents gi­ven the op­por­tu­ni­ty to le­arn and what did they ac­tu­al­ly le­arn?
2. What cri­ti­cal as­pects of the le­ar­ning ob­ject im­pac­ted stu­dent le­ar­ning?
3. In what wa­ys is a te­acher’s abi­li­ty to of­fer stu­dents di­men­sions of va­ria­tion in the le­ar­ning
si­tu­a­tion im­por­tant to bring about le­ar­ning?
Our fin­dings in­di­ca­te a re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en what stu­dents are of­fe­red du­ring a les­son and
what they ac­tu­al­ly le­arn. By pre­sen­ting as­pects of the le­ar­ning ob­ject in dif­fe­rent wa­ys, stu­dents
le­arn dif­fe­rent­ly. How the te­acher un­folds the le­ar­ning ob­ject has a cru­cial im­por­tan­ce for what the
Mona HOLMQVIST, Karmen BJÖRKMAN, Malin OHLIN. Differences between Learning Facts and Complex
Phenomena: a Learning Study in History Based on Variation Theory PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
stu­dents le­arn. Through of­fe­ring va­ria­tion, dif­fe­rent per­spec­ti­ves, and em­pat­hy (in terms of se­eing 91
the world from the per­spec­ti­ve of the pe­op­le who li­ved at the his­to­ri­cal pe­riod being stu­died), stu­
dents se­em to open up for le­ar­ning. The ana­ly­sis shows, most­ly in the first re­se­arch les­son, how the
stu­dent in­ter­pre­ta­tions of what they are sup­po­sed to le­arn are stron­gly ba­sed on tho­se as­pects of the
le­ar­ning ob­ject con­cen­tra­ted upon du­ring the les­son. On the ot­her hand, if a te­acher do­es not fo­cus
on a par­ti­cu­lar as­pect, stu­dents tend to in­ter­pret their ini­tial­ly cor­rect know­led­ge as in­cor­rect. The
te­acher’s abi­li­ty to cre­a­te con­di­tions for stu­dents to as­su­me the per­spec­ti­ve of per­sons who li­ved
du­ring the tar­ge­ted pe­riod of ti­me, to­get­her with the si­mul­ta­nei­ty of­fe­red in a di­men­sion of va­ria­tion
cru­cial for dis­cern­ment to oc­cur, shows that the te­acher pla­ys a vi­tal ro­le in de­ve­lo­ping a stu­dent’s
know­led­ge. The re­sults al­so es­tab­lish a dif­fe­ren­ce in the long-term ef­fect of le­ar­ning of facts ver­sus
and com­pre­hen­si­ve-ba­sed know­led­ge. The abi­li­ty to re­tain facts ap­pe­ars to dec­re­a­se quic­kly, whi­le
com­pre­hen­sion-ba­sed know­led­ge se­ems to per­si­st. Whi­le a te­acher’s abi­li­ty of of­fe­ring stu­dents dif­
fe­rent di­men­sions of va­ria­tion is im­por­tant for their le­ar­ning, evi­den­ce for ge­ne­ra­ti­ve le­ar­ning was
not found in this stu­dy. Ge­ne­ra­ti­ve le­ar­ning me­ans le­ar­ning mo­re and mo­re about the le­ar­ning ob­ject
in new si­tu­a­tions af­ter the le­ar­ning si­tu­a­tion. Be­cau­se the le­ar­ning ob­ject might be hard to find spon­
ta­ne­ous­ly in ot­her si­tu­a­tions (such as out­si­de of scho­ol), stu­dents might not ha­ve had en­coun­ters
whe­re new le­ar­ning about the le­ar­ning ob­ject we­re pos­sib­le. The ge­ne­ra­ti­ve le­ar­ning-ef­fect that the
con­tras­ting texts used in Les­son Three might ha­ve had is thus im­pos­sib­le to as­sess.
It is dif­fi­cult to ana­ly­ze how the his­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness of stu­dents inc­re­a­se. The de­sign of tests
is ex­tre­me­ly im­por­tant in or­der to cap­tu­re the dif­fe­ren­ces. Te­acher co­o­pe­ra­tion with each ot­her and
with the re­se­ar­chers is, the­re­fo­re, cru­cial to achie­ve re­lia­bi­li­ty. It is al­so dif­fi­cult to know in which
way the con­trast bet­we­en the sto­ries in the le­ar­ning ma­te­rial in Les­son Three may ha­ve in­flu­en­ced
the le­ar­ning out­co­me, as the te­acher in­tro­du­ced anot­her di­men­sion, na­me­ly, se­e­king to un­ders­tand
li­fe from the per­spec­ti­ve of the pe­op­le who li­ved du­ring that pe­riod. A furt­her ex­ten­sion of the pro­
ject would be to car­ry out Les­son Three in a few groups, whi­le em­plo­y­ing con­trol groups in or­der
to see if the con­tras­ted sto­ries ha­ve or do not ha­ve an ef­fect on the le­ar­ning out­co­me.
To cap­tu­re the art of te­aching eve­ry­o­ne eve­ryt­hing is a dre­am. In or­der to cre­a­te a si­tu­a­tion that
pa­ral­lels the one being con­si­de­red, we ne­ed to not on­ly dis­cern a gre­at ma­ny as­pects, but al­so ta­ke
them in­to ac­count at the sa­me ti­me–w­hich may be im­pos­sib­le if we must con­si­der things in such a
va­rie­ty of wa­ys (Carl­gren & Mar­ton 2001). Ne­vert­he­less, by pre­sen­ting the ob­ject of le­ar­ning with
va­ria­tion and con­trast, whi­le emp­ha­si­zing the per­spec­ti­ve of tho­se who li­ved in earlier his­to­ri­cal
pe­riods, we may suc­ce­ed in the art of te­aching a gre­a­ter num­ber of stu­dents mo­re con­tent that they
will re­tain. As Carl­gren & Mar­ton (2001) wri­te, “Cru­cial for the most im­por­tant kind of le­ar­ning is
the pat­tern of di­men­sions of va­ria­tion that cha­rac­te­ri­zes the con­di­tions for le­ar­ning’ (p. 141). The
re­sults of this le­ar­ning stu­dy lend sup­port to such an as­sump­tion. Our fin­dings in­di­ca­te that se­pa­ra­
te, iso­la­ted facts se­em to be quic­kly for­got­ten, whi­le com­pre­hen­sion-ba­sed know­led­ge ap­pe­ars to
be re­tai­ned over the long term. Such know­led­ge is mo­re com­plex and re­qui­res an abi­li­ty to se­pa­ra­te
facts from their con­text (that is, a part from the who­le), as well as re­la­te the parts to each ot­her and
to the who­le via va­ria­tion. This pro­mi­ses to be the way to de­ve­lop com­pre­hen­sion-ba­sed know­led­ge
of the kind that stu­dents tend to re­tain long af­ter they le­a­ve the clas­sro­om. As the his­to­rian of the re­
nais­san­ce, Ja­kob Bur­chkardt, has writ­ten, “His­to­ry is not sup­po­sed to ma­ke us smart for to­mor­row,
but wi­se fo­re­ver.”

Re­fe­ren­ces
Carl­gren, I., & Mar­ton, F. (2001). Lära­re av i mor­gon. [Te­achers of to­mor­row] Lund: Stu­dent­lit­te­ra­tur.
Hart­man, J., (1998). Ve­tens­kap­ligt tänkan­de – från kuns­kaps­te­o­ri till me­tod­te­o­ri. [Scien­ti­fic thin­king –
from epis­te­mo­lo­gy to met­ho­do­lo­gy]. Lund: Stu­dent­lit­te­ra­tur.
Hart­smar, N. (2001). His­to­rie­med­ve­tan­de. Ele­vers tidsförståel­se i en skol­kon­text. [His­to­ri­cal awa­re­ness.
Pu­pils’ un­ders­tan­ding of his­to­ri­cal ti­me in a scho­ol con­text]. Malmö: Lära­rut­bild­nin­gen.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Holm­qvist, M. (2002). Läran­dets pe­da­go­gik. [The Pe­da­go­gy of le­ar­ning]. Forsk­ning­sansökan till ve­tens­
92
kapsrådets ut­bild­nings­ve­tens­kap­li­ga kom­mitté. [Re­se­arch ap­pli­ca­tion to the Swe­dish Re­se­arch Coun­cil.
Kris­tians­tad: Högsko­lan Kris­tians­tad.
Holm­qvist, M. (2004). En främman­de värld - om läran­de och au­tism. [A stran­ge world. About le­ar­ning
and Au­tism]. Lund: Stu­dent­lit­te­ra­tur.
Holm­qvist, M., & Nils­son, J. (2005). Hur kan lära­re ut­vec­kla ett livslångt läran­de? [How can te­achers
de­ve­lop li­fe­long le­ar­ning?] In Lin­delöf & Gis­by (eds): Läran­de he­la li­vet. [Li­fe­long le­ar­ning]. Lund:
Stu­dent­lit­te­ra­tur.
Holm­qvist, M., (red) (2006): Läran­de i sko­lan. Le­ar­ning stu­dy som sko­lut­vec­klings­mo­dell. [Le­ar­ning at
scho­ol. Le­ar­ning stu­dy as a scho­ol de­ve­lop mo­del]. Lund: Stu­dent­lit­te­ra­tur.
Holm­qvist, M., Gus­tav­sson , L., & Wern­berg, A. (2007). Ge­ne­ra­ti­ve le­ar­ning. Le­ar­ning be­yond the le­ar­
ning si­tu­a­tion. Edu­ca­tio­nal Ac­tion Re­se­arch, Vol 15, No 2, pp 181-208.
Holm­qvist, M., Gus­tav­sson, L. & Wern­berg, A. (2008) Va­ria­tion The­o­ry – An Or­ga­ni­zing Prin­cip­le to
Gui­de De­sign Re­se­arch in Edu­ca­tion. In Kel­ly, A.E., Lesh, R., &. Ba­ek J. (eds) Hand­bo­ok of de­sign re­
se­arch met­hods in edu­ca­tion, pp 111-130. New York: Rout­led­ge.
Holm­qvist, M., Lind­gren, G., Mat­tis­son, J., & Svar­vell, T. (2008). In­struc­tion built on le­ar­ners’ pre­vio­us
know­led­ge by using the Va­ria­tion the­o­ry. Pro­blems of Edu­ca­tion in the 21st Cen­tu­ry (Re­cent Is­su­es in
Edu­ca­tion), Vol 6, p 86-95.
Holm­qvist, M., & Mat­tis­son, J. (2008). Va­ria­tion the­o­ry – A to­ol to ana­ly­se and de­ve­lop le­ar­ning at scho­
ol. Pro­blems of Edu­ca­tion in the 21st Cen­tu­ry, Vol. 7, p 31-38.
Jen­sen, B. E. (1997). His­to­rie­med­ve­tan­de – be­grep­psa­na­lys, samhällste­o­ri, di­dak­tik. [His­to­ry awa­re­
ness - con­cep­tu­al ana­ly­sis, so­cial the­o­ry, di­dac­tics]. In: Kar­legård, C & Karl­sson, K-G (ed). His­to­rie­di­
dak­tik. [His­to­ry di­dac­tics]. Lund: Stu­dent­lit­te­ra­tur.
Mar­ton, F., & Bo­oth, S. (1997). Le­ar­ning & Awar­ness. Mah­wah, NJ: Earlbaum As­so­sia­tes.
Mar­ton,F. (2003). Le­ar­ning stu­dy – pe­da­go­gisk ut­vec­kling di­rekt i klas­srum­met. Forsk­ning av den­na
världen. Pra­xisnära forsk­ning inom ut­bild­nings­ve­tens­kap. [Le­ar­ning Stu­dy - edu­ca­tio­nal de­ve­lop­ment
in the clas­sro­om. Re­se­arch in this world. Prac­ti­ce-ba­sed re­se­arch in edu­ca­tio­nal scien­ce]. Rap­port 2, Ve­
tens­kapsrådet (s 41-46). Stoc­kholm.
Mar­ton, F., & Tsui, A. (2004) Clas­sro­om dis­cour­se and the spa­ce of le­ar­ning. Mah­wah: Law­ren­ce Erl­
baum.
Ru­nes­son, U. (1999). Va­ria­tio­nens pe­da­go­gik. [The pe­da­go­gy of va­ria­tion]. Göte­borg: Ac­ta Uni­ver­si­ta­
tis Got­ho­bur­gen­sis.
Tosh, J. (2000). His­to­risk te­ori och me­tod. [His­to­ri­cal the­o­ry and met­hod]. Lund: Stu­dent­lit­te­ra­tur.
Säljö, R. (2000). Läran­de i prak­ti­ken: ett so­cio­kul­tu­rellt per­spek­tiv. [Le­ar­ning in prac­ti­ce: a so­cio-cul­tu­
ral per­spec­ti­ve]. Stoc­kholm: Pri­sma.
Wern­berg, A. (2005). Va­ria­tions­te­o­rin i prak­ti­ken. [Va­ria­tion the­o­ry in prac­ti­ce]. In Eri­xon, P. O. (ed).
Forsk­ning­sar­be­te pågår, [Re­se­arch work in pro­gress] (pp. 316-332). Umeå: Umeå uni­ver­si­tet.

Ad­vi­ced by Lai­ma Rai­lie­nė, Uni­ver­si­ty of Šiau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia

Mo­na Holm­qvist As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor, Kris­tians­tad Uni­ver­si­ty Col­le­ge, SE-291 88 Kris­tians­tad, Swe­den.
Pho­ne: +44203241.
E-mail: Mo­na.Holm­qvist@hkr.se
Web­si­te: http://www.hkr.se/mo­na-holm­qvist

Kar­men Björkman PhD student, Kristianstad University College.


E-mail: Kar­men.Bjor­kman@iuc-olof­strom.se

Ma­lin Oh­lin PhD student, Kristianstad University College.


E-mail: ma­lin_oh­lin@edu.sol­ves­borg.se
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

93

TWO COMPLEMENTARY ASPECTS OF


CONTEMPORARY vo­cal pe­da­go­gy

Vai­ke Ki­ik-Sa­lu­pe­re
Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Tal­linn, Es­to­nia
E-mail: vai­ke@cens.ioc.ee

Ja­an Ross
Es­to­nian Aca­de­my of Mu­sic and The­at­re, Tal­linn, and Uni­ver­si­ty of Tar­tu, Es­to­nia
E-mail: ja­an.ross@ut.ee

Abst­ract

Inc­re­a­sing com­pe­ti­tion among mu­si­cians on the con­tem­po­ra­ry sce­ne me­ans ad­di­tio­nal re­qui­re­ments in
terms of pre­pa­ring of ver­sa­ti­le and com­pe­ti­ti­ve sin­gers, i.e. stu­dents who ha­ve ac­qui­red stab­le and high-
le­vel tech­ni­cal skills and who co­pe with the com­pe­ti­ti­ve en­vi­ron­ment. The­re­fo­re the ad­di­tio­nal abi­li­ty of
the voi­ce te­acher emer­ges: that is to sup­port the stu­dent emo­tio­nal­ly in the les­son, and equip the stu­dent
with know­led­ge to de­al with per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty.
Se­mi-struc­tu­red in­ter­views we­re con­duc­ted with se­ven emi­nent voi­ce te­achers and in­ter­views with an
ad-hoc-de­sig­ned qu­es­tion­nai­re we­re con­duc­ted with the stu­dents of clas­si­cal sin­ging at the Es­to­nian
Aca­de­my of Mu­sic and The­at­re (14), at the Tal­linn Ge­org Ots High Scho­ol of Mu­sic (13), and with the
sin­gers of the Es­to­nian Na­tio­nal Ope­ra choir (30). The fi­ve-point ba­lan­ced Li­kert sca­le was used in the
qu­es­tion­nai­re. The col­lec­ted da­ta we­re sub­ject to sta­tis­ti­cal ana­ly­sis. Clus­ter ana­ly­sis was ap­plied to
tho­se cor­re­la­tions in the ob­tai­ned da­ta, which we­re sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­ni­fi­cant (p<0.05).
Ana­ly­sis of in­ter­views and ans­wers to the qu­es­tion­nai­re de­monst­ra­ted that be­si­des to the trai­ning of tech­
ni­cal skills, at­ten­tion must be paid to the psy­cho­lo­gi­cal trai­ning of clas­si­cal sin­gers. Re­sults de­monst­ra­te
that youn­ger stu­dents tend to ex­pect mo­re ca­re from their te­achers than their ol­der coun­ter­parts. Al­most
all of the res­pon­dents are wil­ling to ob­tain mo­re know­led­ge about how to le­arn to co­pe with stress. The
voi­ce te­achers ad­mit­ted that the ma­jo­ri­ty of their stu­dents ha­ve pro­blems with per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty. Edu­
ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions which pre­pa­re mu­sic per­for­mers, inc­lu­ding clas­si­cal sin­gers, ha­ve to en­su­re that
their stu­dents achie­ve a high le­vel of tech­ni­cal skills and that they ha­ve the ne­ces­sa­ry men­tal skills to
de­al with the per­for­man­ce si­tu­a­tion.
Key words: per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty, vo­cal pe­da­go­gy, voi­ce pro­duc­tion.

In­tro­duc­tion

Due to chan­ges in so­cie­ty in re­cent years com­pe­ti­tion has be­co­me mo­re in­ten­si­ve in ma­ny are­
as, inc­lu­ding among pro­fes­sio­nal mu­si­cians. In the de­ve­lo­ped con­di­tions pro­fes­sio­nal ex­cel­len­ce
has an im­por­tant ro­le, but in ad­di­tion skill and abi­li­ty to per­form at a ve­ry go­od pro­fes­sio­nal le­vel
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

94
in stres­sful and un­fa­vou­rab­le con­di­tions is re­qui­red. Be­si­de pro­fes­sio­nal pro­fi­cien­cy al­so abi­li­ty to
co­pe with the com­pe­ti­ti­ve en­vi­ron­ment is ne­eded to en­su­re en­tran­ce in­to the la­bour mar­ket.
Per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty is to a les­ser or gre­a­ter de­gree fa­mi­liar to eve­ry per­for­mer. For clas­si­cal
sin­gers co­ping with per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty be­co­mes es­pe­cial­ly im­por­tant, be­cau­se the sin­gers’ in­stru­
ment is lo­ca­ted in them­sel­ves. Eve­ryt­hing that in­flu­en­ces a per­for­mer eit­her ex­ter­nal­ly or in­ter­nal­ly
di­rec­tly in­flu­en­ces the qu­a­li­ty of the sin­ger’s in­stru­ment. If psy­cho­lo­gi­cal ba­lan­ce ne­eded for per­
for­ming is not achie­ved be­fo­re the per­for­man­ce, the sin­ger’s in­stru­ment be­co­mes eit­her par­tial­ly
or en­ti­re­ly unu­sab­le and “pla­y­ing” on it do­es not yield the de­si­red re­sult. In ad­di­tion to the ba­sic
vo­cal tech­ni­qu­es vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es to­day ha­ve to pro­vi­de their stu­dents with con­fi­den­ce to put
their tech­ni­cal skills in­to prac­ti­ce. What use is a be­au­ti­ful voi­ce and years of work if per­for­man­ce
an­xie­ty re­du­ces skills by half or even mo­re? A sin­ger’s trai­ning ta­kes years, be­cau­se the ne­ces­sa­ry
sen­si­bi­li­ty for the in­stru­ment evol­ves gra­du­al­ly and musc­les on­ly yield to the will of the sin­ger in
the cour­se of ti­me.

Pro­blems of the re­se­arch

This stu­dy is ai­med at stu­dy­ing at­ti­tu­des of vo­ca­lists and their te­achers to­wards the psy­cho­lo­
gi­cal con­di­tions du­ring the mu­si­cal per­for­man­ce or pre­ce­ding it. One of the most im­por­tant fac­tors
con­tri­bu­ting to the qu­a­li­ty and suc­cess of a mu­si­cal per­for­man­ce, be­si­des the voi­ce cha­rac­te­ris­tics,
mu­si­ca­li­ty, and tech­ni­cal skills, is the so-cal­led per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty. The pro­blems of the per­for­
man­ce an­xie­ty and ot­her such, which are re­la­ted to the sin­ger’s psy­cho­lo­gi­cal com­fort or well being
du­ring a per­for­man­ce, are usu­al­ly sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly not de­alt with du­ring the cour­se of the sin­ger’s
edu­ca­tio­nal pro­gram. This stu­dy tries to shed light, on the one hand, to ex­pec­ta­tions a stu­dent may
pos­sess to­wards her/his psy­cho­lo­gi­cal pre­pa­ra­tion for a suc­ces­sful per­for­man­ce and, on the ot­her
hand, to the wil­lin­gness and abi­li­ty of vo­cal te­achers to pro­vi­de their stu­dents with such help.
The aim of the cur­rent work is to as­cer­tain the fol­lo­wing:
• Do stu­dents of clas­si­cal sin­ging re­cei­ve suf­fi­cient psy­cho­lo­gi­cal sup­port from their te­achers
in the les­sons and when pre­pa­ring for per­for­man­ces?
• Do vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es think that stu­dents ne­ed skills for co­ping with per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty?

Vo­cal Pe­da­go­gy

For stu­dents the re­la­tions­hip with their te­acher pla­ys an im­por­tant ro­le in their de­ve­lop­ment as
a sin­ger. In the le­ar­ning pro­cess not on­ly stu­dents ha­ve to un­ders­tand the te­acher but the te­acher al­so
ne­eds to re­cog­ni­se stu­dents’ na­tu­ral po­ten­tial for be­co­ming a go­od sin­ger, the strengths and we­ak­
nes­ses of the stu­dents’ sin­ger’s in­stru­ment, each conc­re­te stu­dent’s per­so­na­li­ty traits ad­van­ta­ge­ous
for le­ar­ning sin­ging and what kind of sin­ger will each stu­dent turn out be in the fu­tu­re. Em­pat­hy has
be­en con­si­de­red es­pe­cial­ly im­por­tant in sin­ging te­achers as, well as abi­li­ty to bring out in stu­dents
the best and most op­ti­mal sen­si­bi­li­ty for the in­stru­ment. Jo­nes (2002) views the spe­ci­fic vo­ca­bu­la­ry
used in te­aching sin­ging and finds that the to­pic is ex­tre­me­ly im­por­tant in vo­cal pe­da­go­gy sin­ce it
has a di­rect im­pact on the de­si­red re­sult. Gre­en (1987) al­so fo­cu­ses on the po­si­ti­ve and ne­ga­ti­ve
ef­fect of te­acher’s words on stu­dent’s per­for­man­ce. For exam­ple sug­ges­tion “don’t be ten­se” do­es
not te­ach stu­dents to re­lax but may inc­re­a­se the ten­sion.
On the ot­her hand it may be­co­me a pro­blem that a stu­dent do­es not un­ders­tand the me­tap­ho­ri­
cal re­com­men­da­tions of the te­acher or un­ders­tands them but is not wil­ling to ap­ply what has be­en
re­com­men­ded. In their work Vur­ma and Ross (2002) ha­ve stu­died what vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es me­an
when they ask their stu­dents to “pla­ce their voi­ce for­ward” and “pla­ce their voi­ce bac­kward”. All
pe­da­go­gu­es clai­med that for­ward and bac­kward pla­ce­ment of the sin­ging voi­ce is im­por­tant, but
ma­ny of them had fa­ced dif­fi­cul­ties try­ing to ex­plain stu­dents the exact me­a­ning of the­se terms.
Wha­te­ver ex­pres­sions are used by the pe­da­go­gu­es, the­re is al­wa­ys a dan­ger that stu­dents will not
Vaike KIIK-SALUPERE, Jaan ROSS. Two Complementary Aspects of Contemporary Vocal Pedagogy
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
un­ders­tand them. The most su­itab­le so­lu­tion would be that the vo­cal pe­da­go­gue pos­ses­ses know­led­ 95
ge about the acous­tic prin­cip­les of work of re­so­na­tors and on­ly af­ter the ob­jec­ti­ve ba­sic truths ha­ve
be­en ac­qui­red, it is ag­re­ed about the mu­tu­al­ly unam­bi­guo­us ter­mi­no­lo­gy that will be used in the
fu­tu­re. Mil­ler (1996) po­sits that me­tap­ho­ri­cal lan­gu­a­ge should not be used with no­vi­ce sin­gers but
with mo­re ad­van­ced stu­dents who ha­ve ac­qui­red bre­at­hing and la­rynx con­trol as well as re­so­na­tor
co­or­di­na­tion, i.e. the tech­ni­cal si­de of sin­ging. Vur­ma and Ross (2000) ha­ve stu­died vo­cal pe­da­go­
gu­es and stu­dents of Es­to­nian Aca­de­my of Mu­sic to find out what Es­to­nian sin­ging pe­da­go­gu­es pay
most at­ten­tion to in their work with stu­dents. The re­se­arch re­sults de­monst­ra­te that mo­re at­ten­tion is
paid to work on car­ry­ing po­wer of the to­ne and less to the qu­a­li­ty of the to­ne. Mil­ler (1997) claims
that ex­pec­ta­tions for to­ne qu­a­li­ty de­ri­ve from na­tio­nal and aesthe­tic un­ders­tan­ding of the be­au­ty of
a to­ne. For exam­ple, the­re is gre­at dif­fe­ren­ce bet­we­en an Asian ope­ra sin­ger and a sin­ger with clas­si­
cal Ita­lian trai­ning. Sin­ce ope­ras hi­re sin­gers from dif­fe­rent coun­tries, the stan­dards of to­ne qu­a­li­ty
will gra­du­al­ly con­ver­ge.

Per­for­man­ce An­xie­ty

In the con­di­tions of to­da­y’s fier­ce com­pe­ti­tion it is be­co­ming inc­re­a­sin­gly mo­re im­por­tant how
sin­gers are ab­le to re­a­li­se them­sel­ves in un­fa­vou­rab­le si­tu­a­tions that may be cau­sed, for exam­ple,
by he­alth re­a­sons, fa­ti­gue or com­pe­ti­ti­ve en­vi­ron­ment. The out­co­me de­pends ve­ry much on the ha­
bi­tu­al be­ha­vio­ur of the sin­gers in dif­fe­rent si­tu­a­tions and their adap­ta­bi­li­ty and skills of co­ping with
ad­di­tio­nal per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty cau­sed by stres­sful con­di­tions. Per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty is con­si­de­rab­
ly wi­de­ly spre­ad among mu­si­cians (Step­toe & Fil­der, 1987; Ken­ny et al. 2004). Stern­bach (1995)
desc­ri­bes pro­fes­sio­nal mu­si­cians’ work as a pro­fes­sion which ge­ne­ra­tes a “to­tal stress quo­tient”
that far ex­ce­eds the stress of ot­her pro­fes­sions. It has be­en dis­co­ve­red that wo­men are two to three
ti­mes mo­re su­scep­tib­le to stress than men (Ame­ri­can Psy­chiat­ric As­so­cia­tion, 1994; Le­win­sohn,
Got­lib, Le­win­son, Se­e­ly, & Al­len, 1998). The sa­me trend in per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty can be ob­ser­ved
in mu­si­cians: the le­vel of per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty is no­ti­ce­ab­ly hig­her in fe­ma­le mu­si­cians than in
ma­le mu­si­cians (Hus­ton, 2001; Os­bor­ne & Franc­lin, 2002; Sin­den, 1999). The re­se­arch re­lied on
Bar­low’s an­xie­ty mo­del (Bar­low, 2000; Ken­ny et al. 2004), which sug­gests three in­ter­re­la­ted cau­ses
for vul­ne­ra­bi­li­ty: 1. A ge­ne­ra­li­sed bio­lo­gi­cal (ge­ne­ti­cal­ly in­he­ri­ted) vul­ne­ra­bi­li­ty. 2. A ge­ne­ra­li­sed
psy­cho­lo­gi­cal vul­ne­ra­bi­li­ty ba­sed on so­me earlier ex­pe­rien­ce of co­ping with stres­sful si­tu­a­tions.
3. A spe­ci­fic vul­ne­ra­bi­li­ty re­la­ted to the pro­cess of le­ar­ning, a res­pon­se to in­di­rect en­vi­ron­men­tal
in­flu­en­ce. Bar­low as­serts that ge­ne­tic dis­po­si­tion and earlier li­fe ex­pe­rien­ce may cons­ti­tu­te a suf­fi­
cient cau­se for ge­ne­ral an­xie­ty and mo­od swings. The third sour­ce of an­xie­ty is pri­ma­ri­ly re­la­ted to
self-es­te­em and un­fa­vou­rab­le and com­pe­ti­ti­ve en­vi­ron­ment.
Young mu­si­cians who are used to the sup­por­ti­ve at­ti­tu­de of their lis­te­ners, may ex­pe­rien­ce
de­ep per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty when they ha­ve to per­form in a new en­vi­ron­ment that do­es not of­fer psy­
cho­lo­gi­cal sup­port. In the­se ca­ses at­ten­tion and con­cen­tra­tion fall, which has a ne­ga­ti­ve ef­fect on
the qu­a­li­ty of the per­for­man­ce. Sal­mon, & Me­y­er (1992) ha­ve ad­dres­sed stress and per­for­man­ce
an­xie­ty and re­ve­a­led that even ex­pe­rien­ced per­for­mers are an­xio­us be­fo­re per­for­man­ce in­de­pen­dent
of whet­her they ha­ve ex­pe­rien­ced fai­lu­re or not. Ho­we­ver, ex­pe­rien­ced per­for­mers ha­ve a dif­fe­rent
at­ti­tu­de to­wards per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty than no­vi­ce per­for­mers. Na­me­ly, ex­pe­rien­ced per­for­mers ac­
cept an­xie­ty be­fo­re a per­for­man­ce and fe­e­lings and phy­si­cal chan­ges re­la­ted to it and the­re­fo­re ke­ep
their com­po­su­re, do not pa­nic and al­wa­ys main­tain cer­tain pro­fes­sio­nal stan­dard.
Per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty has be­en desc­ri­bed as the oc­cur­ren­ce of phy­sio­lo­gi­cal, psy­cho­lo­gi­cal,
cog­ni­ti­ve and be­ha­vio­u­ral symp­toms and al­so their com­bi­na­tions. The most fre­qu­ent phy­sio­lo­gi­
cal symp­toms inc­lu­de: inc­re­a­sed he­art ra­te, dry mouth, swe­a­ting, short­ness of bre­ath, in­di­ges­tion,
nau­sea, diar­rho­ea, trem­bling, diz­zi­ness and flus­hing (Ely, 1991; Sal­mon, 1991; Wes­ner, No­y­es, &
Da­vis, 1990; Hal­lam, 2008). In re­la­tion with per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty si­tu­a­tio­nal an­xie­ty has be­en most
fre­qu­ent­ly men­tio­ned (Hu­ma­ra, 1999; King, Mietz, Tin­ney, & Ol­len­dick, 1995; Lit­tle, 1999). Achie­
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

96
ving out­stan­ding skills re­qui­res years of per­fec­tion-fo­cu­sed trai­ning, so­li­ta­ry prac­ti­ce and con­ti­nuo­
us self-im­pro­ve­ment from a per­for­mer. High le­vel of an­xie­ty may al­so be cau­sed by low self-es­te­em
(Bo­roz­di­na and Za­lu­che­no­va, 1993).
Se­ve­ral the­o­ries ha­ve be­en wor­ked out and used to desc­ri­be per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty. The best
known of tho­se is the Yerkes-Dod­son law, which is rep­re­sen­ted by an in­ver­ted U-sha­ped cur­ve and
de­fi­nes the op­ti­mal pro­por­tion bet­we­en emo­tio­nal arou­sal and go­od per­for­man­ce. Emo­tio­nal arou­
sal that is too low or ex­ce­eds a cer­tain op­ti­mal li­mit has a ne­ga­ti­ve ef­fect on the qu­a­li­ty of per­for­man­
ce. It is al­so no­ted that per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty is con­si­de­rab­ly inc­re­a­sed by in­suf­fi­cient pre­pa­ra­tion or
too com­pli­ca­ted task. As the so­lu­tion, it is sug­ges­ted to get to know one’s own be­ha­vio­ur in cer­tain
si­tu­a­tions, get fa­mi­liar with the best per­so­nal emo­tio­nal sta­te for per­for­ming and how to en­su­re the
op­ti­mal sta­te when ne­eded.

Met­ho­do­lo­gy of Re­se­arch

The da­ta for the pre­sent stu­dy ha­ve be­en col­lec­ted in two dif­fe­rent forms. For a lar­ge group of
high-scho­ol and aca­de­my stu­dents as well as for the ope­ra choir per­for­mers, we had to use a stan­dar­
di­sed qu­es­tion­nai­re. For a smal­ler group of vo­cal te­achers, we used se­mi-struc­tu­red in­ter­views in
or­der to get a mo­re pa­no­ra­mic pic­tu­re about their long ex­pe­rien­ce of edu­ca­ting their ap­pren­ti­ces.
The in­ter­views we­re con­duc­ted with se­ven re­cog­ni­sed Es­to­nian vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es. The du­ra­
tion of each in­ter­view was ap­pro­xi­ma­te­ly two hours. All in­ter­vie­we­es we­re pro­fes­sio­nal clas­si­cal
sin­gers and vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es in sta­te mu­sic edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions. The ma­jo­ri­ty of them had 30
years or mo­re te­aching ex­pe­rien­ce.
The writ­ten struc­tu­red qu­es­tion­nai­re for the stu­dents con­sis­ted of clo­sed qu­es­tions with ra­ting
sca­les and con­tai­ned 88 sta­te­ments. The sta­te­ments fell in­to fi­ve ca­te­go­ries: 1. Re­cog­ni­tion, 14
sta­te­ments, 2. Con­si­de­ra­tion, 17 sta­te­ments, 3. Ex­pec­ta­tions for the te­acher, 15 sta­te­ments, 4. The
les­son, 23 sta­te­ments, 5. The per­for­man­ce, 19 sta­te­ments.
Qu­es­tion­nai­re res­pon­dents’ sam­ple con­sis­ted of pro­fes­sio­nal sin­gers of the ope­ra choir of Es­to­
nia Na­tio­nal Ope­ra (30), stu­dents of clas­si­cal sin­ging of Es­to­nian Aca­de­my of Mu­sic and The­at­re
(14), stu­dents of clas­si­cal sin­ging of Ge­org Ots Tal­linn Mu­sic Scho­ol (13).
The qu­es­tion­nai­re was ra­ted on a 5-point ba­lan­ced Li­kert sca­le, which has an equ­al num­ber
of po­si­ti­ve and ne­ga­ti­ve ca­te­go­ries. The da­ta re­cei­ved was pro­ces­sed with the da­ta-pro­ces­sing pro­
gram­me “Sta­tis­ti­ca 5.1”. All de­ci­sions about the dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en the me­ans we­re ma­de at the
sig­ni­fi­can­ce le­vel of p < 0.05. In or­der to di­vi­de in­di­ces that cor­re­la­te in­to clus­ters, Ward’s met­hod
was used for clus­ter ana­ly­sis of all parts of the qu­es­tion­nai­re.

Re­sults of Re­se­arch

Se­mi-struc­tu­red in­ter­views with vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es

The ana­ly­sis of the in­ter­views re­ve­a­led that all in­ter­vie­we­es con­si­de­red psy­cho­lo­gi­cal ba­lan­ce
be­fo­re per­for­ming an im­por­tant fac­tor of co­ping with per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty.

All in­ter­vie­we­es had a firm­ly es­tab­lis­hed dai­ly rou­ti­ne, which they fol­lo­wed es­pe­cial­ly stric­tly
on the da­ys of per­for­man­ce. All vo­ca­lists emp­ha­si­sed that be­fo­re a per­for­man­ce they ne­ed 1. ve­ry
go­od rest, 2. ti­me at ho­me be­fo­re no­on, 3. me­als on ti­me, 4. bre­at­hing exer­ci­ses and an es­tab­lis­hed
set of vo­cal exer­ci­ses, 5. to avoid the use of voi­ce for spe­a­king, 6. to avoid re­he­ar­sing the pro­gram­
me of the con­cert or the ro­le with voi­ce be­fo­re the per­for­man­ce.
For exam­ple, it was said: “I de­fi­ni­te­ly avoid con­ver­sa­tions or spe­a­king on the day of per­for­
man­ce”, “I spe­ak as lit­tle as pos­sib­le”, “I re­vi­se my ro­le on­ly by fol­lo­wing the mu­sic with eyes, I
don’t use my voi­ce”.
Vaike KIIK-SALUPERE, Jaan ROSS. Two Complementary Aspects of Contemporary Vocal Pedagogy
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
All in­ter­vie­we­es wis­hed to spend the ti­me be­fo­re the per­for­man­ce in si­len­ce and with their own 97
thoughts. For the ma­jo­ri­ty of them the pre­pa­ra­tion for the per­for­man­ce in the eve­ning al­re­a­dy be­gan
in the mor­ning. All in­ter­vie­we­es emp­ha­si­sed the im­por­tan­ce of the prior pre­pa­ra­to­ry work for avoi­
ding stress and achie­ving bet­ter fe­e­ling on the sta­ge. If the ti­me of pre­pa­ra­tion had be­en in­suf­fi­cient,
it de­fi­ni­te­ly inc­re­a­sed the le­vel of per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty.
All vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es stres­sed the use­ful­ness of bre­at­hing exer­ci­ses in re­du­cing ten­sion be­fo­re
the per­for­man­ce. The ma­jo­ri­ty of them did bre­at­hing exer­ci­ses eve­ry day and lon­ger on the day of
per­for­man­ce. All se­ven in­ter­vie­we­es no­ted that when the voi­ce is not in or­der be­cau­se of ti­red­ness
or a cold, bre­at­hing exer­ci­ses help to al­le­via­te the si­tu­a­tion. They all al­so men­tio­ned the im­me­dia­te
cal­ming ef­fect of bre­at­hing exer­ci­ses on the ner­vous sys­tem.
The most fre­qu­ent bre­at­hing exer­ci­se was rhyt­hmic in­ha­ling, hol­ding bre­ath and ex­ha­ling. For
fast re­la­xa­tion two to three de­ep in­ha­la­tions and ex­ha­la­tions or two or three de­ep sighs we­re used.
In­ter­vie­we­es emp­ha­si­sed the im­por­tan­ce of rest af­ter a res­pon­sib­le per­for­man­ce and said that
they ne­ver com­men­ce the le­ar­ning of a new ro­le or song im­me­dia­te­ly af­ter the per­for­man­ce. As go­
od stress re­lief, ac­ti­vi­ties in the open air (gar­de­ning, fis­hing, wal­king) we­re po­in­ted out.
For exam­ple: “I de­fi­ni­te­ly ha­ve a rest af­ter the per­for­man­ce. Stress re­lief is use­ful and then you
can car­ry on again,” or “Af­ter a res­pon­sib­le per­for­man­ce, if pos­sib­le, I do so­me gar­de­ning”.
All in­ter­vie­we­es un­der­li­ned that clas­si­cal sin­ging is ve­ry tigh­tly con­nec­ted with emo­tions. A
go­od fe­e­ling be­fo­re the per­for­man­ce is en­su­red by go­od pro­fes­sio­nal pre­pa­ra­tion, go­od phy­si­cal
sha­pe, es­tab­lis­hed dai­ly rou­ti­ne and sa­tis­fac­tion with per­so­nal li­fe.
All in­ter­vie­we­es we­re in­vol­ved with a sport that hel­ped them to main­tain a bet­ter phy­si­cal
form. They po­in­ted out the gre­at im­por­tan­ce of a he­alt­hy li­fes­ty­le and its di­rect ef­fect on voi­ce qu­
a­li­ty.
In­ter­vie­we­es con­si­de­red most dif­fi­cult the ne­ed of a clas­si­cal sin­ger to be in go­od sha­pe eve­ry
day throug­hout the se­a­son.
All vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es con­fir­med that all their stu­dents ha­ve ex­pe­rien­ced per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty
to a gre­a­ter or les­ser de­gree. All pe­da­go­gu­es in­tro­du­ced bre­at­hing exer­ci­ses to their stu­dents im­me­
dia­te­ly at the be­gin­ning of their sin­ging stu­dies, but did not main­tain con­ti­nuo­us and re­gu­lar use of
them furt­her on.
All vo­ca­lists-te­achers clai­med that the pro­fes­sion of a clas­si­cal sin­ger re­qui­res high stress to­
le­ran­ce.

The writ­ten struc­tu­red qu­es­tion­nai­re for the stu­dents

The me­an of the ra­ting of the sta­te­ment “The pro­fes­sion of a clas­si­cal sin­ger re­qui­res high
stress to­le­ran­ce” was ve­ry high ( x = 4.79), which is re­la­ted to the ne­ed for an op­ti­mal psy­cho­lo­gi­
cal sta­te both du­ring the stu­dies and in a wi­der con­text of the pro­fes­sion.
The ma­jo­ri­ty of the stu­dents re­plied that they are al­wa­ys ner­vous be­fo­re per­for­man­ces. The
hig­hest per­cen­ta­ge of an­xie­ty was dis­pla­y­ed by the stu­dents of the Mu­sic Scho­ol 92%, fol­lo­wed
by the sin­gers of the ope­ra choir 83% and a lit­tle less an­xio­us we­re stu­dents of the Aca­de­my 79%
(Fi­gu­re 1).
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

98 73

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
O. Ch. U. St. H. St. TOTAL
NO 3 0 0 3
0 2 3 1 6
YES 25 11 12 48

Fi­gu­re 1. Res­pon­ses to the sta­te­ment “I am al­wa­ys ner­vous be­fo­re a


per­for­man­ce” (O. Ch. – sin­gers of the ope­ra choir, U. St. –
stu­dents of the Aca­de­my, H. St. – stu­dents of the Mu­sic Scho­ol).
Re­flects stu­dents’ an­xie­ty be­fo­re per­for­man­ces.

The lo­west me­an ra­ting was re­cei­ved by the sta­te­ment “My te­acher spe­aks too much about
her/him­self in the les­sons and va­lu­ab­le les­son ti­me gets was­ted” ( x = 1.72), which on the who­le is
a po­si­ti­ve re­sult, sin­ce it shows that Es­to­nian vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es do not use les­son ti­me to di­stract
stu­dents with self-pre­sen­ta­tion.
A low me­an ra­ting was gi­ven to the sta­te­ment “I li­ke it when the te­acher do­es com­ple­te­ly new
vo­cal exer­ci­ses be­fo­re a per­for­man­ce” ( x = 1.81), which in­di­ca­tes that for the pe­a­ce­ful and po­si­ti­
ve pro­gress of sin­ging stu­dies it is ne­ces­sa­ry to es­tab­lish and main­tain a rou­ti­ne, es­pe­cial­ly be­fo­re
per­for­man­ces, in which the op­por­tu­ni­ty of re­cei­ving a ne­ga­ti­ve as­su­ran­ce should be pre­ven­ted.
In the ca­te­go­ry of Re­cog­ni­tion stu­dents con­si­de­red im­por­tant that the te­acher would suf­fi­cient­
ly re­cog­ni­se the stu­dent ( x = 4.32) and ins­til mo­re self-con­fi­den­ce ( x = 4.04). All stu­dents ( 3.27)
we­re sig­ni­fi­cant­ly mo­re dis­tur­bed than pro­fes­sio­nal choir sin­gers ( x = 2.37) by the te­acher de­monst­
ra­ting with her/his voi­ce how po­or­ly they had be­en sin­ging. The part of the qu­es­tion­nai­re de­a­ling
with re­cog­ni­tion re­ve­a­led that te­achers should gi­ve mo­re po­si­ti­ve fe­ed­back to stu­dents and in spi­te
of the oc­cur­ring er­rors they should al­wa­ys cle­ar­ly out­li­ne the suc­ces­ses.
In the ca­te­go­ry of Con­si­de­ra­tion a clus­ter ana­ly­sis of cha­rac­te­ris­tics desc­ri­bing te­achers’ con­
si­de­ra­tion was car­ried out, as the re­sult of which four clus­ters for­med. By using the va­lu­es of in­di­
vi­du­al en­ti­ties con­ver­ged in­to clus­ters sum cha­rac­te­ris­tics we­re cal­cu­la­ted. The cha­rac­te­ris­tics of
in­di­vi­du­al va­lu­es we­re ad­ded up and di­vi­ded by the num­ber of clus­ter cha­rac­te­ris­tics.
The first group of cha­rac­te­ris­tics ( x = 3.83) inc­lu­des pe­da­go­gi­cal at­ti­tu­de to­wards stu­dents
as fu­tu­re pro­fes­sio­nals (Cron­bach’s α = 0.76) and re­flects te­acher’s in­te­rest in the de­ve­lop­ment of
the stu­dent as a young mu­si­cian. The se­cond sub­ca­te­go­ry views te­acher as a men­tor ( x = 4.08)
(Cron­bach’s α=0.82) and ob­ser­ves te­acher in the ro­le of a su­per­vi­sor. The third sub­ca­te­go­ry views
te­acher as an aut­ho­ri­ty ( x = 4.18) (Cron­bach’s α=0.81) and clus­ters sta­te­ments that desc­ri­be trust in
te­acher’s de­ci­sions. The fourth sub­ca­te­go­ry de­als with the re­la­tions­hip of the te­acher-stu­dent in the
“Own child” sty­le ( x = 2.75) (Cron­bach’s α=0.59). In this sub­ca­te­go­ry all groups ga­ve re­la­ti­ve­ly
low ra­tings. Stu­dents most ex­pec­ted from the te­acher sup­port and faith in stu­dents ( x = 4.33) and
le­ast wis­hed te­acher to ta­ke in­te­rest in the de­tails of their per­so­nal li­fe ( x = 2.18). Con­si­de­ra­tion
was vie­wed as po­si­ti­ve when it was re­la­ted to stu­dies and pro­fes­sio­nal pre­pa­ra­tion.
In the ca­te­go­ry of Ex­pec­ta­tions for the te­acher stu­dents most ex­pec­ted the te­acher to be open to
new ide­as and op­por­tu­ni­ties ( x = 4.40) and tell them mo­re about the op­tions and skills of psy­cho­lo­
gi­cal­ly pre­pa­ring them­sel­ves be­fo­re sin­ging ( x = 4.33). The in­flu­en­ce of the fe­e­ling of well-being
Vaike KIIK-SALUPERE, Jaan ROSS. Two Complementary Aspects of Contemporary Vocal Pedagogy
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
is ex­tre­me­ly im­por­tant for clas­si­cal sin­gers. Sin­ce sin­gers’ “in­stru­ment” is lo­ca­ted in them­sel­ves, 99
it be­co­mes de­fi­ning for the to­ne qu­a­li­ty or end re­sult whet­her the psy­cho­lo­gi­cal ba­lan­ce be­fo­re the
per­for­man­ce sup­ports and am­pli­fies tech­ni­cal skills or not. Clus­ter ana­ly­sis re­ve­a­led three sub­ca­te­
go­ries.
The first is cha­rac­te­ri­sed by the pres­su­re exer­ted by the te­acher ( x = 3.27) (Cron­bach’s 0.64),
te­acher’s dis­sa­tis­fac­tion and ex­ces­si­ve emo­tio­na­li­ty. The se­cond sub­ca­te­go­ry cha­rac­te­ri­ses the com­
pe­ten­ce of the co­ach (ac­com­pa­nist) ( x = 4.55) (Cron­bach’s α=0.63). The com­mon de­no­mi­na­tor
of the third sub­ca­te­go­ry is the sup­port pro­vi­ded by the te­acher in the le­ar­ning pro­cess ( x = 4.10)
(Cron­bach’s α = 0.75), which inc­lu­des psy­cho­lo­gi­cal pre­pa­ra­tion. The­re we­re no sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­
ren­ces in the res­pon­ses of the groups by sub­ca­te­go­ries. Ho­we­ver, dif­fe­ren­ces in in­di­vi­du­al sta­te­
ments oc­cur­red.
Main­tai­ning a dis­tan­ce bet­we­en the te­acher and the stu­dent re­cei­ved hig­her ra­tings from the
wor­king sin­gers ( x = 4.07) than stu­dents ( x = 3.33) and wo­men ( x = 3.95) wis­hed to main­tain a
dis­tan­ce with the te­acher mo­re than men ( x = 3.18). Pro­fes­sio­nals ( x = 4.37) ap­pre­cia­ted mo­re
than stu­dents ( x = 3.85) a te­acher who en­cou­ra­ges stu­dents to ta­ke risks and fo­cus on chal­len­ges.
As the re­sult of the clus­ter ana­ly­sis of the cha­rac­te­ris­tics desc­ri­bing The les­son, three sub­ca­te­
go­ries for­med. The first group of cha­rac­te­ris­tics desc­ri­bes the ef­fect of co­o­pe­ra­tion on the les­son
( x = 4.66) (Cron­bach’s α = 0.66). In the se­cond group of cha­rac­te­ris­tics ( x = 2.95) (Cron­bach’s
α=0.51) the in­flu­en­ce of the te­acher’s mo­od on stu­dents is de­alt with. The third clus­ter desc­ri­bing
te­aching pro­cess inc­lu­des 10 cha­rac­te­ris­tics ( x = 3.86) (Cron­bach’s α = 0.83) and views the te­acher
as the sha­per of the les­son and cre­a­tor of the mo­od.
Stu­dents of the Aca­de­my ( x = 3.86) mo­re than Mu­sic Scho­ol stu­dents ( x = 2.77) thought
that their pe­da­go­gu­es can cre­a­te a su­itab­le mo­od in them. The re­cei­ved re­sults re­ve­al that te­achers
should be mo­re ac­ti­ve in cre­a­ting a su­itab­le mo­ti­va­ting and po­si­ti­ve mo­od, es­pe­cial­ly in the work
with youn­ger stu­dents. Most sa­tis­fied with their te­acher’s skills to cre­a­te su­itab­le mo­od in them we­
re sin­gers of the ope­ra choir 73% and stu­dents of the Aca­de­my 64%. The youn­gest or stu­dents of the
Mu­sic Scho­ol we­re le­ast sa­tis­fied with their te­achers in this res­pect, on­ly 31% (Fi­gu­re 2).

70

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
O. Ch. U. St. H. St. TOTAL
NO 4 0 5 9
0 4 5 4 13
YES 22 9 4 35

Figure 2. Responses to the statement “The teacher is able to psychologically


prepare me so that I can give my maximum when performing”
(O. Ch. – singers of the opera choir, U. St. – students of the
Academy, H. St. – students of the Music School). Reflects
psychological support provided by the teacher.

As the result of the cluster analysis of the characteristics describing preparation for The
performance, four clusters formed and three statements remained separate. The first group of
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

100
characteristics deals with psychological support provided by the teacher ( x = 3.25) (Cronbach’s
α = 0.76) and describes teacher as the one who psychologically tunes the student before the
performance. The second group of characteristics describes students’ stressors ( x = 2.42)
(Cronbach’s α = 0.56) and covers situations causing tension in students before the performance.
The third group of characteristics describes the feeling of security before the performance
( x = 3.92) (Cronbach’s α=0.49) and views the circumstances that have a positive or negative effect
on pre-performance anxiety. The fourth group of characteristics deals with students’ worrying
before a performance ( x = 3.90) (Cronbach’s α=0.67) and includes problems causing hesitation
in students before the performance. Differences in rating the statements were distinct from the
differences between groups, where the working singers ( x = 3.51) rated the psychological support
provided by the teacher higher than students ( x = 2.95). The need for and importance of the support
provided by the teacher was rated higher by men ( x = 3.82) than by women ( x = 3.00).
It became evident in this category that students of all groups wished the teacher to do the same
vocal exercises before the performance as usual ( x = 4.47), which would ensure a routine and give
security for performing.
The highest rating among individual statements was given to the statement that the profession
of a classical singer requires high stress tolerance ( x = 4.79). This reveals the view of students that
in vocalists necessary psychological preparation is the primary precondition for positive realisation
of technical competence.

Dis­cus­sion

The re­se­arch re­sults sho­wed that in ad­di­tion to de­ve­lo­ping vo­cal tech­ni­cal skills in the pro­cess
of vo­cal trai­ning both vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es and stu­dents con­si­de­red ve­ry im­por­tant the gi­ving of know­
led­ge and skills of co­ping with per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty. All vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es sta­ted that their stu­dents
had to a gre­a­ter or les­ser de­gree ex­pe­rien­ced the de­struc­ti­ve ef­fect of per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty. That sta­
te­ment was al­so con­sis­tent with the stu­dy in­vol­ving stu­dents, whe­re the ma­jo­ri­ty of stu­dents of the
three groups clai­med that they we­re al­wa­ys ner­vous be­fo­re per­for­ming, but this as­ser­tion was most
con­fir­med by the stu­dents of the Mu­sic Scho­ol. Bunch (1997) has ob­ser­ved the sa­me ten­den­cy that
no­vi­ce sin­gers es­pe­cial­ly of­ten lo­se co­or­di­na­ted ac­ti­vi­ty in mus­cu­la­tu­re, bo­dy po­stu­re, bre­at­hing,
ar­ti­cu­la­tion, ap­pli­ca­tion of re­so­na­tors – prin­ci­pal­ly in the per­cep­tion of the dy­na­mic ac­ti­vi­ty of the
who­le bo­dy as a uni­ty. Ac­cor­ding to Leh­mann (2007), per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty usu­al­ly ma­ni­fests in ne­
ga­ti­ve chan­ges in men­tal and phy­si­cal sen­se of self be­fo­re the per­for­man­ce.
All vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es par­ti­ci­pa­ting in the stu­dy we­re pro­fes­sio­nal sin­gers and al­so as­ser­ted the
oc­cur­ren­ce of per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty be­fo­re per­for­man­ces. They all con­fir­med that cer­tain rou­ti­ne
helps to bet­ter con­cen­tra­te be­fo­re the per­for­man­ce. Ne­vert­he­less, lit­tle if any at­ten­tion was paid in
vo­cal les­sons to de­ve­lo­ping stu­dents’ pre-per­for­man­ce rou­ti­ne. Thus it can be no­ted that te­achers
ha­ve no­ti­ced pro­blems re­la­ted to per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty in their stu­dents but ha­ve not de­alt with them
sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly and si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly with the de­ve­lop­ment of vo­cal tech­ni­cal skills.
All vo­cal pe­da­go­gu­es stres­sed the be­ne­fits of bre­at­hing exer­ci­ses in sin­gers’ dai­ly pro­fes­sio­nal
li­fe, but the prac­ti­ca­li­ty of the­se exer­ci­ses be­fo­re per­for­man­ces was es­pe­cial­ly emp­ha­si­sed. Ma­ny
vo­ca­lists-te­achers ad­mit­ted doing bre­at­hing exer­ci­ses re­gu­lar­ly eve­ry day but in­tro­du­cing bre­at­hing
exer­ci­ses to stu­dents at ran­dom, so the­re was no sys­te­ma­tic work in this area. Wil­lia­mon (2008)
stres­ses in his works that men­tal skills of re­du­cing per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty should be taught and de­ve­
lo­ped si­mi­lar­ly to mu­si­cal skills, i.e. they al­so ha­ve to be prac­ti­sed re­gu­lar­ly. The stu­dy of stu­dents
re­ve­a­led that 87% of ope­ra choir sin­gers, 78% of the stu­dents of Es­to­nian Aca­de­my of Mu­sic and
The­at­re and 87% of the stu­dents of Ge­org Ots Mu­sic Scho­ol we­re in­te­res­ted in the te­acher tel­ling
them mo­re about the skills al­lo­wing them to psy­cho­lo­gi­cal­ly tu­ne them­sel­ves be­fo­re per­for­man­ces.
That in­di­ca­tes that stu­dents are awa­re of psy­cho­lo­gi­cal re­a­di­ness and the ne­ed to le­arn res­pec­ti­ve
skills.
Vaike KIIK-SALUPERE, Jaan ROSS. Two Complementary Aspects of Contemporary Vocal Pedagogy
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

101
Stu­dents of the Mu­sic Scho­ol ra­ted lo­wer than sin­gers of the ope­ra choir and stu­dents of the
Aca­de­my their te­achers’ skills to cre­a­te a su­itab­le mo­od in the les­sons. All groups ad­mit­ted that
their te­achers did not pra­ise them suf­fi­cient­ly and stu­dents of the Mu­sic Scho­ol ex­pec­ted re­cog­ni­
tion from their te­achers even if a po­si­ti­ve chan­ge had be­en mi­ni­mal, whi­le pro­fes­sio­nal sin­gers did
not con­si­der a small po­si­ti­ve chan­ge as im­por­tant. Con­se­qu­ent­ly, no­vi­ce sin­gers should be re­cog­ni­
sed mo­re of­ten and gi­ven po­si­ti­ve fe­ed­back even on smal­ler suc­ces­ses in or­der to rein­for­ce stu­dents’
be­lief in their skills.
Stu­dents con­si­de­red im­por­tant that te­achers no­ti­ced their pro­gress in com­pa­ri­son with their
earlier achie­ve­ments not with tho­se of their fel­low stu­dents or pro­fes­sio­nal sin­gers. Stu­dents of the
Aca­de­my re­a­li­sed most and stu­dents of the Mu­sic scho­ol le­ast when they had do­ne well vo­cal­ly.
That on­ce again re­fers to the ne­ed to gi­ve po­si­ti­ve fe­ed­back to no­vi­ce sin­gers, who are less con­fi­dent
about their sin­ging.
Res­pon­dents of all groups wan­ted that be­fo­re per­for­man­ce their te­acher would do the sa­me
vo­cal exer­ci­ses with them they we­re used to in their les­sons. Es­pe­cial­ly ne­ga­ti­ve about using new
exer­ci­ses we­re stu­dents of the Aca­de­my, which con­firms the ne­ed for a cer­tain rou­ti­ne in vo­cal pe­da­
go­gy. To en­su­re suc­ces­sful per­for­man­ce, Hal­lam (2008) re­com­mends mu­si­cians to le­arn to ac­cept
symp­toms una­voi­dab­ly con­nec­ted with per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty and fo­cus their at­ten­tion and ener­gy
on­ly on things re­la­ted to the per­for­man­ce. The gre­a­test wil­lin­gness and re­a­di­ness to per­form was
dis­pla­y­ed by stu­dents of the Aca­de­my and the smal­lest by stu­dents of the Mu­sic Scho­ol. He­re­by it
should be con­si­de­red how to ma­ke the per­for­man­ce si­tu­a­tion mo­re ple­a­sant for Mu­sic Scho­ol stu­
dents. One pos­si­bi­li­ty would be to pay mo­re at­ten­tion to the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the pie­ce in spi­te of
tech­ni­cal skills that re­qui­re mo­re trai­ning and de­ve­lop­ment. It should be no­ted that the re­qui­re­ment
of per­fec­tio­nism should not be over­do­ne with no­vi­ces, be­cau­se it tends to overs­ha­dow the ple­a­su­re
of per­for­ming. In his ar­tic­le on per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty Bar­low (2000) claims that one of the com­po­
nents con­tri­bu­ting to an­xie­ty is re­la­ted to self-es­te­em and un­fa­vou­rab­le and com­pe­ti­ti­ve en­vi­ron­
ment and points out that this es­pe­cial­ly af­fects young mu­si­cians, for whom sup­por­ti­ve at­ti­tu­de and
pro­mo­ting their per­for­man­ce con­fi­den­ce is ex­tre­me­ly im­por­tant.

Conc­lu­sion

The re­se­arch re­sults re­ve­a­led that stu­dents of clas­si­cal sin­ging wan­ted their te­achers to gi­ve
them mo­re know­led­ge and skills of pre-per­for­man­ce psy­cho­lo­gi­cal pre­pa­ra­tion. All vo­cal pe­da­go­
gu­es emp­ha­si­sed that pro­fes­sio­nal sin­gers ha­ve to be ab­le to ma­na­ge, con­trol and di­rect them­sel­ves
des­pi­te in­ter­nal or ex­ter­nal un­fa­vou­rab­le fac­tors. They all had es­tab­lis­hed a dai­ly rou­ti­ne they fol­lo­
wed. They did phy­si­cal exer­ci­ses im­pro­ving their sta­mi­na. They all clai­med that clas­si­cal sin­ging is
tigh­tly con­nec­ted with emo­tions. All pe­da­go­gu­es con­ten­ded that the ma­jo­ri­ty of their stu­dents had
per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty pro­blems. In spi­te of that they did not co­ver in their les­sons the to­pics en­su­ring
pre-per­for­man­ce well-being. As a by-pro­duct it be­ca­me evi­dent that youn­ger stu­dents and stu­dents
with less sin­ging ex­pe­rien­ce ne­eded gre­a­ter psy­cho­lo­gi­cal sup­port form the te­acher.
In vo­cal pe­da­go­gy, be­si­de de­ve­lo­ping vo­cal tech­ni­cal si­de, mo­re emp­ha­sis should be put on
know­led­ge and skills that help stu­dents to ad­just to the pre-per­for­man­ce si­tu­a­tion. Exer­ci­ses and
tech­ni­qu­es fa­ci­li­ta­ting and en­su­ring go­od per­for­man­ce should be gi­ven to stu­dents si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly
with the de­ve­lop­ment of tech­ni­cal skills. Know­led­ge about de­ve­lo­ping pre-per­for­man­ce pre­pa­red­
ness may be vi­tal in the trai­ning of sin­gers, gi­ven that the pro­fes­sion of a clas­si­cal sin­ger to­day
re­qui­res re­a­di­ness for per­for­ming in a ve­ry tight, worl­dwi­de com­pe­ti­tion.
Un­doub­ted­ly, exer­ci­ses and tech­ni­qu­es fa­ci­li­ta­ting pre-per­for­man­ce well-being are al­so use­ful
for ot­her fields in­vol­ving in­ter­pre­ta­tion as well as for stu­dents who­se fu­tu­re pro­fes­sion re­qui­res
pub­lic per­for­ming.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

102 Ac­know­led­gment

The ar­tic­le was pre­pa­red with the fi­nan­cial aid of the Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty Gra­du­a­te Scho­ol of
Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces for the first aut­hor.

Re­fe­ren­ces
Ame­ri­can Psy­chiat­ric As­so­cia­tion. (1994). Diag­nos­tic and sta­tis­ti­cal ma­nu­al of men­tal di­sor­ders (4th
ed.). Was­hing­ton, DC: Ame­ri­can Psy­chiat­ric As­so­cia­tion.
Bar­low, D. (2000). Un­ra­vel­ling the mys­te­ries of an­xie­ty and its di­sor­ders from the per­spec­ti­ve of emo­
tion the­o­ry. Ame­ri­can Psy­cho­lo­gist, 55(11), 1247–1263.
Bo­roz­di­na, L. V., & Za­lu­che­no­va, E. A. (1993). Inc­re­a­se in an­xie­ty in­dex as a re­sult of disc­ri­pan­cy bet­
we­en self-eva­lu­a­tion and le­vel of as­pi­ra­tions. Vop­ro­sy Psik­ho­lo­gii, 1, 104–113.
Bunch, M. (1997). Dy­na­mics of the sin­ging voi­ce. New York: Sprin­ger.
Ely, M.C. (1991). Stop Per­for­man­ce An­xie­ty! Mu­sic Edu­ca­tors Jour­nal, 79(2), 35–39.
Gre­en, B., & Gal­lwey, W. T. (1987). The in­ner ga­me of mu­sic. Lon­don: Pan Bo­oks.
Hal­lam, S. (2008). Mu­sic Psy­cho­lo­gy in Edu­ca­tion. New­cast­le: Bed­ford Way Pa­pers.
Hu­ma­ra, M. (1999). The re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en an­xie­ty and per­for­man­ce. At­hle­tic In­sight: On­li­ne Jour­nal
of Sport Psy­cho­lo­gy, 1(2), NP.
Hus­ton, J. L. (2001). Fa­mi­lial an­te­ce­dents of mu­si­cal per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty: a com­pa­ri­son with so­cial an­
xie­ty. Dis­ser­ta­tion Abst­racts In­ter­na­tio­nal: Sec­tion B: The Scien­ces & En­gi­ne­e­ring, 62(1-B), 551.
Jo­nes, D. L. (2002). Mas­ter te­aching: the lost art.
http://www.voi­ce­te­a­cher.com/mas­ter_te­aching.html (ac­ces­sed 28. Feb­ru­a­ry 2010).
Ken­ny, D. T., Da­vis, P., Oates, J. (2004). Mu­sic per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty and oc­cu­pa­tio­nal stress amongst
ope­ra cho­rus ar­tists and their re­la­tions­hip with sta­te and trait an­xie­ty and per­fec­tio­nism. An­xie­ty Di­sor­
ders, 18, 757–777.
King, N. J., Mietz, A., Tin­ney, L., & Ol­len­dick, T. H. (1995). Psy­cho­pat­ho­lo­gy and cog­ni­tion in ado­les­
cents ex­pe­rien­cing se­ve­re test an­xie­ty. Jour­nal of Cli­ni­cal Child Psy­cho­lo­gy, 24(1), 49–54.
Leh­mann, A. C., Slo­bo­da, J. A., Wo­o­dy R. H. (2007). Psy­cho­lo­gy for Mu­si­cians. Un­ders­tan­ding and
Ac­qui­ring the Skills. Ox­ford: Ox­ford Uni­ver­si­ty Press.
Le­win­sohn, P. M., Got­lib, I. H., Le­win­sohn, M., Se­e­ley, J. R., & Al­len, N. B. (1998). Gen­der dif­fe­ren­
ces in an­xie­ty di­sor­ders and an­xie­ty symp­toms in ado­les­cents. Jour­nal of Ab­nor­mal Psy­cho­lo­gy, 107(1),
109–117.
Lit­tle, L. M. (1999). An ex­pe­ri­men­tal ana­ly­sis of an ac­cep­tan­ce-ba­sed per­for­man­ce en­han­ce­ment in­ter­
ven­tion in a sports con­text. Dis­ser­tai­on Abst­racts In­ter­na­tio­nal: Sec­tion B: The Scien­ces and En­gi­ne­e­
ring, 59(11-B), 6111.
Mil­ler, R. (1996). The struc­tu­re of sin­ging. New York: Schir­mer Bo­oks.
Mil­ler, R. (1997). Na­tio­nal scho­ols of sin­ging: En­glish, French, Ger­man and Ita­lian tech­ni­qu­es of sin­
ging re­vis­ted. Lon­don: The Sca­rec­row Press, Inc.
Os­bor­ne, M. S., & Fran­klin, J. (2002). Cog­ni­ti­ve pro­ces­ses in mu­sic per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty. Aust­ra­lian
Jour­nal of Psy­cho­lo­gy, 54(2), 86–93.
Sal­mon, P. (1991). A pri­mer on per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty for or­ga­nists: Part I. The Ame­ri­can Or­ga­nist, May,
55–59.
Vaike KIIK-SALUPERE, Jaan ROSS. Two Complementary Aspects of Contemporary Vocal Pedagogy
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Sal­mon, P. G., & Me­y­er, R. G. (1992). No­tes from the gre­en ro­om: co­ping with stress and an­xie­ty in 103
mu­si­cal per­for­man­ce. New York: Le­xing­ton Bo­oks.
Sin­den, L. M. (1999). Mu­sic per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty: con­tri­bu­tions of per­fec­tio­nism, co­ping sty­le, sel­fef­fi­
ca­cy, and self-es­te­em. Dis­ser­ta­tion Abst­racts In­ter­na­tio­nal, 60(3-A), 0590.
Step­toe, A., & Fid­ler, H. (1987). Sta­ge fright in or­chest­ral mu­si­cians: a stu­dy of cog­ni­ti­ve and be­ha­vio­u­
ral stra­te­gies in per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty. Bri­tish Jour­nal of Psy­cho­lo­gy, 78, 241–249.
Stern­bach, D. J. (1995). Mu­si­cians: a ne­glec­ted wor­king po­pu­la­tion in cri­sis. In S. L. Sau­ter & L. R.
Murp­hy (Eds.), Or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal risk fac­tors for job stress (pp. 283–302, xii, 400). Was­hing­ton, DC:
Ame­ri­can Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal As­so­cia­tion.
Vur­ma, A., & Ross, J. (2000). Pri­ori­ties in voi­ce trai­ning: car­ry­ing po­wer or to­ne qu­a­li­ty. Mu­si­cae Scien­
tiae, 4(1), 75–92.
Vur­ma, A., & Ross, J. (2002). Whe­re is a sin­ger’s voi­ce if it is pla­ced “for­ward”. Jour­nal of Voi­ce, 16(3),
383–391.
Wes­ner, R.B., No­y­es, R., Da­vis, T.L. (1990). The oc­cur­ren­ce of per­for­man­ce an­xie­ty among mu­si­cians.
Jour­nal of Af­fec­ti­ve Di­sor­ders, 18(3), 177–185.
Wil­lia­mon, A. (2008). Mu­si­cal ex­cel­len­ce. Stra­te­gies and tech­ni­qu­es to en­han­ce per­for­man­ce. Ox­ford:
Ox­ford Uni­ver­si­ty Press.

Ad­vi­ced by Lei­da Talts, Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Es­to­nia

Vai­ke Ki­ik-Sa­lu­pe­re MA., PhD stu­dent, Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Es­to­nia Nar­va mnt 25, 10120 Tal­linn, Es­to­nia.
Pho­ne: +372-5274997.
E-mail: vai­ke@cens.ioc.ee
Web­si­te: http://www.tlu.ee/?LangID=2

Ja­an Ross As­soc. Pro­fes­sor, Es­to­nian Aca­de­my of Mu­sic and The­at­re, Räva­la pst 16, Tal­linn
10143, and Uni­ver­si­ty of Tar­tu, Tar­tu, Es­to­nia.
E-mail: ja­an.ross@ut.ee
Web­si­te: http://www.ema.edu.ee/?lang=eng
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

104

THE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES OF


THE 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL TEACHER

Ke­te­van Ko­ba­lia, El­za Ga­ra­ka­ni­dze


Ilia Sta­te Uni­ver­si­ty, Ge­or­gia
E-mail: ke­te­van_ko­ba­lia@iliau­ni.edu.ge, el­za­ga­ra­ka­ni­dze@yahoo.com

Abst­ract

Ac­cor­ding to the de­mands of ma­ny edu­ca­tio­nal re­forms, a te­acher should not on­ly be a pro­vi­der of
know­led­ge and skills, but al­so ha­ve a po­si­ti­ve at­ti­tu­de to­wards in­no­va­tions, fe­el the ne­ces­si­ty for self-
edu­ca­tion, and adopt a stu­dent cen­te­red te­aching ap­pro­ach. Te­achers are ex­pec­ted to de­ve­lop pro­fes­
sio­nal skills and al­wa­ys try to be “an ef­fec­ti­ve mo­del of com­pe­ten­ce” (Bru­ner, 1976). For exam­ple, an
exa­mi­na­tion of edu­ca­tion stu­dents found that the main emp­ha­sis in their pre­pa­red­ness was sub­ject area
know­led­ge. Stu­dents did not re­port a fo­cus on the per­so­na­li­ty traits. This stu­dy re­ports da­ta gat­he­red
from edu­ca­tion gra­du­a­tes about their per­cep­tions of the le­vel and ex­tent of pro­fes­sio­nal com­pe­ten­ce
ex­pe­rien­ced du­ring their pre­pa­ra­tion. This stu­dy has be­en car­ried out to re­ve­al the in­te­rac­tion qu­a­li­ty
bet­we­en the pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le com­pe­ten­ces and the con­se­qu­en­ces of te­aching pro­cess.
Key words: pe­da­go­gy, te­acher pre­pa­ra­tion, te­acher pro­fes­sio­nal com­pe­ten­ces, te­acher trai­ning.

In­tro­duc­tion

The po­li­ti­cal and so­cial chan­ges that to­ok pla­ce in Ge­or­gia, cau­sed by the di­sin­teg­ra­tion of the
So­viet Union, al­te­red the edu­ca­tio­nal stra­te­gies ai­med at pro­du­cing a mo­dern, cre­a­ti­ve, and to­le­rant
te­acher. This shift in edu­ca­tio­nal stra­te­gy can be un­ders­to­od as a mo­ve from the old pa­ra­digm of
te­acher-tex­tbo­ok-stu­dent to a new pa­ra­digm of stu­dent-tex­tbo­ok-te­acher.
Ac­cor­ding to the old pa­ra­digm and the aut­ho­ri­ta­rian mo­del, a te­acher func­tio­ned main­ly as
an edu­ca­tor. To­day, the te­acher’s go­al is to mo­ni­tor te­aching pro­cess, view a stu­dent not on­ly as a
te­aching ob­ject but what is mo­re im­por­tant, ma­ke the stu­dent the ob­ject of te­aching pro­cess. In this
res­pect, the fo­cus is on the stu­dent and the de­ve­lop­ment of each child. This re­qui­re­ment ne­ces­si­ta­tes
ma­king so­me cor­rec­tion in the te­acher trai­ning pro­cess on the ba­sis of pe­da­go­gi­cal in­no­va­tions.
The te­aching in­no­va­tions are of­ten es­tab­lis­hed in the edu­ca­tio­nal sys­tems. They are cha­rac­te­
ris­tic of all edu­ca­tio­nal fields rep­re­sen­ting the na­tu­ral phe­no­me­na. One of the main re­a­sons for the
te­aching in­no­va­tions is con­si­de­red to be “the cri­sis of edu­ca­tion” which has be­en re­cog­ni­zed all
over the world (Le­vi­tan, 1994). Des­pi­te the va­rio­us ma­ni­fes­ta­tions of in­no­va­tions, they still ha­ve
much in com­mon, na­me­ly the fol­lo­wing con­tra­dic­tions bet­we­en:
• the ac­tu­al trai­ning qu­a­li­ty of high edu­ca­tion and so­cial prac­ti­ce gra­du­a­tes;
• the exis­ting ad­mi­nist­ra­tio­nal and or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal struc­tu­res and ar­ran­ge­ment of high edu­ca­tio­
nal ins­ti­tu­tions;
Ketevan KOBALIA, Elza GARAKANIDZE. The Professional Competencies of the 21st Century School Teacher
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
• the in­te­rests and abi­li­ties of the te­aching ob­ject. 105
The te­aching in­no­va­tion is di­mi­nis­hed due to the inef­fi­cien­cy of te­acher trai­ning pro­cess. For
exam­ple, Lang & Evans (2006) ar­gu­ed that prac­ti­ce should start in the early part of the te­acher pre­
pa­ra­tion and be de­ve­lo­ping in a cyc­li­cal way through out the pro­gram.
A new-ty­pe of te­acher should be not on­ly an edu­ca­tor and prac­ti­tio­ner of a de­fi­ni­te te­aching
ac­ti­vi­ty but al­so ought to be fa­mi­liar with the pe­da­go­gi­cal de­on­to­lo­gy, the cur­rent te­aching co­de of
con­duct and ru­les. This new te­acher must be ab­le to ana­ly­ze the new ex­pec­ta­tions and to ac­qui­re
the te­aching cons­cien­ce that is awa­re of both an ide­al and a re­al “self”. The te­acher should be ab­le
to com­bi­ne the two ima­ges and al­wa­ys stri­ve for the ide­al. On this ba­sis, the te­acher will be ab­le to
de­ve­lop his or her own pro­fes­sio­nal sty­le and “self-con­cept”. This is the star­ting point of so-cal­led
re­fle­xi­ve edu­ca­tion.
It is a wi­de­ly-known fact that on­ly a per­son edu­ca­tes a per­son and the per­so­nal exam­ple is one
of the ma­jor met­hods of up­brin­ging. So, a te­acher has to al­wa­ys in­tend to de­ve­lop pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­
lu­ab­le com­pe­ten­cies and re­a­li­ze that their ac­cu­mu­la­tion de­ter­mi­nes the te­acher’s com­pe­ten­ce. This
as­pect of te­acher trai­ning re­qui­res spe­cial at­ten­tion. Je­ro­me Bru­ner on­ce said: “A te­acher should be
an ef­fec­ti­ve mo­del of com­pe­ten­ce”.
Re­se­arch about the wa­ys to im­pro­ve the qu­a­li­ty of te­acher trai­ning pro­grams may be con­cep­tu­
a­li­zed using the The­o­ry of Set de­ve­lo­ped by the Ge­or­gian scho­lar, D. Uz­na­dze. The set, ac­cor­ding
to Uz­na­dze (2005), en­tails the full mo­di­fi­ca­tion of an in­di­vi­du­al that en­cou­ra­ges him/her to ac­qui­re
cer­tain at­ti­tu­des and know­led­ge. The set co­vers the in­teg­ri­ty of the sub­jec­ti­ve (ne­ed) and ob­jec­ti­ve
(si­tu­a­tion) cir­cums­tan­ces. The fol­lo­wing fac­tors form the “pe­da­go­gi­cal set”: 1) the mo­ti­va­tion and
de­si­re of the te­acher to per­form the te­aching act; 2) the abi­li­ty of the te­acher to ana­ly­ze the re­qui­re­
ments of the le­ar­ning si­tu­a­tion; and 3) the ope­ra­tio­nal abi­li­ties of an in­di­vi­du­al (ap­prop­ria­te skills).
The “pe­da­go­gi­cal set” is de­ve­lo­ped du­ring the who­le ca­re­er of a pro­fes­sio­nal te­acher.

The­o­re­ti­cal Ba­se or Li­te­ra­tu­re Re­view

Pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le com­pe­ten­cies ha­ve be­en the sub­ject of much re­se­arch and a de­fi­ni­tion
has be­en adop­ted. Re­la­ting to com­pe­ten­cies, ma­ny scien­tists ha­ve pro­du­ced stu­dies on the pro­blem
of de­sig­ning a te­acher’s per­so­na­li­ty. Brun­ner (1976), for ins­tan­ce, re­fer­red to dif­fe­rent stu­dies that
dis­tin­guis­hed and sum­ma­ri­zed the pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le fe­a­tu­res of an ef­fec­ti­ve te­acher and sha­
ped an ide­al mo­del te­acher. Brun­ner inc­lu­ded the fol­lo­wing 10 com­po­nents:
Emo­tio­nal sta­bi­li­ty;
Po­si­ti­ve self-es­te­em;
Sys­te­ma­tic and in­di­vi­du­a­lis­tic te­aching plan;
Part­ner ap­pro­ach to a stu­dent;
Ad­van­ta­ge of in­di­rect ma­na­ge­ment in­flu­en­ce;
Avoi­dan­ce of ri­gid met­hods;
Ap­ply­ing the met­hods of group work;
Using the con­tras­ting sti­mu­li;
Fle­xi­bi­li­ty (in­di­vi­du­a­lis­tic at­ti­tu­de to stu­dents, de­ter­mi­na­tion of te­aching go­als, te­aching met­
hods and me­ans).
La­ter, Diet­rich et al (1983) pro­po­sed ot­her ten te­achers’ com­pe­ten­cies:
High self-con­trol;
Emo­tio­nal ste­a­di­ness;
Com­pas­sion;
Ob­jec­ti­ve­ness;
Friend­li­ness;
Res­pon­si­bi­li­ty;
Eager­ness to co-ope­ra­te;
Con­fi­den­ce;
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

106
Am­pli­tu­de of po­si­ti­ve per­so­na­li­ty fe­a­tu­res;
Low in­dex of dep­res­sion, fal­se­ho­od, psy­cho­pat­hy and hy­po­chon­dria.
The­re are the dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en the abo­ve te­acher trai­ning mo­dels. The se­cond mo­del rep­re­
sents per­so­nal fe­a­tu­res whe­re­as the first one inc­lu­des pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le com­pe­ten­cies along­
si­de de­si­rab­le per­so­na­li­ty traits. Ho­we­ver, both aut­hors cle­ar­ly show the clo­se con­nec­tion with the
me­a­ning of the mo­del. The aut­hors pay at­ten­tion to tho­se pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le com­pe­ten­cies
such as emo­tio­nal sta­bi­li­ty, col­la­bo­ra­tion with stu­dents (part­ners­hip), po­si­ti­ve self-es­te­em, and am­
pli­tu­de of po­si­ti­ve per­so­na­li­ty fe­a­tu­res and so on.
Over the last de­ca­des, ma­ny va­rio­us te­acher trai­ning mo­dels ha­ve be­en cre­a­ted. It’s im­por­tant to
no­ti­ce the chan­ging ten­den­cy of per­so­na­li­ty fe­a­tu­res and com­pe­ten­cies. For exam­ple, Cruic­kshank
et al. (2002) be­lie­ve the ef­fec­ti­ve te­acher must ha­ve cha­rac­te­ris­tics that inc­lu­de: a mo­ti­va­ting per­so­
na­li­ty ent­hu­siasm, warmth, hu­mor, cre­di­bi­li­ty, and orien­ta­tion to suc­cess.
The abo­ve-men­tio­ned set of qu­a­li­ties cla­ri­fies that the ef­fec­ti­ve te­acher trai­ning can be un­ders­
to­od as cre­a­ting a de­moc­ra­tic, re­fle­xi­ve, co-ope­ra­ti­ve and ca­ring te­acher.

Met­ho­do­lo­gy of Re­se­arch

Po­pu­la­tion and Se­lec­tion of Re­se­arch Sub­jects

To iden­ti­fy the per­cep­tions of te­acher edu­ca­tion stu­dents about pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le fe­a­tu­res
and com­pe­ten­cies of an ef­fec­ti­ve te­acher, this stu­dy was car­ried out at Tbi­li­si Ilia Sta­te Uni­ver­si­ty. A
stu­dent po­pu­la­tion of 156 stu­dents in the ge­ne­ral edu­ca­tion de­part­ment and in the mu­sic edu­ca­tion
de­part­ment was as­ked to com­ple­te an open en­ded qu­es­tion­nai­re as­king them to list their per­cep­tions
of te­acher com­pe­ten­cies. One hun­dred and ni­ne­te­en (119) stu­dents (IV, V year) of the edu­ca­tion
de­part­ment and 37 stu­dents (IV-V year) of mu­sic de­part­ment of the uni­ver­si­ty par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the
pro­ject. The da­ta we­re gat­he­red in 2007–2008.

Da­ta Col­lec­tion and Ana­ly­sis

All stu­dents in the po­pu­la­tion (n = 156) com­ple­ted the qu­es­tion­nai­re. To com­ple­te their as­sign­
ment, stu­dents we­re as­ked to iden­ti­fy the 10 most im­por­tant pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le com­pe­ten­cies.
The stu­dents then iden­ti­fied 120 qu­a­li­ties in all. The re­se­ar­cher then co­ded the 120 items and re­du­
ced them to 59 com­pe­ten­cy the­mes ac­cor­ding to the si­mi­lar me­a­ning. The da­ta we­re ana­ly­zed in a
se­cond ite­ra­tion yiel­ding the rank or­de­red com­pe­ten­cies pre­sen­ted in Tab­le 1.

Re­sults of Re­se­arch

The fol­lo­wing 10 fe­a­tu­res we­re top-ra­ted (see Tab­le 1). The co­lumn re­por­ting oc­cur­ren­ces re­fer
to how ma­ny ti­mes this par­ti­cu­lar com­pe­ten­ce was ob­ser­ved in the da­ta.

Tab­le 1. Ran­king of Ten Top Com­pe­ten­cies.


n = 156

Com­pe­ten­cy Ran­king Num­ber of Oc­cur­ren­ces


Edu­ca­ted, eru­di­te, in­tel­li­gent 1 91
Or­der­ly, well-dis­cip­li­ned, or­ga­ni­zed 2 88
So­ciab­le 3 85
Ob­jec­ti­ve, fair 4 83
Pro­fes­sio­nal, com­pe­tent, qu­a­li­fied 5 76
Un­ders­tan­ding, sen­si­ti­ve, per­cep­ti­ve 6 72
Ketevan KOBALIA, Elza GARAKANIDZE. The Professional Competencies of the 21st Century School Teacher
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
Continued to Tab­le 1 IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

Spe­ech skills 7 60 107


Ca­pab­le to te­ach, ha­ving di­dac­tic abi­li­ty 8 55
Child-lo­ving, be­ne­vo­lent 9 53
Re­ser­ved, self-pos­ses­sed, calm 10 46

The ana­ly­sis of the re­sult in the Tab­le 1 shows that the list do­es not inc­lu­de the pro­fes­sio­nal­ly
va­lu­ab­le fe­a­tu­res such as: to­le­ran­ce (15), open­ness to in­no­va­tions (14), hu­man­ness (8), and cre­a­ti­vi­
ty (4). Mo­re­o­ver, the per­so­na­li­ty fe­a­tu­res li­ke tar­ge­ting at stu­dent’s suc­cess, ent­hu­siasm, clas­sro­om
ma­na­ge­ment, sen­se of hu­mor we­re not men­tio­ned at all.
Con­se­qu­ent­ly, the re­sults, re­vie­wed af­ter lis­ting and ran­ging of fe­a­tu­res, in­di­ca­ted that a te­
acher’s ma­jor func­tion tra­di­tio­nal­ly re­mains the know­led­ge of sub­ject, the abi­li­ty to ex­plain and
ren­der. So, the know­led­ge ap­pro­ach to the edu­ca­tion of the new ge­ne­ra­tion still per­si­sts as per­cei­ved
by the­se sub­jects.
To es­tab­lish the pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le com­pe­ten­cies of a pro­spec­ti­ve te­acher and stu­dents’
self-es­te­em, an ave­ra­ge test was pro­vi­ded for the sa­me group of res­pon­dents.
The res­pon­dents we­re to eva­lu­a­te the pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le skills ra­ting from 1 to 5 ac­cor­
ding to qu­a­li­ty (Ja­pa­ri­dze, 2005). Af­ter exa­mi­ning each form, the da­ta we­re com­bi­ned in­to the aca­
de­mic groups and the ave­ra­ge num­ber was cal­cu­la­ted. Thus, a tab­le con­tai­ning ten aca­de­mic groups
was pro­du­ced (see Tab­le 2).

Tab­le 2. Self Es­ti­ma­tions of Com­pe­ten­cies.


n = 156
(An­chors: dif­fi­cult to eva­lu­a­te = 1; low le­vel = 2; mid le­vel = 3;
high le­vel = 4; hig­hest le­vel = 5).

Com­pe­ten­cy Ran­king M
Com­mu­ni­ca­tion 1 4.2
Spe­a­king 2 4.0
Re­fle­xi­ve 3 3.9
Di­dac­tic 4 3.7
Ab­le to pre­dict 5 3.6
Diag­nos­tic 6 3.6
Open- min­ded 7 3.4
Emo­tio­nal 8 3.4
Co­or­di­na­ti­ve 9 3.3
Aca­de­mic 10 3.2
M 3.7

The re­sults shown in Tab­le 2 in­di­ca­te that the stu­dents ac­ti­ve­ly cho­se pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le
com­pe­ten­cies. Yet, diag­nos­tic, prog­nos­tic, emo­tio­nal, open to in­no­va­tion and ot­her skills we­re not
se­lec­ted by the­se res­pon­dents.
The out­co­mes of the ave­ra­ge test as well as the ans­wers to the qu­es­tion­nai­re de­monst­ra­te that
the­se stu­dents do not ful­ly un­ders­tand the ran­ge of com­pe­ten­cies which cur­rent re­form li­te­ra­tu­re
main­tains as es­sen­tial to for suc­cess in their fu­tu­re pro­fes­sion.

Conc­lu­sions

• Con­tem­po­ra­ry edu­ca­tio­nal stra­te­gy re­qui­res a new ap­pro­ach to­wards the te­acher trai­ning which
will pro­du­ce an ac­ti­ve, cre­a­ti­ve and open-min­ded te­acher.
• This stu­dy in­to the qu­a­li­ty of pre­pa­ra­tion of se­con­da­ry and mu­sic de­part­ment gra­du­a­tes using
the psy­cho­lo­gi­cal met­hods (open en­ded qu­es­tion­nai­re, test) car­ried out at our uni­ver­si­ty sho­
wed that te­acher edu­ca­tion con­ti­nu­es to re­flect the old pa­ra­digm: te­acher-tex­tbo­ok-stu­dent.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

108
• Ho­we­ver, cer­tain mo­ve­ments to chan­ge the tra­di­tio­nal pa­ra­digms should be ob­ser­ved (stu­dent-
tex­tbo­ok-te­acher). In sin­gle ca­ses, the stu­dents iden­ti­fied the pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le com­pe­ten­
cies of an ef­fec­ti­ve and mo­dern te­acher, though this iden­ti­fi­ca­tion is still spon­ta­ne­ous.
• To be equip­ped for the cur­rent so­cial or­der - that of know­led­ge­ab­le and pro­fes­sio­nal­ly com­
pe­tent in­di­vi­du­al – te­acher edu­ca­tion must pro­du­ce the te­acher equip­ped with te­aching in­no­
va­tions and pro­fes­sio­nal­ly va­lu­ab­le com­pe­ten­cies which de­ve­lop­ment rep­re­sent the es­sen­tial
com­po­nent of trai­ning.

No­tes

Di­mit­ri Uz­na­dze (1886–1950) – was a well-known Ge­or­gian psy­cho­lo­gist. He cre­a­ted the ori­
gi­nal The­o­ry of Set. Uz­na­dze pro­du­ced a col­lec­tion of stu­dies in­to ge­ne­ral, child and edu­ca­tio­nal
psy­cho­lo­gy. Uz­na­dze es­tab­lis­hed a psy­cho­lo­gi­cal cen­ter at Tbi­li­si Sta­te Uni­ver­si­ty and The Ins­ti­tu­te
of Psy­cho­lo­gy at Ge­or­gia Aca­de­my of Scien­ces. A lar­ge group of psy­cho­lo­gists has be­en wor­king
at the ins­ti­tu­te.
The ma­jor prin­cip­les of Uz­na­dze the­o­ry ha­ve be­en tran­sla­ted in­to En­glish.

Re­fe­ren­ces
Berk, L. (2006). Child de­ve­lop­ment. Bos­ton: Pe­ar­son.
Brun­ner, R. (1976). Leh­rer trai­ning – Grund­la­gen, Ver­fah­ren, Er­geb­nis­se [Te­acher trai­ning: Ba­sics –
pro­cess – re­sult]. München: E. Rein­hardt Ver­lag.
Cruic­kshank, D.R., Jen­kins, D.B. & Met­calf, K.M. (2002). The Act of Te­aching. Bos­ton: McGraw-Hill.
Die­te­rich, R., Eber­hard E., In­grid, P. & Rit­sher, H. (1983). Psy­cho­lo­gie der Leh­rer­persönlich­keit [Psy­
cho­lo­gy of te­acher per­so­na­li­ty]. München: Rein­hardt.
Ja­pa­ri­dze, M. (2005). Ga­nat­le­bis Psi­ko­lo­gia [Psy­cho­lo­gy of edu­ca­tion]. Tbi­li­si: Ilia Chav­cha­va­dze Sta­te
Uni­ver­si­ty.
Lang, H.R., & Da­vid, N.E. (2006). Mo­dels, stra­te­gies and met­hods for ef­fec­ti­ve te­aching. Bos­ton: Al­lyn
& Ba­con.
Le­vi­tan, K. (1994). Os­no­vi Pe­da­go­gi­ches­koi De­on­to­lo­gii [The ba­sis of pe­da­go­gi­cal de­on­to­lo­gy]. Mos­
cow: Nau­ka.
Uz­na­dze, D. (2005). Pe­da­go­giu­ri Tkhzu­le­ba­ni [Pe­da­go­gi­cal es­sa­ys]. Tbi­li­si: Ko­lo­ri.
Wo­ol­folk, A. (2001). Edu­ca­tio­nal psy­cho­lo­gy. Bos­ton: Al­lyn & Ba­con.

Ad­vi­ced by Na­te­la Ime­da­dze, Ilia Sta­te Uni­ver­si­ty, Ge­or­gia

Ke­te­van Ko­ba­lia PhD stu­dent, Ilia Sta­te Uni­ver­si­ty, Edu­ca­tio­nal De­part­ment, Br. Zu­ba­las­hvi­li str., No.43,
Tbi­li­si, Ge­or­gia.
E-mail: ke­te­van_ko­ba­lia@iliau­ni.edu.ge
Web­si­te: http://iliau­ni.edu.ge/in­dex.php?sec_id=1&lang_id=ENG

El­za Ga­ra­ka­ni­dze Phd Stu­dent, Ilia Sta­te Uni­ver­si­ty, Edu­ca­tio­nal De­part­ment, Sa­a­ka­dze Stre­et, No.17,
Tbi­li­si, Ge­or­gia.
E-mail: el­za­ga­ra­ka­ni­dze@yahoo.com
Web­si­te: http://iliau­ni.edu.ge/in­dex.php?sec_id=1&lang_id=ENG
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

109

ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF PRE-SCHOOL


EDUCATION AS A CRITERION IMPROVING
THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN POLAND

Mar­ze­na Ok­ra­sa
Ma­ria Cu­rie-Skłodow­ska Uni­ver­si­ty of Lub­lin, Po­land
E-mail: mar­ze­na.ok­ra­sa@poc­zta.umcs.lub­lin.pl

Abst­ract

In­ves­ting in hu­man ca­pi­tal, in know­led­ge and skills, im­pacts the eco­no­my’s de­ve­lop­ment - si­mi­lar­ly as
in­ves­ting in new tech­no­lo­gy. A go­od and ef­fec­ti­ve em­plo­y­ee, who as an adult will be ca­pab­le of ad­jus­ting
his or her qu­a­li­fi­ca­tions to chan­ges in tech­no­lo­gy, should as a child ha­ve ac­cess to pre-scho­ol edu­ca­
tion.
It should be emp­ha­si­zed that the pe­riod of early edu­ca­tion is ve­ry ra­re­ly lin­ked to hu­man ca­pi­tal de­ve­
lop­ment. Re­se­arch has shown that the child­ho­od pe­riod is cru­cial to the sub­se­qu­ent de­ve­lop­ment of
in­tel­lec­tu­al po­ten­tial and so­cial skills. Pres­cho­ols and scho­ols, whe­re chil­dren are taught so­cial skills,
de­ter­mi­ne – in a bro­ad per­spec­ti­ve – how a per­son’s li­fe chan­ces will be uti­li­zed. Early ca­re and edu­ca­
tion should, thus, be the main tar­get of in­vest­ments in the field of edu­ca­tion and in­no­va­tions. Po­land has
the lo­west in­di­ca­tor of ac­cess to pre-scho­ol edu­ca­tion (38.2% for chil­dren bet­we­en 3-5 years of age).
As it is ne­ces­sa­ry for mo­re chil­dren to ac­cess pre-scho­ol edu­ca­tion, al­ter­na­ti­ve forms of pre-scho­ol edu­
ca­tion should be ta­ken un­der con­si­de­ra­tion. The ar­tic­le out­li­nes cho­sen forms of al­ter­na­ti­ve pre-scho­ol
edu­ca­tion de­ve­lo­ping in Po­land.
Key words: qu­a­li­ty of edu­ca­tion, hu­man ca­pi­tal, equ­a­li­za­tion of edu­ca­tio­nal op­por­tu­ni­ties, pres­cho­ol
edu­ca­tion, al­ter­na­ti­ve forms of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion.

In­tro­duc­tion

In ad­di­tion to well-de­ve­lo­ped in­fra­struc­tu­re hu­man ca­pi­tal be­co­mes an im­por­tant con­tri­bu­tor


to eco­no­mic de­ve­lop­ment. It is the­re­fo­re ne­ces­sa­ry to lo­ok at know­led­ge and skills of pe­op­le in
terms of in­vest­ments. Not sin­ce to­day it is known that well-edu­ca­ted so­cie­ty cre­a­tes mo­re op­por­tu­
ni­ties for su­stai­nab­le and ba­lan­ced eco­no­mic growth. To me­et the de­mands of the mar­ket eco­no­my
one should stri­ve to cre­a­te a new mo­del wor­ker, com­bi­ning ge­ne­ral edu­ca­tion with con­ti­nuing edu­
ca­tion and ac­qui­ring new skills throug­hout li­fe. This im­plies im­por­tant conc­lu­sions for edu­ca­tion,
which should not on­ly cor­res­pond to ac­tu­al so­cial ne­eds, but an­ti­ci­pa­te the pre­sent ti­mes, in or­der
to pre­pa­re a per­son to kno­win­gly and res­pon­sib­ly sha­pe his own fu­tu­re and fu­tu­re ge­ne­ra­tions.
Ac­com­plis­hment of this ob­ser­va­tion is lar­ge­ly de­pen­dent on the pro­per con­duc­tion of the sta­te
edu­ca­tio­nal po­li­cy, rai­sing the qu­a­li­ty of edu­ca­tion by pro­vi­ding con­di­tions for the de­ve­lop­ment of
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

110
hu­man ca­pi­tal and equ­a­li­zing edu­ca­tio­nal ine­qu­a­li­ties. It should be no­ted that in Po­land lin­king the
qu­a­li­ty of hu­man ca­pi­tal with the earliest edu­ca­tio­nal ex­pe­rien­ces of man – his up­brin­ging in the
fa­mi­ly or stay in the nur­se­ry is ex­tre­me­ly ra­re. As evi­den­ced by the eco­no­mic No­bel lau­re­a­te Ja­mes
Hec­kmann (2006) “in­vest­ment in hu­man ca­pi­tal of the youn­gest gi­ves the best re­turn – they are the
most cost-ef­fec­ti­ve not on­ly for chil­dren but al­so for so­cie­ty”.
The pur­po­se of this text is to iden­ti­fy the links bet­we­en early edu­ca­tion and the qu­a­li­ty of fu­tu­
re hu­man ca­pi­tal. In the­se con­si­de­ra­tions it is as­su­med that pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion, inc­lu­ding chil­dren
from 3 years of age should not be me­re­ly the first sta­ge of com­pul­so­ry ba­sic edu­ca­tion, gi­ving the
foun­da­tion for furt­her le­ar­ning, but al­so pa­ri­ty in the coun­try’s eco­no­mic de­ve­lop­ment.

Pres­cho­ol Edu­ca­tion as a Fac­tor Con­di­tio­ning the Qu­a­li­ty of Edu­ca­tion

Po­land’s ac­ces­sion to the Eu­ro­pe­an Union and, pre­vio­us­ly, the pre-ac­cess pe­riod af­fec­ted the
ful­fil­ment of cer­tain ob­li­ga­tions re­sul­ting from the prin­cip­les of the Lis­bon Stra­te­gy. They we­re ela­
bo­ra­ted in 2002 in Bar­ce­lo­na in the form of three stra­te­gic ob­jec­ti­ves and thir­te­en ope­ra­tio­nal ones.
The “Bar­ce­lo­nian” pro­gram­me ob­li­ged the mem­ber coun­tries to rai­se the stan­dard of edu­ca­tion
with the emp­ha­sis on the ne­ed of cons­tant inc­re­a­se of the le­vel of edu­ca­tion of the so­cie­ty (Edu­ca­
tion in Eu­ro­pe... 2003).
One of the fac­tors con­di­tio­ning the inc­re­a­se of the le­vel of edu­ca­tion is ca­re of hu­man ca­pi­tal.
It can be no­ti­ced that, as far as the­re is a com­mon ag­re­e­ment that edu­ca­tion in se­con­da­ry and hig­her
scho­ols de­ci­des the de­ve­lop­ment of hu­man ca­pi­tal and the le­vel of so­cie­ty’s edu­ca­tion, it is re­al­ly
ra­re­ly as­so­cia­ted with the pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion (Blums­ztajn, Szlen­dak, 2006). Early edu­ca­tion is be­
co­ming the key to achie­ve suc­cess in adult li­fe. This is ac­cor­ding to the conc­lu­sion drawn by Ro­bert
Fulg­hum (1996) which sa­ys: “Eve­ryt­hing I should re­al­ly know about it how to li­ve, what to do and
how to act I le­ar­ned in nur­se­ry scho­ol. Wis­dom was not on top of the know­led­ge ac­qui­red in se­con­
da­ry scho­ol but in the sand­pit”.
The ti­me of the stay in nur­se­ry scho­ol is a ve­ry im­por­tant sta­ge in the edu­ca­tion of a child.
This is not on­ly be­cau­se of the fact that the mind of a child aged bet­we­en 3 and 6 works ve­ry in­ten­
si­ve­ly, im­pro­ves it­self and ac­qui­res in­for­ma­tion, but al­so be­cau­se the child le­arns much easier and
mo­re pre­fe­rab­ly among pe­ers. A child de­ve­lops and en­ri­ches his vo­ca­bu­la­ry, le­arns how to ex­press
his opi­nion in va­rio­us si­tu­a­tions, ac­qui­res new know­led­ge about the world, finds out what “how”,
“whe­re”, “when” and “why” me­an, re­cog­ni­ses si­mi­la­ri­ties and dif­fe­ren­ces, gets to know the cau­ses
of va­rio­us be­ha­vio­urs and emo­tions, le­arns how to con­cen­tra­te, works fo­cu­sed among ot­hers and fol­
lows so­me­bo­dy’s or­ders. En­ter­tain­ment, which is not on­ly the do­mi­nant form of ac­ti­vi­ty but, abo­ve
all, the most im­por­tant li­ne of child’s de­ve­lop­ment, con­tri­bu­tes to achie­ving the­se aims (Wy­got­ski,
2004). En­ter­tain­ment is an area in which a child may fre­e­ly ex­press his emo­tions, which so­me­ti­mes
are de­ep­ly hid­den, es­tab­lish so­cial con­tacts and im­pro­ve them in va­rio­us cir­cums­tan­ces. Adults as
“en­ter­tai­ned chil­dren” will be up to new tasks in in­di­vi­du­al and so­cial si­tu­a­tions. On the ot­her hand,
not en­ter­tai­ned child will ex­pe­rien­ce a cons­tant lack of sa­tis­fac­to­ry and ef­fec­ti­ve work. If in play
they do not ex­pe­rien­ce the fe­e­ling of being im­por­tant, cle­ver or or­ga­ni­sed they may ha­ve pro­blems
with self-es­te­em. Child­ho­od is “a mat­ter of li­fe, which can be used to build up sub­se­qu­ent, strong
and func­tio­nal const­ruc­tions” and this is what de­ter­mi­nes the strength and po­wer of ado­les­cen­ce
(Wa­los­zek, 2009).
It should be no­ti­ced that con­tem­po­ra­ry edu­ca­tion has no in­ter­nal ter­ri­to­ry. It ex­tends and ta­kes
pla­ce eve­ryw­he­re hu­man being no­ti­ces, un­ders­tands, im­pro­ves, or­ga­ni­ses and ex­pe­rien­ces so­met­
hing new. Ma­ny fac­tors are the sour­ce of know­led­ge, e.g. me­dia, scho­ol, new ne­eds or phe­no­me­na.
At pre­sent, it is dif­fi­cult to de­ci­de what ac­tu­al­ly is the re­sult of edu­ca­ting wit­hin an ins­ti­tu­tion and
what is the re­sult of self-edu­ca­tion, au­to­so­cia­li­sa­tion. It can on­ly be sup­po­sed that cer­tain abi­li­ties
and know­led­ge are gai­ned se­lec­ti­ve­ly and cha­o­ti­cal­ly (Wa­los­zek, 2009). In this ca­se, a child ne­eds
edu­ca­tion that would gi­ve them the chan­ce to cho­o­se the ac­ti­vi­ty which al­lows to test them­sel­ves
Marzena OKRASA. Alernative Forms of Pre-School Education as a Criterion Improving the Quality of Education in
Poland PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
in va­rio­us pos­sib­le ro­les and po­si­tions. This con­text sup­ports the ne­ed to re­ach with an edu­ca­tio­nal 111
of­fer eve­ry hu­man being from his earliest years of li­ves.
Pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion is not on­ly the key fac­tor af­fec­ting the qu­a­li­ty of hu­man ca­pi­tal, but al­so
the most ef­fec­ti­ve way of gi­ving equ­al edu­ca­tio­nal op­por­tu­ni­ties. The equ­a­li­ty in edu­ca­tion can be
exa­mi­ned in terms of the ac­cess to edu­ca­tion, cour­se of edu­ca­tion and scho­ol achie­ve­ments. All
the­se are­as im­ply each ot­her, ho­we­ver, the re­a­son for the all ap­pe­a­ring ine­qu­a­li­ties is the dis­pro­por­
tion in ac­cess to edu­ca­tion, which be­gins at the pres­cho­ol sta­ge. The re­port on so­cial de­ve­lop­ment
Po­land 1998 – ac­cess to edu­ca­tion ela­bo­ra­ted by UNDP de­monst­ra­tes in­di­ca­tors and di­ver­si­fies
chan­ces in ac­cess to edu­ca­tion, i.e. pla­ce of li­ving, pa­rents’ edu­ca­tion, sex, di­sa­bi­li­ty, be­lon­ging to a
na­tio­nal mi­no­ri­ty(www.unic.un.org.pl) and eco­no­mic fac­tors (Cza­piński, Pa­nek, 2009).
Any ex­ter­nal bar­riers, par­ti­cu­lar­ly the bac­kground ones, which ma­ke it hard to use edu­ca­tion
and ha­ve the pos­si­bi­li­ty to de­ve­lop one’s per­so­na­li­ty, are es­pe­cial­ly per­cep­tib­le by pe­op­le. One of
the bar­riers which di­ver­si­fies the ac­cess to pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion most is the pla­ce of li­ving. Chil­
dren who li­ve in the coun­try or in a small town ha­ve sta­tis­ti­cal­ly smal­ler chan­ces to stay in nur­se­ry
scho­ol than their pe­ers who li­ve in a big ci­ty. It is cau­sed by such fac­tors as e.g. smal­ler num­ber of
nur­se­ry scho­ols in ru­ral are­as. Sta­tis­ti­cal da­ta shows that in the scho­ol year 2008/2009 on­ly eve­ry
third nur­se­ry scho­ol was lo­ca­ted in the coun­try­si­de. At the sa­me ti­me, ac­cor­ding to the da­ta from
Edu­ca­tio­nal In­for­ma­tion Sys­tem, in 2007 the­re was not a sin­gle nur­se­ry scho­ol in mo­re than 500
com­mu­nes. The in­dex re­la­ted to chil­dren aged 3–5 with pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion amoun­ted to 15% and
in so­me pro­vin­ces be­low 5%.
Anot­her bar­rier in achie­ving li­fe suc­cess ac­cor­ding to M. Kar­wow­ska-Sturc­zyk is the bac­
kground of dys­func­tio­nal and po­or fa­mi­lies with low cul­tu­ral ca­pi­tal and low edu­ca­tio­nal as­pi­ra­
tions. Edu­ca­tio­nal as­pi­ra­tions that, to a lar­ge ex­tent, can be ac­qui­red (chil­dren fol­low their pa­rents’
steps) car­ry hel­ples­sness, po­ver­ty and unem­plo­y­ment (Og­ro­dzieńska, 2004). The­re­fo­re, it is so
im­por­tant for chil­dren that they ha­ve the fe­e­ling of scho­ol suc­cess. Earlier pre­pa­ra­tions for scho­ol
gi­ve big­ger chan­ces to ex­pe­rien­ce it. In the pres­cho­ol age it is easier to sha­pe new abi­li­ties, ma­ke up
for ap­pe­a­ring edu­ca­tio­nal and so­cial shor­ta­ges and eli­mi­na­te un­fa­vou­rab­le in­flu­en­ce of the fa­mi­ly
bac­kground.
Eve­ning out of the edu­ca­tio­nal chan­ces has not on­ly mo­ral, but al­so prac­ti­cal di­men­sion. Scien­
ti­fic re­se­arch’s re­sults in­di­ca­te the ne­ed for com­mon pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion. In the 60s in the USA,
the­re was con­duc­ted the edu­ca­tio­nal pro­ject High/Sco­pe for chil­dren aged 3-4 from po­or fa­mi­lies. It
con­cer­ned te­aching of chil­dren e.g. sol­ving pro­blems on their own, plan­ning and doing tasks un­der
pro­fes­sio­nal staff. Mo­re­o­ver, wit­hin the pro­ject te­achers met with chil­dren pa­rents on­ce in a we­ek at
ho­me in or­der to help them in the pro­cess of up­brin­ging. When the par­ti­ci­pants of the pro­ject we­re
19, 30 and 40 years old, their edu­ca­tio­nal and li­fe ca­re­ers we­re tho­rough­ly ana­ly­sed and then com­
pa­red with ca­re­ers of tho­se who did not par­ti­ci­pa­te in the pro­ject. The re­sults sho­wed that pe­op­le
who we­re pro­vi­ded early edu­ca­tion we­re bet­ter edu­ca­ted, earned mo­re, achie­ved hig­her stan­dard of
li­ving, mo­re ra­re­ly used the aid sys­tem and mo­re ra­re­ly ca­me in­to con­flict with the law (Za­hors­ka,
2003; Og­ro­dzińska, 2004).
The stu­dies by Bar­ba­ra Mu­raw­ska are the exam­ple of anot­her re­se­arch. In 2003 she com­pa­red
the skills of re­a­ding with the skills of un­ders­tan­ding and doing mat­he­ma­ti­cal ope­ra­tions by pu­pils
of lo­wer clas­ses in pri­ma­ry scho­ols who co­me from big ci­ties and the coun­tries and from fa­mi­lies
with high and low so­cial and eco­no­mic sta­tus. The em­pi­ri­cal ana­ly­sis pro­ved that chil­dren from fa­
mi­lies with low eco­no­mic sta­tus ma­na­ge with pro­blems at scho­ol in a bet­ter way pro­vi­ded that they
par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion at the age of 3. The re­se­arch emp­ha­si­ses the me­a­ning of be­
ne­fi­cial ef­fects re­sul­ting from the pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion, main­ly for chil­dren from so­cial­ly ex­clu­ded
bac­kgrounds. The chil­dren, due to their wor­se ini­tial po­si­tion are ex­po­sed to edu­ca­tio­nal dif­fi­cul­ties
to a gre­at ex­tent (Mu­raw­ska, 2004; Og­ro­dzińska, 2004).
In En­gland, the lon­gi­tu­di­nal re­se­arch con­duc­ted among 8400 chil­dren born in 1970 sho­wed
that the­re is an es­sen­tial re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en scho­ol achie­ve­ments and en­ga­ge­ment in pres­cho­ol
edu­ca­tion. Chil­dren at­ten­ding nur­se­ry scho­ols ma­na­ged with pro­blems bet­ter as far as re­a­ding with
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

112
un­ders­tan­ding and doing mat­he­ma­ti­cal ope­ra­tions are con­cer­ned. They al­so de­monst­ra­ted bet­ter
so­cial abi­li­ties (Za­hors­ka, 2003).
In ma­ny coun­tries in­ves­ting in the de­ve­lop­ment of the pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion is one of the ac­ti­
vi­ties im­pro­ving the qu­a­li­ty of the edu­ca­tion of the so­cie­ty. Pres­cho­ol ca­re is tre­a­ted as an in­teg­ral
part of the edu­ca­tion sys­tem. For ins­tan­ce, In Den­mark and Swe­den, pro­gram­mes ai­med at wor­king
pa­rents of chil­dren aged 1-3 are pro­po­sed by the so­cial wel­fa­re sec­tor; in Fran­ce and Ita­ly pres­cho­
ol edu­ca­tio­nal pro­gram­mes for chil­dren aged 2-3 are of­fe­red by the edu­ca­tion sys­tem; in En­gland
and Ire­land the­se pro­gram­mes co­me from the in­teg­ra­tion of pa­ral­lel sys­tems of ca­re and edu­ca­tion.
Ma­ny of the of­fe­red pro­gram­mes are di­rec­ted to young chil­dren from edu­ca­tio­nal­ly ne­glec­ted bac­
kgrounds thre­a­te­ned with so­cial ex­clu­sion due to un­fa­vou­rab­le si­tu­a­tion of their fa­mi­lies or to chil­
dren with spe­cial edu­ca­tio­nal ne­eds. The pro­gram­mes used in En­gland can be the exam­ple of such
so­lu­tions (The Su­re Start Pro­gram­me and The Early Ex­cel­len­ce Cen­tres Pro­gram­me and in Ire­land
Early Start Pro­gram­me (Ka­mer­man 2001).
Two stre­ams in the ap­pro­ach to early edu­ca­tion may be dis­tin­guis­hed out of the pro­gram­mes
in pres­cho­ol ins­ti­tu­tions. The first one tre­ats nur­se­ry scho­ols as a sta­ge which pro­vi­des pre­pa­ra­tion
to scho­ol edu­ca­tion and the ef­fects are me­a­su­red with scho­ol ma­tu­ri­ty (Fran­ce, En­gland, Ire­land)
whe­re­as the se­cond one as­su­mes that child’s stay at nur­se­ry scho­ol is sup­po­sed to pre­pa­re him to li­fe
and this is the first sta­ge of le­ar­ning (Scan­di­na­vian coun­tries) (Blums­ztajn, 2007).

Chil­dren Early Edu­ca­tion – In­ten­tions and Re­a­li­ty

Pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion is cur­rent­ly a ne­glec­ted area of the so­cial and edu­ca­tio­nal po­li­cy in Po­
land. Al­so the sta­te of so­cial awa­re­ness of the si­tu­a­tion of young chil­dren is in­sig­ni­fi­cant. It is worth
re­min­ding that nur­se­ry scho­ol is a ca­re and edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tion for chil­dren of 3 un­til the be­gin­ning
of the scho­o­ling du­ty. In ex­cep­tio­nal­ly jus­ti­fied ca­ses al­so chil­dren aged 2.5 to 10 may be pro­vi­ded
pres­cho­ol ca­re – when the­re is a de­ci­sion on the ne­ed of spe­cial edu­ca­tion. In Po­land, ac­cor­ding to
re­gu­la­tions inc­lu­ded in the Act on Edu­ca­tion Sys­tem (Jour­nal of Laws, 2004, No. 256) at­ten­ding
nur­se­ry scho­ol is not ob­li­ga­to­ry. On­ly a re­cep­tion class, which is the last year of the nur­se­ry scho­ol
pre­pa­ring to scho­ol edu­ca­tion, is man­da­to­ry. In 2008/2009 17280 nur­se­ry ins­ti­tu­tions func­tio­ned
in Po­land. They con­sis­ted of 8038 nur­se­ry scho­ols, 9033 pres­cho­ol ins­ti­tu­tions at pri­ma­ry scho­ols
and 209 pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion fa­ci­li­ties and nur­se­ry cen­tres. 919,100 chil­dren aged 3–6 at­ten­ded the­
se ins­ti­tu­tions, which was 63.1% of the who­le of the chil­dren at the pres­cho­ol age. Ana­ly­sing the
is­su­es of lo­ca­ting pres­cho­ol ins­ti­tu­tions, it should be no­ti­ced that in the coun­try­si­de the­re are 33.3%
nur­se­ry scho­ols, 78.4% pres­cho­ol ins­ti­tu­tions and 88,4% al­ter­na­ti­ve nur­se­ry scho­ols (Oświa­ta i wy­
cho­wa­nie [Edu­ca­tion sys­tem and up­brin­ging]…, 2009).
78.4% chil­dren in ci­ties and 42.7% chil­dren in the coun­try­si­de we­re pro­vi­ded pres­cho­ol ca­re.
This per­cen­ta­ge cons­ti­tu­ted al­so 6 year-old chil­dren for whom pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion is man­da­to­ry. It
may be the­re­fo­re no­ti­ced that the­re is an un­fa­vou­rab­le phe­no­me­non, i.e. low le­vel of par­ti­ci­pa­tion of
chil­dren aged 3-5 in pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion (around 52.7%, but the­re was se­en an inc­re­a­se by 5.4 per­
cen­ta­ge points in re­la­tion to the pre­vio­us year). The nur­se­ry scho­ols we­re at­ten­ded by chil­dren at the
age of 3 – 58.5% in ci­ties and 17.1% in the coun­try­si­de; at the age of 4 – 72.7% in ci­ties and 26.8%
in the coun­try­si­de; at the age of 5 – 81% in ci­ties and 41.8% in the coun­try­si­de. The pre­sen­ted da­ta
show sig­ni­fi­cant dis­pro­por­tions in pro­mo­ting pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion in the ci­ty and the coun­try­si­de
(Oświa­ta i wy­cho­wa­nie [Edu­ca­tion sys­tem and up­brin­ging]…, 2009).
Po­land ta­kes one of the last pla­ces in the coun­tries of the UE ran­king in terms of uni­ver­sa­li­ty
of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion. In mo­re than 2/3 of the EU coun­tries over 60% chil­dren at the age of 4
at­ten­ded nur­se­ry clas­ses whe­re­as in Po­land the pro­por­tion of nur­se­ry scho­ol pu­pils among 4-year-
old chil­dren was on­ly 41% (Oświa­ta i wy­cho­wa­nie [Edu­ca­tion sys­tem and up­brin­ging], 2009). In
Swe­den, Bel­gium, the Net­her­lands, Ita­ly and Fran­ce al­most eve­ry 4-year-old child at­tends nur­se­ry
scho­ol.
Marzena OKRASA. Alernative Forms of Pre-School Education as a Criterion Improving the Quality of Education in
Poland PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Tab­le 1. A per­cen­ta­ge of 4-year-old chil­dren at­ten­ding nur­se­ry scho­ols in 113
se­lec­ted coun­tries of the Eu­ro­pe in 2007.

Year Year
Coun­try Coun­try
2000 2007 p 2000 2007 p
82.8 89 EU-27 60.3 76.8 Ro­ma­nia
100 100 Fran­ce 99.5 98.2 Net­her­lands
100 99 Ita­ly 60.6 76.5 Lat­via
99.2 100 Bel­gium - 75.1 Slo­va­kia
99 97.1 Spain 55.7 70.4* Cyp­rus
100 97.5 Mal­ta 67 71.4 Bul­ga­ria
94.9 93 Lu­xem­burg 51 61.7 Lit­hu­a­nia
90.6 95.4 Den­mark 53.9 56.1 Gre­e­ce
89.5 94.1 Ger­ma­ny 41.9 50 Fin­land
89.4 92.8 Hun­ga­ry - 48.2* Cro­a­tia
100 91.3 Uni­ted King­dom 51.1 45.9 Ire­land
81 87.5 Czech Re­pub­lic 33 44 Po­land
72.8 100 Swe­den 12.4 15.9* Ma­ce­do­nia
78.2 88.1 Es­to­nia - 7* Tur­key
79.5 84.2 Aust­ria 90.9 95.8 Ice­land
72.3 81.6 Por­tu­gal - 52.7 Liech­tens­tein
67.7 81.3 Slo­ve­nia 78.1 94.8 Nor­way

(-) Lack of da­ta or da­ta una­vai­lab­le, (p) Es­ti­ma­ted da­ta, (*) Da­ta of 2006

Sour­ce: Oświa­ta i wy­cho­wa­nie w ro­ku szkol­nym 2007/2008. (2008). Wars­za­wa: GUS.


[Edu­ca­tion sys­tem and up­brin­ging in the 2007/2008 scho­ol year. (2008). War­saw: Cen­tral Sta­tis­ti­cal Of­fi­ce]

The De­ve­lop­ment of Al­ter­na­ti­ve Forms of Early Edu­ca­tion

Un­til 2008 sta­te nur­se­ry scho­ols we­re the on­ly edu­ca­tio­nal form for the youn­gest chil­dren in Po­
land. Me­anw­hi­le, ot­her coun­tries do not re­strict them­sel­ves to the on­ly one form of early edu­ca­tion
but they of­fer va­rio­us forms which me­et the ne­eds and op­por­tu­ni­ties of pa­rents and de­mog­rap­hic
con­di­tions. A go­od exam­ple can be En­gland, which in its act on the ca­re for chil­dren, “The Chil­dren
Act” inc­lu­des the fol­lo­wing: day child­ca­re cen­tres, sta­te and pub­lic nur­se­ry scho­ols, pla­yg­roups,
in­teg­ra­tion pla­yg­roups, cen­tres for chil­dren, fa­mi­ly cen­tres and day ro­oms, nur­se­ry scho­ols and re­
cep­tion clas­ses at pri­ma­ry scho­ols, rec­re­a­tio­nal cen­tres, ba­by­sit­ters’ ac­ti­vi­ty for chil­dren, pla­y­bu­ses,
to­ys ren­tal shops.
In Por­tu­gal the pres­cho­ol sys­tem con­sists of three or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nal mo­dels: full-ti­me nur­se­ry
scho­ols, iti­ne­rant nur­se­ry scho­ols (in ru­ral are­as whe­re the­re are few chil­dren, e.g. on­ly one child
and a te­acher re­gu­lar­ly co­me so as to con­duct clas­ses) and nur­se­ry com­mon ro­oms (ins­ti­tu­tions that
are es­tab­lis­hed in ci­ties in which the­re is a shor­ta­ge of pla­ces in nur­se­ry scho­ols; the clas­ses are
con­duc­ted around 4–5 hours a day). The­se exam­ples show how gre­at stress is put on pres­cho­ol edu­
ca­tion in the EU coun­tries and how it is pos­sib­le to match it up or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nal­ly to lo­cal ne­eds.
The sys­tem of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion in Po­land, which in re­cent years has be­en a mat­ter of con­
cern of ma­ny te­achers is gra­du­al­ly im­pro­ving. Al­ter­na­ti­ve forms of edu­ca­tion be­ca­me a way out of
stag­na­tion. The ne­ed for their cre­a­tion, es­pe­cial­ly in ru­ral are­as was no­ti­ced by the Eu­ro­pe­an Union.
In 2005 the­re was im­ple­men­ted a pi­lot pro­gram­me un­der the na­me “Al­ter­na­ti­ve forms of pres­cho­
ol edu­ca­tion” wit­hin the Sec­to­ral Ope­ra­tio­nal Pro­gram­me – Hu­man Re­sour­ces De­ve­lop­ment. In
2005–2008 19 pro­jects was im­ple­men­ted. Thanks to them the­re we­re es­tab­lis­hed 802 cen­tres of
al­ter­na­ti­ve pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion for 10,500 chil­dren in ru­ral are­as ac­ross Po­land. This pro­gram­me
brought ef­fects, the­re­fo­re the next sta­ge was to pro­mo­te and ex­tend them. The 2008/2009 scho­ol
year was na­med Year of Nur­se­ry Scho­ol Pu­pil by the Mi­nist­ry of Na­tio­nal Edu­ca­tion. Self-go­vern­
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

114
ments we­re gi­ven a gui­de in which al­ter­na­ti­ve forms of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion we­re pro­mo­ted. The
amount of over €243 mil­lion of sup­port from the EU was al­lo­ca­ted for the de­ve­lop­ment of pres­cho­
ol edu­ca­tion in 2007–2013. The re­gu­la­tion of the MNE of 10 Ja­nu­a­ry 2008 was al­so is­su­ed and
con­cer­ned ty­pes of ot­her forms of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion, con­di­tions of cre­a­ting and or­ga­ni­sing the­se
forms and the way they work (Jour­nal of Laws No. 7, item 38 with amend­ments). It stres­sed that
alt­hough tra­di­tio­nal nur­se­ry scho­ols re­a­li­ze the ru­le of com­mon ac­ces­si­bi­li­ty best and pro­vi­de the
ful­fil­ment of the pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion cur­ri­cu­lum, their chain may be sup­ple­men­ted with al­ter­na­ti­ve
forms of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion.
This re­gu­la­tion sanc­tio­ned the ap­point­ment of ot­her pres­cho­ol ins­ti­tu­tions in ru­ral are­as. Wit­
hin the al­ter­na­ti­ve forms pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion fa­ci­li­ties or pres­cho­ol cen­tres for chil­dren are cre­a­ted.
The­re are per­for­med edu­ca­tio­nal and pe­da­go­gi­cal tasks in ac­cor­dan­ce with the pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion
cur­ri­cu­lum. In both forms qu­a­li­fied te­achers has to be em­plo­y­ed. Pres­cho­ol cen­tres con­duct clas­ses
on all wor­king da­ys of a we­ek through the who­le scho­ol year, ex­cept for bre­aks es­tab­lis­hed by the
go­ver­ning bo­dy. By con­trast, pres­cho­ol com­ple­xes or­ga­ni­se clas­ses on­ly on cer­tain da­ys of a we­ek
for mi­ni­mum 3 hours in a day and 12 hours in a we­ek (The re­gu­la­tion of MNE, 2008, §3). The cur­
ri­cu­lum can be con­duc­ted in the who­le or in a se­lec­ted part. The ti­me of the work of the fa­ci­li­ty or
cen­tre should be fle­xib­le and ad­jus­ted to the group num­bers and pa­rents’ ne­eds and ex­pec­ta­tions.
At the sa­me ti­me, the num­ber of hours of clas­ses should de­pend on the si­ze of the group. If the­re
are 3 to 5 chil­dren (this is the mi­ni­mum num­ber of a group spe­ci­fied in the re­gu­la­tion) 3 hours a
day should be enough to ful­fil the cur­ri­cu­lum. In the event of mo­re nu­me­rous group the ti­me of
con­du­cing clas­ses is around 5 hours a day. Ac­cor­ding to the re­gu­la­tion, a group can count from 3
to 25 chil­dren. In fact, the num­ber of chil­dren in a group de­pends on lo­cal en­vi­ron­ment’s ne­eds and
stan­dards of the pre­mi­ses (mi­ni­mum 2–2, 5 squ­a­re met­res per eve­ry child is re­qui­red).
Com­mu­nes, le­gal en­ti­ties (e.g. non-go­vern­men­tal or­ga­ni­sa­tions, as­so­cia­tions, foun­da­tions, re­li­
gio­us com­mu­ni­ties) and in­di­vi­du­als can or­ga­ni­ze pres­cho­ol com­ple­xes and cen­tres. Clas­ses can be
con­duc­ted in the buil­ding of the edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions, pub­lic ins­ti­tu­tions, re­li­gio­us ins­ti­tu­tions
and pri­va­te hou­ses or flats. Ho­we­ver, the­se pla­ces must me­et sa­ni­ta­tion and pre­mi­ses re­qui­re­ments.
For ins­tan­ce, it is al­lo­wed to con­duct clas­ses in pre­mi­ses lo­ca­ted on the ground-flo­or with at le­ast
two exits whi­le one of them is to enab­le di­rect exit in­to the open spa­ce. The mi­ni­mum spa­ce for the
group con­sis­ting of 3-5 chil­dren should amount to at le­ast 16 squ­a­re met­res. For eve­ry next child
the re­qui­red sur­fa­ce inc­re­a­ses by 2 squ­a­re met­res if child’s stay do­es not ex­ce­ed 5 hours a day and
2,5 squ­a­re met­res if it ex­ce­eds 5 hours (Re­gu­la­tion of MNE, 2008, §4).
It should be men­tio­ned that the chain of sta­te nur­se­ry scho­ols is es­tab­lis­hed by the com­mu­ne
coun­cil, which de­ci­des whet­her to cre­a­te al­ter­na­ti­ve forms of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion or not.
The da­ta from the Mi­nist­ry of Edu­ca­tion shows that un­til 2009 over 636 sta­te and pub­lic al­
ter­na­ti­ve forms of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion we­re es­tab­lis­hed (497 pres­cho­ol cen­tres and 139 pres­cho­ol
edu­ca­tion com­ple­xes). The gre­a­test num­ber of al­ter­na­ti­ve nur­se­ry scho­ols was es­tab­lis­hed in the
fol­lo­wing pro­vin­ces: the Pod­kar­pa­cie pro­vin­ce – 114, the West Po­me­ra­nia pro­vin­ce – 93, and the
Świ­ę­tokr­zys­kie pro­vin­ce – 65. The­re we­re al­so 335 sta­te nur­se­ry scho­ols ope­ned.
The awa­re­ness of the ne­ed for edu­ca­tion in early child­ho­od is cons­tant­ly gro­wing. Ma­ny non-
go­vern­men­tal or­ga­ni­sa­tions try to in­tro­du­ce ma­ny so­lu­tions on the lo­cal sca­le and cre­a­te in­no­va­ti­ve
de­ve­lop­ment and edu­ca­tion pro­gram­mes for chil­dren and pa­rents, as well as pro­mo­te pres­cho­ol
edu­ca­tion. For that pur­po­se 21 Sep­tem­ber 2007 the Al­lian­ce on Early Child­ho­od De­ve­lop­ment
and Edu­ca­tion (PREMD in Po­lish) was es­tab­lis­hed. Un­til Oc­to­ber 2009 it joi­ned to­get­her 45 non-
go­vern­men­tal or­ga­ni­sa­tions. The task of this Al­lian­ce is to ac­ce­le­ra­te the pro­cess of cre­a­ting best
con­di­tions to pro­mo­te and de­ve­lop va­rio­us forms of edu­ca­tio­nal sup­port for young chil­dren by the
com­bi­na­tion of for­ces.
On the ini­tia­ti­ve of va­rio­us foun­da­tions gat­he­red in the Al­lian­ce on Early Child­ho­od De­ve­
lop­ment and Edu­ca­tion the­re we­re cre­a­ted ma­ny pro­jects and pro­gram­mes de­ve­lo­ping al­ter­na­ti­ve
forms of edu­ca­tion. The ac­ti­vi­ty of foun­da­tions such as: Jan Ko­meński Foun­da­tion of Chil­dren’s De­
ve­lop­ment, John Paul II Youth’s Aid Foun­da­tion “Wzras­ta­nie”, Al­ter­na­ti­ve Edu­ca­tion Works­hop,
As­so­cia­tion “Do­rośli-Dzie­ciom”, As­so­cia­tion “So­ma”.
Marzena OKRASA. Alernative Forms of Pre-School Education as a Criterion Improving the Quality of Education in
Poland PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Jan Ko­meński Foun­da­tion of Chil­dren’s De­ve­lop­ment es­tab­lis­hed in 2003 is the first one that 115
in­tro­du­ced al­ter­na­ti­ve forms of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion in­to Po­land and in col­la­bo­ra­tion with ot­her
non-go­vern­men­tal or­ga­ni­sa­tions led to their le­gis­la­tion. Over se­ve­ral years of ac­ti­vi­ty it has or­ga­ni­
sed and cre­a­ted over 300 pres­cho­ol cen­tres. Wit­hin the im­ple­men­ted pro­gram­mes it al­so or­ga­ni­ses
pres­cho­ol clubs and pla­yg­roups.
The Foun­da­tion or­ga­ni­ses Pres­cho­o­ler’s Clubs in col­la­bo­ra­tion with Ru­ral De­ve­lop­ment Foun­
da­tion. The­se clubs are for chil­dren aged 3–5. Clas­ses are con­duc­ted 3 da­ys in a we­ek and mi­ni­mum
15 hours a we­ek. On co­ming in­to for­ce of the re­gu­la­tion, so­me of them we­re trans­for­med in­to pres­
cho­ol cen­tres.
Pla­yg­roups are a pro­po­sal for chil­dren at the age of 6 months to 3 years or for two age groups:
0–2 and 2–5 and their pa­rents. The me­e­tings ta­ke pla­ce e.g. at ho­me, in a com­mon ro­om, at a lib­ra­
ry or in com­mu­ni­ty cen­tres at le­ast on­ce in a we­ek for mi­ni­mum 2 hours. They are con­duc­ted by
an ap­prop­ria­te­ly pre­pa­red ani­ma­tor. Pla­yg­roups Pi­lot Pro­gram­me was car­ried out in 2006–2007. It
pro­ved that this form me­ets pa­rents’ ne­eds both in the ci­ties and in the coun­try­si­de. Par­ti­ci­pa­tion
in the Pla­yg­roup gi­ves chil­dren the pos­si­bi­li­ty of le­ar­ning new words. What is mo­re, it de­ve­lops
self-re­lian­ce, te­aches how to es­tab­lish con­tacts with ot­hers and lets chil­dren find out the ru­les of
func­tio­ning in a group (Gru­py Za­ba­wo­we..., 2007; Og­ro­dzieńska, 2009).
Anot­her form of edu­ca­tion for young chil­dren as a way of equ­a­li­zing li­fe chan­ces is of­fe­red
by the Al­ter­na­ti­ve Edu­ca­tion Works­hop, which has be­en ac­ti­ve sin­ce 1991 in Łódź. It of­fers ca­re
for chil­dren at the pres­cho­ol age 3–5. This is ai­med at tho­se chil­dren who co­me from po­or, dys­func­
tio­nal and pat­ho­lo­gi­cal fa­mi­lies and their pa­rents use the ser­vi­ces of Lo­cal So­cial Wel­fa­re Cen­tre.
The clas­ses are con­duc­ted from Mon­day to Fri­day at 8:00 to 14:00 (Po­lish ti­me). Their aim is to
equ­a­li­ze edu­ca­tio­nal op­por­tu­ni­ties and sup­port so­cial, emo­tio­nal and mo­ral de­ve­lop­ment, as well
as pre­pa­re to scho­ol. Chil­dren at­tends lan­gu­a­ge, mat­he­ma­tics, na­tu­ral scien­ce, the­at­re, mu­sic, pro-
he­ath and sports clas­ses, mo­ral scien­ce, as well as art and const­ruc­tion clas­ses. Par­ti­cu­lar at­ten­tion
is paid to so­cial and emo­tio­nal de­ve­lop­ment. Chil­dren at­tend so­cio-the­ra­peu­tic clas­ses, as well. It
is due to the fact that pe­op­le at this age are ve­ry su­scep­tib­le to the in­flu­en­ce of the bac­kground. As
a re­sult, on the one hand they are mo­re ex­po­sed to si­tu­a­tions cau­sing emo­tio­nal trau­mas, but on the
ot­her hand, it is easier to eli­mi­na­te the­se trau­mas. The do­mi­nant form of ac­ti­vi­ty is en­ter­tain­ment.
For eve­ry par­ti­ci­pant the­re is an in­di­vi­du­al plan of de­ve­lop­ment cre­a­ted and the­re is an emp­ha­sis on
the sphe­res ha­ving big­gest de­fi­cits. Eve­ry year 10-day camps for young par­ti­ci­pant of the clas­ses
are or­ga­ni­zed. All the­se ac­ti­vi­ties are or­ga­ni­sed wit­hin the pro­ject Nas­ze przed­szko­le [Our nur­se­ry
scho­ol] (Og­ro­dzieńska, 2009).
Al­so John Paul II Youth’s Aid Foun­da­tion “Wzras­ta­nie” pa­ys par­ti­cu­lar at­ten­tion to edu­ca­tion
of young chil­dren. This foun­da­tion has run a cha­ri­tab­le ac­ti­vi­ty in fa­vour of chil­dren and young pe­
op­le from po­or di­sad­van­ta­ge­ous and orp­ha­ned fa­mi­lies, as well as for the ho­me­less on the area of
the Pod­kar­pa­cie pro­vin­ce sin­ce 1991. It pro­vi­des ca­re for over 400 pe­op­le un­der so­me­bo­dy’s char­
ge in 14 spe­cial edu­ca­tion cen­tres and so­cial ser­vi­ce cen­tres, as well as in 81 pres­cho­ol cen­tres for
chil­dren aged 3–5. The­se pres­cho­ol cen­tres run by the Foun­da­tion are co-fi­nan­ced from the me­ans
of the Eu­ro­pe­an So­cial Fund and the pro­ject “New qu­a­li­ty of edu­ca­tion”. In the te­aching and edu­ca­
tio­nal work gre­at sig­ni­fi­can­ce is at­ta­ched to sti­mu­la­ting com­pre­hen­si­ve de­ve­lop­ment of chil­dren, as
well as stir­ring and de­ve­lo­ping chil­dren’s hob­bies and ta­lents.
Al­so the As­so­cia­tion “So­ma”, which has func­tio­ned sin­ce 2003, pro­po­sed clas­ses for young
chil­dren. It di­rects its ac­ti­vi­ty to fa­mi­lies from the So­mian­ka com­mu­ne. It acts with the use of the
met­hod of pro­jects and pub­lic tasks. It works with chil­dren aged 3–5 in ac­cor­dan­ce with the pro­
ject Aca­de­my for the youn­gest that en­vi­sa­ges to hold cyc­li­cal clas­ses con­duc­ted twi­ce a we­ek in
three mo­du­les: art, the­at­re, play. Du­ring the three-hour me­e­ting the­re are or­ga­ni­sed va­rio­us cre­a­ti­ve
pla­ys, art ac­ti­vi­ties and sports and mu­sic clas­ses. Their task is not on­ly to sha­pe sig­ni­fi­cant abi­li­ties
but al­so to bro­a­den know­led­ge about the world and ex­press one’s at­ti­tu­de to­wards the sur­roun­ding
re­a­li­ty (Og­ro­dzieńska, 2009).
The pre­sen­ted forms of al­ter­na­ti­ve edu­ca­tion are not on­ly an ef­fec­ti­ve and eco­no­mi­cal pro­po­sal
of pro­mo­ting pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion, but al­so fle­xib­le enough to be ad­jus­ted to spe­ci­fic ne­eds of the
lo­cal en­vi­ron­ment.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

116 Conc­lu­sions

Edu­ca­tion is one of the most im­por­tant fac­tors which fa­vour sha­ping of the so­cio-pro­fes­sio­nal
ad­van­ce. It of­ten de­ter­mi­nes the so­cio-eco­no­mic sta­tus of both in­di­vi­du­als and so­cial groups. The
scho­ol sys­tem can, at the sa­me ti­me, sti­mu­la­te and sup­port rai­sing of so­cial ad­van­ce as well as
con­so­li­da­te so­cial ine­qu­a­li­ties and con­tri­bu­te to be pre­sent in the so­cial struc­tu­re with low sta­tus
wit­hout cau­sing any im­por­tant li­fe chan­ge. The­re­fo­re, for tho­se chil­dren the most im­por­tant are ac­
ti­vi­ties that aim to equ­a­li­ze edu­ca­tion op­por­tu­ni­ties. The al­ter­na­ti­ve forms of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion
which sup­port de­ve­lop­ment of young chil­dren are ve­ry help­ful. When cre­a­ting ins­ti­tu­tions of this
ty­pe, par­ti­cu­lar emp­ha­sis should be put on their uni­ver­sa­li­ty, qu­a­li­ty and the ti­me of child’s stay.
On­ly the com­bi­na­tion of the­se three fac­tors may be­gin the re­al pro­cess of equ­a­li­zing edu­ca­tion and
li­fe op­por­tu­ni­ties of chil­dren from bac­kgrounds being cul­tu­ral­ly and eco­no­mi­cal­ly ne­glec­ted. The
cur­rent­ly func­tio­ning pres­cho­ol cen­tres ha­ve sho­wed that par­ti­ci­pants of the clas­ses do bet­ter at
scho­ol, ha­ve hig­her so­cial and emo­tio­nal qu­a­li­fi­ca­tions and de­ve­lop bet­ter ver­bal and in­tel­lec­tu­al
abi­li­ties (Og­ro­dzieńska, 2004).
Pro­pa­ga­ting early edu­ca­tion of young chil­dren gi­ves al­so the op­por­tu­ni­ty of the de­ve­lop­ment
of so­cial ca­pi­tal in the coun­try­si­de, im­pro­ves the at­trac­ti­ve­ness of the com­mu­ne and be­co­mes one
of the wa­ys of stop­ping mig­ra­tion of ac­ti­ve and young pe­op­le. Mo­re­o­ver, by in­tro­du­cing va­rio­us
clas­ses for chil­dren the­re are cre­a­ted work­pla­ces for unem­plo­y­ed wo­men (Rościs­zew­ska-Woźniak,
2008). Pro­vi­ding he­alt­hy de­ve­lop­ment for chil­dren is the­re­fo­re an in­vest­ment in hu­man ca­pi­tal and
im­pro­ve­ment in so­cie­ty’s edu­ca­tion. “Young pe­op­le will so­on be­co­me the big ones and they will
ta­ke de­ci­sions con­cer­ning our li­ves, our chil­dren and grand­chil­dren. Re­mem­ber that go­od edu­ca­tion
of our chil­dren to­day – inc­re­a­ses the chan­ces of all of us for bet­ter li­fe in the fu­tu­re” (Su­cho­dols­ki,
1979).

Re­fe­ren­ces
Blums­ztajn, A., Szlen­dak, T. (2006). Ja­kość ka­pi­tału ludz­kie­go i wyrówny­wa­nie szans edu­ka­cyj­nych.
Wpro­wa­dze­nie do ra­por­tu. [The qu­a­li­ty of hu­man ca­pi­tal and equ­a­li­za­tion of edu­ca­tio­nal op­por­tu­ni­ties.
In­tro­duc­tion to the re­port]. [w:] T. Szlen­dak, Małe dziec­ko w Pols­ce Ra­port o sy­tu­ac­ji edu­kac­ji ele­men­
tar­nej. [Young child in Po­land. Re­port on the si­tu­a­tion of ele­men­ta­ry edu­ca­tion]. Wars­za­wa: Fun­dac­ja
Ko­meńskie­go, 27–33.
Bal­cer­zak-Pa­ra­dow­ska, B. (2007). Oce­na sys­te­mu opie­ki ins­ty­tuc­jo­nal­nej nad dziec­kiem w Pols­ce (w
as­pek­cie umożli­wie­nia go­dze­nia obo­wi­ązków za­wo­do­wych z ro­dzin­ny­mi). [Eva­lu­a­tion of the sys­tem of
ins­ti­tu­tio­nal ca­re for a child in Po­land (in the as­pect of re­con­ci­ling ca­re­er with fa­mi­ly li­fe]. [w:] Sa­dow­
ska-Snars­ka C. (red.). Sys­te­my ins­ty­tuc­jo­nal­ne opie­ki nad dziec­kiem w as­pek­cie go­dze­nia życia za­wo­do­
we­go z ro­dzin­nym. [Ins­ti­tu­tio­nal sys­tems of the ca­re for a child in the as­pect of re­con­ci­ling ca­re­er with
fa­mi­ly li­fe]. Białys­tok: Wy­daw­nic­two Wyższej Szkoły Eko­no­mic­znej w Białyms­to­ku, 15–32.
Blums­ztajn, A. (2007). Przykłady roz­wi­ą­zań edu­kac­ji przed­szkol­nej w kra­jach człon­kow­skich Unii Eu­
ro­pej­skiej. [Exam­ples of the so­lu­tions of pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion in the mem­ber coun­tries of the Eu­ro­pe­an
Union]. [w:] C. Sa­dow­skia-Snars­ka, Sys­tem ins­ty­tuc­jo­nal­nej opie­ki nad dziec­kiem w as­pek­cie go­dze­nia
z życiem za­wo­do­wym. [A sys­tem of ins­ti­tu­tio­nal ca­re for a child in the as­pect of re­con­ci­ling with ca­re­
er.] Białys­tok: Wy­daw­nic­two Wyższej Szkoły Eko­no­mic­znej, 131–156.
Cza­piński, J., T. Pa­nek, (red.). (2009). Diag­no­za społec­zna 2009. Wa­run­ki i ja­kość życia Po­laków. Ra­
port. [So­cial diag­no­sis 2009. Con­di­tions and qu­a­li­ty of li­fe of Po­les. Re­port]. Wars­za­wa: Ra­da Mo­ni­to­
rin­gu Społec­zne­go.
Edu­kac­ja w Eu­ro­pie: różne sys­te­my kształce­nia i szko­le­nia - wspólne ce­le do ro­ku 2010. (2003). [Edu­
ca­tion and trai­ning in Eu­ro­pe: di­ver­se sys­tems, sha­red go­als for 2010]. Wars­za­wa: Fun­dac­ja Roz­wo­ju
Sys­te­mu Edu­kac­ji.
Fulg­hum, R. (1996). Wszyst­kie­go, co nap­raw­dę trze­ba wie­dzieć, nauc­zyłem się w przed­szko­lu. [All I Re­
al­ly Ne­ed to Know I Le­ar­ned in Kin­der­gar­ten]. Wars­za­wa: Świat Książki.
Marzena OKRASA. Alernative Forms of Pre-School Education as a Criterion Improving the Quality of Education in
Poland PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Gru­py Za­ba­wo­we dla małych dzie­ci i ro­dziców. Po­rad­nik dla gmin i or­ga­ni­zac­ji po­zar­zą­do­wych. (2007). 117
[En­ter­tain­ment Groups for young chil­dren and their pa­rents. A gui­de­bo­ok for com­mu­nes and non-go­
vern­men­tal or­ga­ni­za­tions]. Wars­za­wa: Fun­dac­ja Roz­wo­ju Dzie­ci im. J. A. Ko­meńskie­go.
Hec­kmann, J. (2006) In­vest in the ve­ry young, Chi­ca­go: Uni­ver­si­ty of Chi­ca­go Press, Ret­rie­ved March
7, 2010 from http://www.in­no­wa­cyj­nosc.gpw.pl/kip/in­dex.php?r=47&pr=59.
Ka­mer­man, S. B. (2001). Early child­ho­od edu­ca­tion and ca­re: In­ter­na­tio­nal per­spec­ti­ves. New York:
ICFP.
Mi­nis­terst­wo Edu­kac­ji Na­ro­do­wej i Spor­tu. (2005) Stra­te­gia roz­wo­ju edu­kac­ji na la­ta 2001–2013. [A
stra­te­gy of the de­ve­lop­ment of edu­ca­tion for the years 2001-2013]. Wars­za­wa: MENiS.
Mu­raw­ska, B. (2004). Seg­re­gac­ja na pro­gu szkoły pod­sta­wo­wej. [Seg­re­ga­tion on the thres­hold of a pri­
ma­ry scho­ol]. Wars­za­wa: ISP.
Og­ro­dzieńska, T. (2004). Małe dziec­ko na wsi. Edu­kac­ja ja­ko sposób na wyrówny­wa­nie szans życio­wych
lub po­roz­ma­wiaj­my o dob­rym dzie­ciństwie. [Young child in the coun­try­si­de. Edu­ca­tion as a way of the
equ­a­li­za­tion of li­fe op­por­tu­ni­ties or let’s talk about go­od child­ho­od]. Wars­za­wa: Fun­dac­ja Wspo­ma­ga­
nia Wsi.
Og­ro­dzieńska, T. (red.). (2009). In­wes­tu­je­my w małe dzie­ci. Dob­re prak­ty­ki or­ga­ni­zac­ji po­zar­zą­do­wych.
[In­ves­ting in young chil­dren. Go­od prac­ti­ces of non-go­vern­men­tal or­ga­ni­za­tions]. Wars­za­wa: Fun­dac­ja
Roz­wo­ju Dzie­ci im. J. A. Ko­meńskie­go.
Oświa­ta i wy­cho­wa­nie w ro­ku szkol­nym 2007/2008. (2008). [Edu­ca­tion sys­tem and up­brin­ging in the
2007/2008 scho­ol year]. Wars­za­wa: GUS. [War­saw: Cen­tral Sta­tis­ti­cal Of­fi­ce].
Ra­port o Roz­wo­ju Społec­znym Pols­ka 1998. Dos­tęp do edu­kac­ji. [The re­port on so­cial de­ve­lop­ment
Po­land 1998 – ac­cess to edu­ca­tion]. Ret­rie­ved Ja­nu­a­ry 19, 2010, from http://www.unic.un.org.pl/
nhdr/1998/ra­port.php
Rościs­zew­ska-Woźniak M. (2008). Gdy nie ma przed­szko­la. [Whe­re the­re is no nur­se­ry scho­ol]. „Dzie­ci
w Eu­ro­pie”, nr 13 (1), 27–28.
Roz­por­zą­dze­nie Mi­nist­ra Edu­kac­ji Na­ro­do­wej z dnia 10 styc­znia 2008 r. W spra­wie ro­dzajów in­nych
form wy­cho­wa­nia przed­szkol­ne­go, wa­runków twor­ze­nia i or­ga­ni­zo­wa­nia tych form oraz spo­so­bach ich
działania, „Dzien­nik Us­taw” z 2008 r. Nr 7, poz. 40, z późn. zm.
Su­cho­dols­ki, B., (1979). Ko­meński. Wars­za­wa: Wie­dza Pow­szech­na.
Us­ta­wy z dnia 7 września 1991 r. o sys­te­mie oświa­ty „Dzien­nik Us­taw” z 2004 r. Nr 256, poz. 2572, z
późn. zm.
Wa­los­zek, D. (2009). Sy­tu­a­cyj­ne wspie­ra­nie dzie­ci w doświad­cza­niu świa­ta. [Si­tu­a­tion chil­dren sup­port
in the pro­cess of ex­pe­rien­cing the world]. Kraków: Wy­daw­nic­two Nau­ko­we Uni­wer­sy­te­tu Pe­da­go­gic­
zne­go.
Wy­got­ski, L. S. (2004). Wyb­ra­ne pra­ce psy­cho­lo­gic­zne II: dzie­ciństwo i do­ras­ta­nie. [Se­lec­ted psy­cho­lo­
gi­cal works II: child­ho­od and ado­les­cen­ce]. Poz­nań: Zysk i S-ka.
Za­hors­ka, M. (2003). Edu­kac­ja przed­szkol­na w Pols­ce – szan­se i zag­rożenia. [Pres­cho­ol edu­ca­tion in
Po­land – op­por­tu­ni­ties and thre­ats]. Wars­za­wa: Fun­dac­ja Ins­ty­tut Spraw Pub­lic­znych.

Ad­vi­ced by Lai­ma Rai­lie­nė, Uni­ver­si­ty of Šiau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia

Mar­ze­na Ok­ra­sa PhD, Se­nior Lec­tu­rer, Ma­ria Cu­rie-Skłodow­ska Uni­ver­si­ty of Lub­lin, Na­ru­to­wic­za Stre­et
12, Lub­lin 20-004, Po­land.
E-mail: mar­ze­na.ok­ra­sa@poc­zta.umcs.lub­lin.pl
Web­si­te: http://www.umcs.lub­lin.pl/
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

118

CULTURAL CAPITAL AND THE RICHES OF


MANNA: INTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANT
SCIENTISTS IN ISRAELI ACADEMIA

Nit­za Da­vi­do­vitch
Ari’el Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­tre, Is­ra­el
E-mail: d.nit­za@ariel.ac.il

Dan So­en
Ari’el Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­tre and the Kib­but­zim Scho­ol of Edu­ca­tion, Tel-Aviv, Is­ra­el
E-mail: so­en@ma­cam.ac.il

Zi­la Si­nu­a­ny-Stern
Ari’el Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­tre and Ben-Gu­rion Uni­ver­si­ty of the Ne­gev, Is­ra­el
E-Mail: szi­la@ariel.ac.il

Abst­ract

The ar­tic­le de­als with tran­sna­tio­na­lism – the flow of cul­tu­ral ca­pi­tal ac­ross bor­ders. Around 16,000
scien­tists en­te­red Is­ra­el du­ring the 1990s. So­me of them joi­ned the aca­de­mic staff. This ca­se stu­dy is the
first to com­pa­re bet­we­en achie­ve­ment me­a­su­res of new im­mig­rant and na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­li se­nior aca­de­mic
fa­cul­ty. It is ba­sed on the ana­ly­sis of per­for­man­ce re­cords of 206 se­nior fa­cul­ty mem­bers from the Ariel
Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­tre, out of whom 77 we­re born over­se­as. The stu­dy ana­ly­zes staff who re­cei­ved fi­nan­cial
re­wards for ex­cel­len­ce for the three years 2006–2008, ba­sed on their ac­ti­vi­ties, as me­a­su­red by se­ve­ral
cri­te­ria: ex­cel­len­ce in re­se­arch, te­aching, aca­de­mic ad­mi­nist­ra­tion, and con­tri­bu­tions to the com­mu­ni­ty.
On the who­le, the stu­dy re­ve­a­led that a lar­ger per­cen­ta­ge of im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers vs. na­ti­ve Is­ra­
e­lis sco­red on ex­cel­len­ce cri­te­ria. A disc­ri­mi­nant ana­ly­sis was per­for­med in or­der to exa­mi­ne to what
de­gree sco­ring on va­rio­us ex­cel­len­ce cri­te­ria dis­tin­guis­hes bet­we­en im­mig­rants and na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis fa­cul­
ty. All in all, the re­se­arch re­ve­als that im­mig­rant scien­tists ha­ve be­co­me well in­teg­ra­ted in the ana­ly­zed
ins­ti­tu­tion; their aca­de­mic con­tri­bu­tion was a ma­jor one.
Key words: tran­sna­tio­na­lism, cul­tu­ral ca­pi­tal, ab­sorp­tion of im­mig­rant scien­tists, aca­de­mic achie­ve­
ments, aca­de­mic dis­tinc­tion.

In­tro­duc­tion

The con­cept of tran­sna­tio­na­lism, which is desc­ri­bed as an in­teg­ral part of the glo­ba­li­za­tion


pro­cess, is la­te­ly be­co­ming rat­her po­pu­lar in so­cial as well as po­li­ti­cal scien­ces (Re­men­nick, 2007;
Faist, 2000; Por­tes et al., 1999). Ori­gi­nal­ly coi­ned to desc­ri­be flows of ca­pi­tal and la­bor ac­ross na­
Nitza DAVIDOVITCH, Dan SOEN, Zila SINUANY-STERN. Cultural Capital and the Riches of Manna: Integration of
Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
tio­nal bor­ders in the se­cond half of the 20th cen­tu­ry, it was la­ter ap­plied to the stu­dy of mig­ra­tions as 119
well as et­hnic Dias­po­ras. Thus, the lens of tran­sna­tio­na­lism be­ca­me ve­ry use­ful for the ex­plo­ra­tion
of is­su­es li­ke im­mig­rant eco­no­mic and so­cial in­teg­ra­tion, iden­ti­ty and cul­tu­ral re­ten­tion. Scho­lars
now re­cog­ni­ze the split of eco­no­mic, so­cial and po­li­ti­cal lo­y­al­ties among mig­rants, as well as the
gra­du­al at­te­nu­a­tion of lo­y­al­ty to the na­tion-sta­te as such (Re­men­nick, 2007; Glick Schil­ler et al.,
1995; Gu­ar­ni­zo & Smith, 1998).
Cur­rent wri­tings on tran­sna­tio­na­lism are con­cer­ned equ­al­ly with long-dis­tan­ce eco­no­mic ac­ti­
vi­ties, fi­nan­cial flows ac­ross the bor­ders and ex­plo­ra­tion of so­cio-cul­tu­ral di­men­sions and im­mig­
rants’ as­si­mi­la­tion and iden­ti­ty (Re­men­nick, 2007a; Al­ba & Nee, 1997).
Most re­cent stu­dies de­a­ling with tran­sna­tio­na­lism fo­cu­sed on emig­rants mo­ving from third
world coun­tries in Af­ri­ca, Asia and La­tin Ame­ri­ca to the West (Faist, 2000; Por­tes et al., 1999;
Smith & Gu­ar­ni­zo, 1998). This pa­per de­als with anot­her stre­am of mig­ra­tions: tho­se from ex-so­cia­
list East Eu­ro­pe­an coun­tries to the West.
Im­mig­rant ab­sorp­tion has be­en one of Is­ra­el’s ma­jor aims sin­ce the es­tab­lis­hment of the Sta­te
of Is­ra­el. The go­als of the Mi­nist­ry of Im­mig­ra­tion Ab­sorp­tion (MOIA) in re­gards to scien­tists’
ab­sorp­tion as sta­ted are among ot­her things to en­su­re, to the gre­a­test de­gree pos­sib­le, that the scien­
ti­fic po­ten­tial em­bo­died in im­mig­ra­tion is chan­ne­led ap­prop­ria­te­ly, fa­ci­li­ta­ting pro­per per­so­nal ab­
sorp­tion of scien­tists, in or­der to inc­re­a­se Is­ra­e­li scien­ti­fic re­se­arch and tech­no­lo­gi­cal ca­pa­bi­li­ties
(MOIA).

Im­mig­ra­tion to Is­ra­el

The Sta­te of Is­ra­el was es­tab­lis­hed on May 15, 1948, a his­to­ri­cal event which oc­cur­red fol­lo­
wing two thou­sand years of Je­wish exi­le and per­se­cu­tion in the Dias­po­ra. The es­tab­lis­hment of the
sta­te was ac­com­pa­nied by the sig­ning of the Scroll of In­de­pen­den­ce, which dec­la­red that “the Sta­te
of Is­ra­el will be open to Je­wish im­mig­ra­tion and the in­gat­he­ring of exi­les” (in Ho­rev, 2006). This
sta­te­ment re­cei­ved its le­gal aut­ho­ri­ty two years la­ter in the Law of Re­turn, which ex­pli­cit­ly sta­ted
that “all Jews are en­tit­led to im­mig­ra­te to Is­ra­el” (Law of Re­turn, 1950). This le­gal act trans­for­med
the Land of Is­ra­el in­to a world cen­ter of Je­wish im­mig­ra­tion.
The Sta­te of Is­ra­el was es­tab­lis­hed on a uni­que et­hno-na­tio­nal foun­da­tion, se­e­king to ba­se its
exis­ten­ce on wa­ves of ex­ter­nal im­mig­ra­tion which form an im­por­tant de­mog­rap­hic ba­sis of the Je­
wish exis­ten­ce in Is­ra­el (Se­ver, 2001). At the ti­me the sta­te was es­tab­lis­hed the Je­wish po­pu­la­tion
num­be­red ap­pro­xi­ma­te­ly 600 thou­sand; to­day, six de­ca­des la­ter, the Je­wish po­pu­la­tion num­bers 6
mil­lion, of whom 30% we­re born over­se­as (CBS, 2008, 59). 75% of the Je­wish po­pu­la­tion in Is­ra­el
is eit­her im­mig­rants or 1st ge­ne­ra­tion Is­ra­e­lis (ibid.). Is­ra­el is a coun­try of im­mig­rants, and from the
mo­ment it was es­tab­lis­hed it had to co­pe with lar­ge ra­tes of im­mig­ra­tion and the chal­len­ges in­vol­
ved in ab­sor­bing im­mig­rants. Des­pi­te its ex­ten­si­ve ex­pe­rien­ce with the ab­sorp­tion of im­mig­rants, it
fa­ced a sig­ni­fi­cant new eco­no­mic, so­cial, and cul­tu­ral chal­len­ge in the la­te ‘80s and early ‘90s.

The Lar­ge Wa­ve of Im­mig­ra­tion from the For­mer So­viet Union (FSU) – Uni­que
Cha­rac­te­ris­tics

In 1989 the So­viet Union ope­ned its ga­tes to ci­ti­zens who wis­hed to le­a­ve the coun­try. When
the Iron Cur­tain fell, it was fi­nal­ly pos­sib­le to le­a­ve the coun­try le­gal­ly af­ter ma­ny de­ca­des of re­stric­
ted mo­ve­ment. This point sym­bo­li­zed the be­gin­ning of the se­cond wa­ve of im­mig­ra­tion from the
FSU (the first wa­ve was in the ‘70s), which be­ca­me one of the lar­gest mass im­mig­ra­tion mo­ve­ments
in hu­man his­to­ry (Gan­dal, Han­son & Slaugh­ter, 2004). An es­ti­ma­ted 1.6 mil­lion of for­mer So­viet ci­
ti­zens of Je­wish an­cest­ry left the di­sin­teg­ra­ting for­mer USSR af­ter 1987, dras­ti­cal­ly de­ple­ting their
aging Je­wish com­mu­ni­ties left be­hind. They cons­ti­tu­ted a hu­ge foun­tain of hu­man ca­pi­tal. Jews
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

120
we­re the most edu­ca­ted mi­no­ri­ty group among all FSU na­tions. Over 60% had ter­tia­ry edu­ca­tion.
Most held pro­fes­sio­nal or whi­te col­lar oc­cu­pa­tions (Rem­me­nick, 2007a; Tolts, 2004). Over 60% of
the­se emig­rants mo­ved to Is­ra­el; 40% scat­te­red in ot­her Wes­tern coun­tries.
Over 720 thou­sand pe­op­le en­te­red the coun­try over a pe­riod of three years, arou­sing ma­ny
con­cerns of their ef­fect on the struc­tu­re of so­cie­ty (Kim­mer­ling, 1998). The wa­ve of im­mig­ra­tion
from the So­viet Union in 1989-1996 ex­pan­ded the po­pu­la­tion of Is­ra­el by 20% (Ge­va-May, 2002).
By 2008 the num­ber of im­mig­rants from the FSU re­a­ched one mil­lion, who all ar­ri­ved in the se­cond
wa­ve which be­gan in 1989 and has con­ti­nu­ed in a mo­re mo­de­ra­te form un­til the pre­sent day (Mey-
Ami, 2008). The ra­te of im­mig­rants from the FSU among the Je­wish po­pu­la­tion in Is­ra­el ro­se from
3.8% in 1990 to 21% in 2005. They are now the lar­gest et­hnic group to mig­ra­te to Is­ra­el (Raij­man,
2009). By vir­tue of its si­ze and ti­ming the hu­ge Rus­sian mig­ra­tion wa­ve of the 1990s had all the
ne­ces­sa­ry con­di­tions for the de­ve­lop­ment of tran­sna­tio­nal ten­den­cies (Rem­me­nick, 2007).
The mas­si­ve wa­ve of im­mig­ra­tion from the FSU is uni­que in its si­ze, com­po­si­tion, and ex­tent.
The new im­mig­rants pro­vi­ded ma­te­rial for ma­ny stu­dies exa­mi­ning va­rio­us as­pects of their ab­sorp­
tion and ac­cli­ma­ti­za­tion, inc­lu­ding: lin­guis­tic (Me­na­chem & Geist, 1999; Ben Rap­ha­el, Ols­tein &
Ga­tes, 1994; Chis­wick & Re­pet­to, 2000; Chis­wick, 1998), cul­tu­ral (Ge­va-May, 1998; Re­men­nick,
2002), eco­no­mic (Stier & Le­va­non, 2003), per­so­nal (Eps­tein & Khei­mets, 2001), oc­cu­pa­tio­nal
(Ofer, Plug & Ka­sir, 1991; Ni­rel, 1999; Mesch & Cza­mans­ki, 1997; Chis­wick, Lee & Mil­ler, 2006),
men­tal (Ler­ner, Ker­tes & Zil­ber, 2005), and so­cial as­pects (Darr & Rot­hschild, 2005; So­en, 2001;
Co­hen & Kir­chme­y­er, 1994) and ot­her pa­ra­me­ters ai­med at eva­lu­a­ting the re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en the
im­mig­rants and their tar­get coun­try.
Asi­de from the nu­me­ri­cal as­pects of this wa­ve of mass im­mig­ra­tion, it had uni­que de­mog­rap­
hic and so­cial cha­rac­te­ris­tics of which so­me we­re new to Is­ra­el. This po­pu­la­tion was no­ti­ce­ab­le for
its lar­ge pro­por­tion of el­der­ly, which was much hig­her than that in the lo­cal po­pu­la­tion (19% aged
65+ as against 9.9%)! Mo­re­o­ver, its me­dian age was 42.9, com­pa­ring with a me­dian age of 28.5
for mig­rants co­ming to Is­ra­el from Wes­tern coun­tries, and me­dian age of 25.4 for mig­rants co­ming
from Et­hio­pia (Raij­man, 2009). Ho­we­ver, of all im­mig­rants at an age con­si­de­red em­plo­y­ab­le, 58%
we­re aca­de­mics, com­pa­red to 25% among Is­ra­el’s exis­ting po­pu­la­tion (Kim­mer­ling, 1998). Ac­cor­
ding to da­ta from the MOIA, 10.9% of im­mig­rants in 1989-1999 we­re en­gi­ne­ers and ar­chi­tects,
2.3% we­re doc­tors, 2.2% we­re ar­tists, 2.5% we­re nur­ses, and 4.8% we­re te­achers. The to­tal num­ber
of im­mig­rants who ar­ri­ved du­ring this de­ca­de was 835,240 (MOIA, 2008a). Du­ring 2000-2008 the
num­ber of im­mig­rants with scien­ti­fic and aca­de­mic oc­cu­pa­tions, in ad­di­tion to tho­se with li­be­ral
and tech­ni­cal pro­fes­sions, re­a­ched 31.8%. The to­tal num­ber of im­mig­rants with scien­ti­fic and aca­
de­mic oc­cu­pa­tions du­ring the­se years was 268,287 (MOIA, 2008b). Des­pi­te the­se im­pres­si­ve da­ta
one Is­ra­e­li scho­lar (Co­hen, 2007) sug­ges­ted that the emig­rants who we­re youn­ger, mo­re edu­ca­ted
and had bet­ter ad­just­ment po­ten­tial in the Wes­tern eco­no­mies left the FSU for North Ame­ri­ca. Tho­
se who op­ted for Is­ra­el we­re their ol­der coun­ter­parts. As a re­sult of this self-se­lec­tion Rus­sian Jews
in Is­ra­el did not fa­re ne­ar­ly as well as their com­pat­riots in North Ame­ri­ca. Mo­re­o­ver, in Is­ra­el they
had to co­pe with a small and sa­tu­ra­ted skil­led la­bor mar­ket (ibid.).
In the pre­sent stu­dy the re­se­arch te­am sought to exa­mi­ne anot­her less stu­died as­pect fo­cu­sing
on a cer­tain seg­ment of this po­pu­la­tion – the scien­tists. Sur­pri­sin­gly, des­pi­te the ma­ny pro­grams
de­sig­ned in the past and the va­rio­us pro­po­sals for in­teg­ra­ting im­mig­rant scien­tists in aca­de­mic
fields in the fu­tu­re, no ex­ten­si­ve stu­dy was held on the sub­ject. The lack of up­da­ted re­se­arch on the
in­teg­ra­tion and con­tri­bu­tion of im­mig­rant scien­tists to aca­de­mia is det­ri­men­tal to the de­ve­lop­ment
of fu­tu­re pro­grams ai­med at aca­de­mic in­teg­ra­tion. In the ab­sen­ce of da­ta it is dif­fi­cult to es­ti­ma­te
the de­gree to which the in­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rant scien­tists in­de­ed con­tri­bu­tes to Is­ra­e­li hig­her edu­
ca­tion and to the scien­tists per se.
In this stu­dy we ha­ve cho­sen to fo­cus on the qu­a­li­ty and de­gree of the ab­sorp­tion of im­mig­
rant ver­sus na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­li scien­tists at the Ari’el Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter in Sa­ma­ria (AUC). The main
pur­po­se of the re­se­arch is to as­sess the con­tri­bu­tion of im­mig­rant scien­tists in the fields of re­se­arch,
te­aching, and con­tri­bu­tion to the com­mu­ni­ty.
Nitza DAVIDOVITCH, Dan SOEN, Zila SINUANY-STERN. Cultural Capital and the Riches of Manna: Integration of
Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Im­mig­rant Scien­tists 121

The group of im­mig­rants with scien­ti­fic and aca­de­mic oc­cu­pa­tions en­com­pas­ses ma­ny scien­
tists. The MOIA de­fi­ned scien­tists as cor­res­pon­ding to one of three dif­fe­rent ca­te­go­ries: hol­ders of
Ph.D. or equi­va­lent de­gre­es who wor­ked in the field of re­se­arch and de­ve­lop­ment for at le­ast 3 of
the 5 years be­fo­re im­mig­ra­ting and pub­lis­hed at le­ast 3 scien­ti­fic ar­tic­les or ac­know­led­ged scien­ti­fic
stu­dies or re­gis­te­red 3 pa­tents; hol­ders of M.Sc. or equi­va­lent de­gre­es who wor­ked in the field of
re­se­arch and de­ve­lop­ment for at le­ast 4 of the 6 years be­fo­re im­mig­ra­ting and pub­lis­hed at le­ast 3
scien­ti­fic ar­tic­les or re­gis­te­red 3 pa­tents; hol­ders of M.Sc. or equi­va­lent de­gre­es who wor­ked in the
field of re­se­arch and de­ve­lop­ment for at le­ast 4 of the 6 years prior to im­mig­ra­ting but pro­du­ced no
ar­tic­les or pa­tents (see web­si­te of the MOIA).
Bet­we­en 1989-1991 mo­re than 5,300 im­mig­rant scien­tists fit­ting the­se cri­te­ria im­mig­ra­ted to
Is­ra­el (MOIA, 2000). Du­ring the­se years the num­ber of ve­te­ran Is­ra­e­li scien­tists re­a­ched 8,000,
inc­lu­ding both re­se­ar­chers and aca­de­mic fa­cul­ty (Ge­va-May, 2000). Du­ring the pe­riod of im­mig­
ra­tion, scien­tists cons­ti­tu­ted 1.2% of all im­mig­rants. The num­ber of scien­tists who im­mig­ra­ted
from the FSU in the last wa­ve of im­mig­ra­tion to­ta­led 15,700 by 2008 (Mey-Ami, 2008). Du­ring
1989-1999 about 14,000 im­mig­rants ap­pe­a­led to the Cen­ter for Ab­sorp­tion in Scien­ce (CAS) of the
MOIA– 1.4% of all im­mig­rants who ar­ri­ved in Is­ra­el du­ring tho­se years. A lar­ge per­cen­ta­ge of CAS
fi­les – 38% – we­re ope­ned du­ring 1991-1992 (MOIA, 2008b).
Thus, the po­pu­la­tion of im­mig­rants from the So­viet Union was, in ge­ne­ral, well-edu­ca­ted. In
con­trast to the ty­pi­cal pat­tern of im­mig­ra­tion, the­se im­mig­rants did not co­me to Is­ra­el in se­arch of
new so­cio­e­co­no­mic op­por­tu­ni­ties (Bha­gat & Lon­don, 1999); ho­we­ver they per­cei­ved their em­plo­y­
ment as a cen­tral as­pect of their pro­cess of as­si­mi­la­tion in Is­ra­el (Me­na­chem & Ga­tes, 1999).
The­se traits rai­sed the eco­no­mic and so­cial po­ten­tial of im­mig­ra­tion from the So­viet Union
(Tri­po­nov & Wei­ner, 1995). The im­mig­rants we­re ac­know­led­ged as “hu­man ca­pi­tal” with a gre­at
po­ten­tial of con­tri­bu­ting to the Is­ra­e­li eco­no­my (Darr & Rot­hschild, 2004; Ofer et al., 1991). Con­
cur­rent with the high ex­pec­ta­tions of the­se im­mig­rants, lo­cal ve­te­ran seg­ments of the po­pu­la­tion
de­ve­lo­ped re­al con­cerns. They fe­a­red the in­he­rent com­pe­ti­tion for em­plo­y­ment op­por­tu­ni­ties, ri­sing
unem­plo­y­ment, and the uti­li­za­tion of na­tio­nal re­sour­ces for im­mig­ra­tion ab­sorp­tion at the ex­pen­se
of bud­gets in­ten­ded for un­der­pri­vi­le­ged and ve­te­ran po­pu­la­tions (Kim­mer­ling, 1998), as well as
over­bur­de­ning the Is­ra­e­li wel­fa­re sys­tem (see al­so Smo­o­ha, 1998).
The po­ten­tial on the one hand and emer­ging con­cerns on the ot­her led to a cer­tain con­flict wit­
hin Is­ra­e­li so­cie­ty. So­me clai­med that mar­ket for­ces should be al­lo­wed to ta­ke their cour­se and that
a na­tu­ral ba­lan­ce and in­teg­ra­tion of the im­mig­rants would oc­cur spon­ta­ne­ous­ly (Meir­son, 1991).
Ot­hers thought that Is­ra­el would not be ab­le ab­sorb the gar­gan­tu­an work­for­ce ar­ri­ving at its do­ors­
tep wit­hout the help of ar­ti­fi­cial me­ans (Ne’­eman, 1991; Darr & Rot­hschild, 2005). This en­de­a­vor
hel­ped cre­a­te va­rio­us pro­grams for the in­teg­ra­tion of scien­tists and aca­de­mics wit­hin the Is­ra­e­li la­
bor mar­ket. Ma­ny ef­forts ha­ve be­en ma­de by the Is­ra­e­li go­vern­ment to re­a­li­ze the sig­ni­fi­cant hu­man
ca­pi­tal of the po­pu­la­tion of im­mig­rants from the FSU. The qu­es­tion should now be rai­sed– Ha­ve the­
se ef­forts be­en fruit­ful? Has the ef­fort to fa­ci­li­ta­te the em­plo­y­ment of im­mig­rants be­en suc­ces­sful?

Re­se­arch on the Em­plo­y­ment of High­ly Edu­ca­ted Im­mig­rants

The re­cent wa­ve of im­mig­ra­tion to Is­ra­el, cha­rac­te­ri­zed by a high pro­por­tion of edu­ca­ted pe­op­
le, is un­li­ke that of the ‘70s (Ne’­eman, 1994). Is­ra­e­li so­cie­ty un­der­went ma­ny pro­ces­ses which re­du­
ced im­mig­rants’ chan­ces of be­co­ming in­teg­ra­ted, due to con­tem­po­ra­ry so­cio­e­co­no­mic con­di­tions
which are less con­du­ci­ve to im­mig­ra­tion (Eps­tein & Khei­mets, 2001). The ‘90s we­re cha­rac­te­ri­zed
by high ra­tes of unem­plo­y­ment: 10% in the ‘90s ver­sus 3.3% in the ‘70s. Du­ring the­se years no
new uni­ver­si­ty-le­vel ins­ti­tu­tions we­re ope­ned in Is­ra­el, ver­sus the ‘60s and ‘70s in which 3 new
uni­ver­si­ties we­re es­tab­lis­hed, cre­a­ting jobs for aca­de­mics (Da­vi­do­vich & Iram, 2006). The ab­sorp­
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

122
tion po­li­cy chan­ged from an ins­ti­tu­tio­nal po­li­cy of “ab­sorp­tion cen­ters” to a po­li­cy of ter­med di­rect
ab­sorp­tion (Les­hem, 1993), whe­re im­mig­rants we­re gi­ven the op­tion of in­de­pen­dent­ly cho­o­sing
their pla­ce of work and re­si­den­ce (Eps­tein & Khei­mets, 2001; Eps­tein, Khei­mets & Orit­zky, 2003).
This po­li­cy tas­ked im­mig­rants with the res­pon­si­bi­li­ty for lo­ca­ting ade­qu­a­te so­lu­tions for their ne­
eds (Les­hem, 1993). At the sa­me ti­me, pub­lic cons­cio­us­ness no lon­ger per­cei­ved the sig­ni­fi­can­ce of
ab­sor­bing im­mig­ra­tion, and this was now con­si­de­red a bur­den rat­her than an as­set (ibid.). All the­se
con­di­tions ma­de im­mig­ra­tion much mo­re dif­fi­cult. It was al­most ne­ces­sa­ry to ini­tia­te in­ter­ven­tions
in or­der to enab­le su­itab­le ab­sorp­tion of im­mig­rants.
When stu­dy­ing the as­si­mi­la­tion of im­mig­rants in so­cie­ty, eco­no­mic-em­plo­y­ment in­teg­ra­tion
is con­si­de­red ve­ry sig­ni­fi­cant (Me­na­chem & Ga­tes, 1999). The pre­mi­se is that such in­teg­ra­tion is
a ma­jor in­di­ca­tor of suc­ces­sful as­si­mi­la­tion in the tar­get so­cie­ty, as the­se as­pects are cen­tral for de­
ter­mi­ning in­di­vi­du­als’ fe­e­lings of well-being (Stier & Le­va­non, 2003), be­lon­ging and self-es­te­em.
For exam­ple, Me­na­chem and Ga­tes (ibid.) found that im­mig­rants’ fe­e­lings of at­tach­ment and con­
nec­tion to Is­ra­el are de­ter­mi­ned to a gre­at de­gree by their em­plo­y­ment and per­so­nal achie­ve­ments
in the coun­try.
So­me of the stu­dies exa­mi­ning the in­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rants from the FSU in the work­for­ce
fo­cu­sed on their in­teg­ra­tion as a group, whi­le ot­hers exa­mi­ned the in­teg­ra­tion of uni­que po­pu­la­tions
among the im­mig­rants.
Ofer et al. (1991) at­temp­ted to es­ti­ma­te the in­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rants from the FSU in the
work­for­ce the­o­re­ti­cal­ly via eco­no­mic mo­dels, fo­cu­sing on as­pects re­la­ted to re­tai­ning and chan­ging
oc­cu­pa­tions. Their fin­dings in­di­ca­ted that in or­der for edu­ca­ted im­mig­rants to be­co­me in­teg­ra­ted
in the Is­ra­e­li eco­no­my it is ne­ces­sa­ry to ra­di­cal­ly open the eco­no­my to glo­bal mar­kets. The re­se­ar­
chers al­so es­ti­ma­ted that the best-edu­ca­ted sec­tor would be the most ca­pab­le of re­tai­ning ori­gi­nal
oc­cu­pa­tions.
Ni­rel (1998) exa­mi­ned the in­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rant phy­si­cians from the FSU in the work­for­ce.
Re­se­arch fin­dings in­di­ca­te that most phy­si­cians who found jobs in their pro­fes­sion suc­ce­e­ded in
be­co­ming in­teg­ra­ted in their field. The fin­dings in­di­ca­te im­pro­ve­ments in phy­si­cians’ job sta­bi­li­ty,
“ins­ti­tu­tio­na­li­za­tion” of po­si­tions, pro­fes­sio­nal sta­tus, wa­ges, and per­cei­ved ab­sorp­tion, as a func­
tion of ti­me. Ac­cor­ding to all the­se me­a­su­res, phy­si­cians who ar­ri­ved by Ju­ne 1992 and we­re em­plo­
y­ed in their fields suc­ce­e­ded in be­co­ming in­teg­ra­ted in Is­ra­e­li me­di­cal ser­vi­ces.
Na­veh and King (1999) exa­mi­ned the in­teg­ra­tion of en­gi­ne­ers in the Is­ra­e­li work­for­ce. Their
fin­dings show that alt­hough im­mig­rant en­gi­ne­ers ha­ve sig­ni­fi­cant pro­fes­sio­nal skills and pro­fes­sio­
nal ex­pe­rien­ce, on­ly one qu­ar­ter of all im­mig­rant scien­tists we­re em­plo­y­ed in their pro­fes­sion, 9%
we­re em­plo­y­ed in re­la­ted pro­fes­sions such as te­aching (Ge­va-May, 1998), as tech­ni­cians, or in pro­
gram­ming, and 66% wor­ked in ot­her pro­fes­sions un­sui­ted to their le­vel of edu­ca­tion – al­most half
we­re em­plo­y­ed as pro­fes­sio­nal la­bo­rers and one qu­ar­ter as un­pro­fes­sio­nal la­bo­rers (ibid.).
Stier and Le­va­non (2003) exa­mi­ned the em­plo­y­ment of im­mig­rants in jobs that are com­pa­tib­le
with their skills. The re­se­ar­chers found that most of the im­mig­rants had dif­fi­cul­ty fin­ding jobs. Four
years af­ter ar­ri­ving in Is­ra­el most we­re em­plo­y­ed in jobs that did not suit their skills. The lack of
com­pa­ti­bi­li­ty bet­we­en skills and oc­cu­pa­tion was in­de­ed det­ri­men­tal to their pres­ti­ge and so­cial sta­
tus, but not to their in­co­me, which ro­se des­pi­te the ele­ment of over-qu­a­li­fi­ca­tion.
Darr and Rot­hschild (2005) exa­mi­ned the in­teg­ra­tion of well-edu­ca­ted im­mig­rants in the Is­ra­
e­li scien­ti­fic com­mu­ni­ty. The re­se­ar­chers found that alt­hough the hu­man ca­pi­tal of the im­mig­rants
was hig­her than that of ve­te­ran Is­ra­e­lis, this fact alo­ne did not fa­ci­li­ta­te en­gi­ne­er and scien­tist as­
si­mi­la­tion in the Is­ra­e­li scien­ti­fic com­mu­ni­ty. The re­se­ar­chers as­so­cia­ted this fin­ding with the fact
that Is­ra­el is a small coun­try and its pro­fes­sio­nal com­mu­ni­ties are ve­ry con­ges­ted and clo­se-knit,
a furt­her obs­tac­le en­coun­te­red by im­mig­rant en­gi­ne­ers and scien­tists. In any ca­se, whi­le the new
im­mig­rants en­coun­te­red ma­ny dif­fi­cul­ties, re­se­arch re­ve­als that a few years af­ter their ar­ri­val ma­ny
of them ex­pe­rien­ced up­ward mo­bi­li­ty com­men­su­ra­te with their hu­man ca­pi­tal (Ec­kstein & Weiss,
2004; Se­my­o­nov et al., 2002).
Nitza DAVIDOVITCH, Dan SOEN, Zila SINUANY-STERN. Cultural Capital and the Riches of Manna: Integration of
Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Ge­va-May (2000) exa­mi­ned fi­ve pro­jects for the ret­rai­ning of im­mig­rant scien­tists as te­achers. 123
The re­se­arch fin­dings in­di­ca­te that the scien­tists we­re suc­ces­sful­ly em­plo­y­ed in the field of te­aching
and well-in­teg­ra­ted as high scho­ol te­achers. Ho­we­ver most we­re em­plo­y­ed in par­tial po­si­tions and
had to work at se­ve­ral scho­ols. The re­se­ar­cher sta­ted that des­pi­te the oc­cu­pa­tio­nal suc­cess of re­di­rec­
ting scien­tists to high scho­ol te­aching, from a so­cial as­pect the ven­tu­re was less suc­ces­sful – most of
the scien­tists did not form friend­ships with their col­le­a­gu­es, con­sis­tent with prin­ci­pals’ sta­te­ments
that ma­ny pa­rents ob­ject to ha­ving their chil­dren taught by im­mig­rant te­achers, des­pi­te the fact that
95% of the prin­ci­pals sub­mit­ted fa­vo­rab­le eva­lu­a­tions of im­mig­rant scien­tists’ con­tri­bu­tion to the
scho­ol.

In­teg­ra­tion of Scien­tists in Ins­ti­tu­tions of Hig­her Edu­ca­tion

As al­re­a­dy men­tio­ned, over 15,000 scien­tists im­mig­ra­ted to Is­ra­el over the past two de­ca­des.
54% ha­ve doc­to­ra­te de­gre­es and 46% ha­ve mas­ter’s de­gre­es. 64% ha­ve de­gre­es in scien­ti­fic and
tech­no­lo­gi­cal pro­fes­sions, 23% in the li­fe and me­di­cal scien­ces, 13% in the so­cial scien­ces and the
hu­ma­ni­ties (Eps­tein et al., 2003). Alt­hough ma­ny stu­dies ha­ve exa­mi­ned the as­si­mi­la­tion of the
Rus­sian po­pu­la­tion in Is­ra­el, the in­teg­ra­tion of scien­tists in aca­de­mia has be­en al­most com­ple­te­ly
ne­glec­ted and lit­tle re­se­arch exists on this sub­ject. Two stu­dies we­re pub­lis­hed by To­ren, who ex­plo­
red the to­pic of scien­tists who im­mig­ra­ted in the ‘70s, and Shye et al., who exa­mi­ned the in­teg­ra­tion
of scien­tists who ar­ri­ved af­ter 1989.
To­ren (1988) in­ter­vie­wed im­mig­rant scien­tists who ca­me to Is­ra­el du­ring 1973–1975. The
stu­dy inc­lu­ded in­ter­views with 207 im­mig­rants from the So­viet Union and 91 scien­tists from the
Uni­ted Sta­tes. Re­se­arch fin­dings inc­lu­de a re­port on re­a­sons for im­mig­ra­tion, fac­tors af­fec­ting scien­
tists’ sa­tis­fac­tion, and fac­tors bloc­king their in­teg­ra­tion in the Is­ra­e­li la­bor mar­ket (ibid.).
Shye et al. (1996) exa­mi­ned the in­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rants in aca­de­mia du­ring 1992–1995. The
stu­dy ana­ly­zed scien­tists who had be­en li­ving in Is­ra­el for 3 years. Re­se­arch fin­dings show that
70% of scien­tists who had be­en wor­king at uni­ver­si­ties in 1992 we­re still wor­king the­re three years
la­ter. 13% of im­mig­rant scien­tists who had be­en wor­king at uni­ver­si­ties had mo­ved to in­dust­ry by
1995, 7% of scien­tists who had be­en in aca­de­mia we­re unem­plo­y­ed by 1995, a fin­ding in­ter­pre­ted
by re­se­ar­chers as stem­ming from ad­just­ment dif­fi­cul­ties and ad­van­ced age.
They furt­her found (ibid.) that the pro­por­tion of scien­tists who pub­lis­hed scien­ti­fic ar­tic­les
doub­led over this pe­riod as did the num­ber of scien­tists who re­gis­te­red pa­tents, fin­dings cre­di­ted by
the re­se­ar­chers to go­vern­ment as­sis­tan­ce af­for­ded to im­mig­rant scien­tists. Aca­de­mic col­le­a­gu­es of
im­mig­rant scien­tists re­por­ted that the pro­fes­sio­nal skills, in­teg­ra­tion, and con­tri­bu­tion of the lat­ter
im­pro­ved im­me­a­su­rab­ly over this pe­riod. Ho­we­ver ve­te­ran col­le­a­gu­es es­ti­ma­ted that im­mig­rant
scien­tists still had a re­la­ti­ve­ly low chan­ce of re­mai­ning at the uni­ver­si­ties.
Des­pi­te the im­pro­ve­ments and pro­gress in­di­ca­ted by scien­tists and their col­le­a­gu­es, the re­se­ar­
chers re­por­ted that ex­perts and va­rio­us func­tio­na­ries fe­el that long-term in­teg­ra­tion in the in­dust­rial
sec­tor is pre­fe­rab­le, whi­le on­ly a small part of out­stan­ding im­mig­rant scien­tists, ca­pab­le of con­tri­bu­
ting to ba­sic re­se­arch at the uni­ver­si­ties, should re­main the­re.
The abo­ve­men­tio­ned stu­dies il­lu­mi­na­te the sub­ject but do not re­flect the cur­rent sta­te of af­fairs
as of 2009. Over a de­ca­de has pas­sed sin­ce the stu­dy per­for­med by Shye et al. Im­mig­rant scien­tists
are no lon­ger de­fi­ned as new im­mig­rants and do not en­joy the be­ne­fits and aid pro­grams pro­vi­ded
to new­ly ar­ri­ved im­mig­rant scien­tists. Thus we must ask: What is the con­tri­bu­tion of im­mig­rant
scien­tists to aca­de­mic re­se­arch and de­ve­lop­ment? This qu­es­tion is ne­ces­si­ta­ted by the enor­mous
eco­no­mic and so­cial ef­fort in­ves­ted in their in­teg­ra­tion and fol­lows a go­vern­ment de­ci­sion re­cei­ved
on Au­gust 2, 2007 to can­cel fi­nan­cial sup­port for the in­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rant scien­tists at re­se­arch
ins­ti­tu­tions in the field of re­se­arch and de­ve­lop­ment.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

124 Met­ho­do­lo­gy of Re­se­arch

The pur­po­se of this re­se­arch is to exa­mi­ne the achie­ve­ments of im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers
at the AUC, ver­sus tho­se of Is­ra­e­li-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers. As­ses­sments of fa­cul­ty ac­ti­vi­ties and
achie­ve­ment-ba­sed re­wards ha­ve be­co­me im­por­tant to­pics over the past four de­ca­des (He­arn, 1999;
Wad­sworth, 1994; Alt­bach, 2000; Gil­les­pie, Hil­sen & Wad­sworth, 2002; Kai­ser & Ne­il­son, 2002).
Fa­cul­ty mem­bers at aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions per­form a wi­de ran­ge of ac­ti­vi­ties, inc­lu­ding: te­aching,
re­se­arch, re­se­arch pub­li­ca­tions, pre­sen­ta­tions at con­fe­ren­ces, sub­mit­ting re­se­arch grants, aca­de­mic
ad­mi­nist­ra­tion, com­mu­ni­ty ser­vi­ce, etc. Ho­we­ver aca­de­mic fre­e­dom ma­kes it dif­fi­cult to su­per­vi­se
and re­port the achie­ve­ments of fa­cul­ty in the dif­fe­rent are­as (Man­ning & Rom­ney, 1973).
Se­ve­ral met­hods (e.g. pe­er as­ses­sments, mul­tip­le-cri­te­ria eva­lu­a­tion, stu­dents’ eva­lu­a­tion) ser­
ve to as­sess the achie­ve­ments of fa­cul­ty mem­bers at aca­de­mic ins­ti­tu­tions. The main to­ol for eva­lu­
a­ting te­aching is the stu­dent fe­ed­back qu­es­tion­nai­re com­ple­ted at the conc­lu­sion of each se­mes­ter
(Kre­ber, 2001; Da­vi­do­vich & Si­nu­a­ny-Stern, 2006; Da­vi­do­vitch & So­en, 2006). In ad­di­tion, fa­cul­ty
pro­mo­tion is ba­sed on eva­lu­a­ting the achie­ve­ments of fa­cul­ty mem­bers as well. Sin­ce 1993 ma­ny
Is­ra­e­li ins­ti­tu­tions of hig­her edu­ca­tion ha­ve be­en uti­li­zing an­nu­al self-eva­lu­a­tions and eva­lu­a­tions
by se­nior col­le­a­gu­es, ba­sed on ex­cel­len­ce cri­te­ria in the fields of re­se­arch and te­aching. The re­sults
of the­se eva­lu­a­tions are ma­ni­fes­ted in fa­cul­ty sa­la­ries, in the form of re­wards for ex­cel­len­ce.
This stu­dy shall fo­cus on the aca­de­mic achie­ve­ments of im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers as­si­mi­la­
ted over the years at the AUC, ver­sus tho­se of na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­li re­se­arch fa­cul­ty mem­bers. The main
qu­es­tions in this stu­dy re­la­te to links bet­we­en the con­tri­bu­tion of fa­cul­ty mem­bers, in their fields of
ac­ti­vi­ty, as eva­lu­a­ted by “ex­cel­len­ce cri­te­ria”, and their coun­try of ori­gin.
Fa­cul­ty mem­ber eli­gi­bi­li­ty for ex­cel­len­ce re­wards is ba­sed on te­aching po­si­tions of at le­ast 2/3
and con­tin­gent on re­a­ching ex­cel­len­ce sco­res in the top 60% (in ac­tu­al fact, rough­ly 40% of the
fa­cul­ty re­cei­ved me­rit re­mu­ne­ra­tion ba­sed on their ex­cel­len­ce sco­res). This group is eli­gib­le to re­cei­
ve an an­nu­al sup­ple­ment to their sa­la­ries ba­sed on achie­ve­ments du­ring the pre­vio­us year. The sup­
ple­ment ran­ges from 7.5% (the lo­wer 20% of the ex­cel­len­ce sco­res) to 15% (the mid­dle 20% of the
ex­cel­len­ce sco­res) to 20% (the top 20% of the ex­cel­len­ce sco­res), ac­cor­ding to the num­ber of points
ac­cu­mu­la­ted. The­se are the ru­les of the Coun­cil for Hig­her Edu­ca­tion for col­le­ges. At uni­ver­si­ties
the­re is no li­mi­ta­tion of the per­cen­ta­ge of tho­se who may re­cei­ve ex­cel­len­ce re­wards; ho­we­ver the
re­ward it­self com­pri­ses a ma­xi­mum of 13%. This stu­dy cal­cu­la­tes ave­ra­ge sco­res ba­sed on fi­ve me­a­
su­res of eva­lu­a­tion, of which the most do­mi­nant are: eva­lu­a­tion of all aca­de­mic ac­ti­vi­ties by se­nior
col­le­a­gu­es, inc­lu­ding de­ans (ex­cel­len­ce sco­res), and stu­dent eva­lu­a­tions of te­aching (fe­ed­back).
The re­se­arch qu­es­tions fo­cu­sed on the achie­ve­ment me­a­su­res of im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers,
ba­sed on the ana­ly­sis of per­so­nal de­tai­led qu­es­tion­nai­res fil­led in by all fa­cul­ty mem­bers of the
ins­ti­tu­tion. On the who­le, se­ve­ral points we­re ana­ly­zed: What is their re­la­ti­ve weight in the fields
of re­se­arch (e.g. num­ber of ar­tic­les pub­lis­hed in scien­ti­fic jour­nals, num­ber of bo­oks pub­lis­hed,
re­se­arch grants, pri­zes and awards, etc.) te­aching (fe­ed­back from stu­dents, con­tri­bu­tion to in­no­va­
ti­ve in­struc­tion, etc.) and con­tri­bu­tion to the com­mu­ni­ty? What is their re­la­ti­ve weight in the field
of aca­de­mic ad­mi­nist­ra­tion (mem­bers­hip in ins­ti­tu­tio­nal com­mit­te­es, in de­part­men­tal com­mit­te­es,
in na­tio­nal com­mit­te­es, etc.)? What is their re­la­ti­ve weight in con­tri­bu­tion to the ins­ti­tu­tion’s aca­
de­mic re­pu­ta­tion (in­vi­ted lec­tu­res and pre­sen­ta­tions in in­ter­na­tio­nal scien­ti­fic con­fe­ren­ces, ser­ving
on or­ga­ni­zing com­mit­te­es of scien­ti­fic con­fe­ren­ces, etc.)? To what de­gree, if at all, do achie­ve­ment
me­a­su­res of fa­cul­ty mem­bers in re­se­arch and te­aching de­pend on ot­her per­so­nal va­riab­les such as
gen­der, se­nio­ri­ty, age, or on va­riab­les re­la­ted to their aca­de­mic oc­cu­pa­tion, such as ty­pe of fa­cul­ty,
rank, and te­nu­re? This pa­per de­als with the ove­rall com­bi­ned achie­ve­ments of the FSU scien­tists

Re­se­arch Po­pu­la­tion

This stu­dy is ba­sed on 206 aca­de­mic fa­cul­ty mem­bers from the AUC. 62.6% of the fa­cul­ty
mem­bers are na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis, 19.4% are im­mig­rants from the FSU, 12.1% are US-born, and 5.8%
Nitza DAVIDOVITCH, Dan SOEN, Zila SINUANY-STERN. Cultural Capital and the Riches of Manna: Integration of
Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
ca­me from ot­her coun­tries. In or­der to exa­mi­ne the cor­re­la­tion bet­we­en fa­cul­ty mem­ber ori­gins and 125
both bac­kground da­ta and ex­cel­len­ce cri­te­ria, the fa­cul­ty mem­bers we­re di­vi­ded in­to four groups of
ori­gin: Is­ra­el, FSU, USA, and ot­hers.

Re­sults of Re­se­arch

A no­tab­le fact emer­ging from the da­ta is that not on­ly do new im­mig­rant scien­tists from the
FSU ac­count for 20% of the aca­de­mic fa­cul­ty, they ac­count for an even lar­ger sha­re in the se­nior
fa­cul­ty mem­bers and ty­pi­cal­ly ha­ve hig­her than ave­ra­ge aca­de­mic ranks, as evi­dent from Tab­le 1.
Chi-squ­a­re test re­sults in­di­ca­te no sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­ni­fi­cant cor­re­la­tion bet­we­en aca­de­mic rank and
coun­try of ori­gin (χ2 (9) = 7.37, p > .05) at the AUC. And yet, one should no­te that whi­le a me­re
28.6% of the en­ti­re fa­cul­ty ha­ve a rank or pro­fes­sor, 35.0% of all fa­cul­ty mem­bers who are FSU,
im­mig­rant scien­tists ha­ve earned such ran­king.

Tab­le 1. Di­stri­bu­tion of aca­de­mic ranks among fa­cul­ty mem­bers,


by coun­try of ori­gin (2007-8).

Coun­try of ori­gin Is­ra­el FSU USA Ot­her To­tal


Rank N % N % N % N % N %
Pro­fes­sor 32 24.8 14 35 7 28 6 50 59 28.6
Se­nior Lec­tu­rer 55 42.6 12 30 10 40 3 25 80 38.8
Lec­tu­rer 39 30.2 12 30 7 28 2 16.7 60 29.1
In­struc­tor 3 2.3 2 5 1 4 1 8.3 7 3.4
To­tal 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100

The in­te­res­ting qu­es­tion that ari­ses from the da­ta re­gards the ef­fec­ti­ve con­tri­bu­tion of the­se
fa­cul­ty mem­bers, abo­ve and be­yond their high nu­me­ri­cal pro­por­tion.
To this end, the aut­hors exa­mi­ned the aca­de­mic “har­vest” of the­se fa­cul­ty mem­bers in terms
of scien­ti­fic pub­li­ca­tions, lec­tu­res at aca­de­mic con­fe­ren­ces, and par­ti­ci­pa­tion in pro­jects fun­ded
di­rec­tly by the Mi­nist­ry of Im­mig­ra­tion Ab­sorp­tion (MOIA). Par­ti­ci­pa­tion in pro­jects that are not
di­rec­tly fun­ded by the MOIA was not ta­ken in­to ac­count be­cau­se such da­ta lack in­for­ma­tion on par­
ti­ci­pants’ coun­try of ori­gin. In ot­her words, the con­tri­bu­tion of FSU im­mig­rants in fun­ded pro­jects
is in fact gre­a­ter than the (par­tial) da­ta pre­sen­ted he­rein.
An over­view of the da­ta in­di­ca­tes that FSU im­mig­rants are res­pon­sib­le for a sig­ni­fi­cant cu­mu­
la­ti­ve con­tri­bu­tion. Thir­ty of the 109 (27.5%) vo­lu­mes and pe­ri­odi­cals aut­ho­red by fa­cul­ty mem­
bers bet­we­en 2004 and 2008 we­re the work of FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers. Se­ven of the 36
(19.5%) pa­tents re­gis­te­red by fa­cul­ty mem­bers in this pe­riod we­re al­so the work of FSU im­mig­rant
fa­cul­ty mem­bers.

Tab­le 2. Bo­oks and pe­ri­odi­cals aut­ho­red by fa­cul­ty mem­bers (2004–2008).

Year By FSU im­mig­rants (N) % By ot­her aut­hors (N) %


2004 4 30.8 9 69.2
2005 9 40.9 13 59.1
2006 6 20.7 23 79.3
2007 9 36.0 16 64.0
2008 2 10.0 18 90.0
To­tal 30 27.5 79 72.5

Sour­ce: Re­se­arch Aut­ho­ri­ty, Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of Sa­ma­ria.


PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

126 Tab­le 3. Pa­tents re­gis­te­red by fa­cul­ty mem­bers (2004–2008).

Year By FSU im­mig­rants (N) % By ot­her aut­hors (N) %


2004 2 22.2 7 77.8
2005 1 16.7 5 83.3
2006 - - 8 100.0
2007 2 13.3 13 86.7
2008 2 33.3 4 66.7
To­tal 7 19.4 29 80.6

Sour­ce: Re­se­arch Aut­ho­ri­ty, Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of Sa­ma­ria.

A re­view of pro­ject bud­gets al­so in­di­ca­tes the re­la­ti­ve sig­ni­fi­can­ce of FSU im­mig­rant scien­
tists among fa­cul­ty mem­bers. Di­rect MOIA pro­ject fun­ding was re­du­ced from 34.67% of the to­tal
pro­ject bud­get in 2004 to 24.16% of the to­tal pro­ject in 2007, yet mo­re than this fact in­di­ca­tes the
re­du­ced sco­pe of the con­tri­bu­tion of new im­mig­rant scien­tists to the ins­ti­tu­tion’s re­se­arch pro­jects,
it in­di­ca­tes the re­du­ced sco­pe of MOIA fun­ding. In to­tal, the pro­ject bud­get inc­re­a­sed an­nu­al­ly, and
the fun­ding det­rac­ted from the MOIA bud­get was sup­ple­men­ted from ot­her sour­ces. In to­tal, the
Mi­nist­ry con­tri­bu­ted to 28.17% of the to­tal pro­ject bud­get bet­we­en 2004 and 2007.

Tab­le 4. In­vest­ments of the MOIA in Pro­jects for New Im­mig­rant


Scien­tists in the Ins­ti­tu­tion (2004–2007).

Year Mi­nist­ry of Ab­sorp­tion Fun­ding (NIS) To­tal pro­ject bud­get (NIS)


2004 1,669,007 4,813,790
2005 1,684,363 5,353,276
2006 1,857,101 7,193,571
2007 1,935,857 8,012,119
To­tal 7,146,328 25,372,756

Sour­ce: Re­se­arch Aut­ho­ri­ty, Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of Sa­ma­ria.

No less in­te­res­ting is FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty’s sha­re in aca­de­mic pub­li­ca­tions. Two points
should be no­ted. First, FSU im­mig­rants ac­count for 27.8% of all the scien­ti­fic pub­li­ca­tions aut­ho­red
by fa­cul­ty mem­bers bet­we­en 2004 and 2008, which is much gre­a­ter than their re­la­ti­ve pro­por­tion of
the fa­cul­ty. No­net­he­less, their sha­re in scien­ti­fic pub­li­ca­tions is not stab­le. In 2005, this sha­re was
es­pe­cial­ly high (33.5% of all pub­li­ca­tions), whi­le in 2004 and 2006 this sha­re was re­la­ti­ve­ly low
(25.1% and 24.7%, res­pec­ti­ve­ly). Se­cond, FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty’s sha­re in pub­li­ca­tions na­tu­ral­ly
dif­fers by de­part­ment, con­sis­tent with their de­part­men­tal di­stri­bu­tion in the ins­ti­tu­tion.

Tab­le 5. Sha­re of FSU Im­mig­rant Aut­hors of Scien­ti­fic Pub­li­ca­tions


(2004–2008).

Year FSU scien­tists (N) % Ot­hers (N) %


2004 54 25.1 161 74.9
2005 68 33.5 135 66.5
2006 59 24.7 180 75.3
2007 75 28.4 189 71.6
2008 83 27.7 217 72.3
To­tal 339 27.8 882 72.2

Sour­ce: Re­se­arch Aut­ho­ri­ty, Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of Sa­ma­ria.


Nitza DAVIDOVITCH, Dan SOEN, Zila SINUANY-STERN. Cultural Capital and the Riches of Manna: Integration of
Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Fi­nal­ly, the fol­lo­wing da­ta, re­la­ting to FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers’ sha­re in par­ti­ci­pa­tion 127
in scien­ti­fic con­fe­ren­ces in Is­ra­el and over­se­as, spe­ak for them­sel­ves. FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty ac­
count for a lar­ger-than-pro­por­tio­na­te sha­re of con­fe­ren­ce ac­ti­ve at­ten­dan­ce. In 2007, a year in which
at­ten­dan­ce was lo­wer than in ot­her years, FSU im­mig­rants ac­coun­ted for 20.7% of all con­fe­ren­ce
lec­tu­res by ins­ti­tu­tion fa­cul­ty mem­bers. In 2008, this fi­gu­re inc­re­a­sed to 26.9%. In to­tal, 22.6%
of all con­fe­ren­ce lec­tu­res by ins­ti­tu­tion fa­cul­ty mem­bers are at­tri­bu­ted to FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty
mem­bers.

Tab­le 6. FSU Im­mig­rant Scien­tists’ Sha­re in Con­fe­ren­ce Lec­tu­res


(2004–2008).

Year FSU scien­tists (N) % Ot­hers (N) %


2004 38 22.4 132 77.6
2005 51 22.3 178 77.7
2006 52 20.8 198 79.2
2007 44 20.7 169 79.3
2008 59 26.9 160 73.1
To­tal 244 22.6 837 77.4

Sour­ce: Re­se­arch Aut­ho­ri­ty, Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of Sa­ma­ria.

The desc­rip­ti­ve sta­tis­tics pre­sen­ted abo­ve al­low us to as­sess the dif­fe­ren­ce in the aca­de­mic
pro­ducts of FSU im­mig­rant scien­tists and ot­her scho­lars at the Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter. Re­call that
the ins­ti­tu­tion es­tab­lis­hed a bo­nus sys­tem for out­stan­ding fa­cul­ty mem­bers. The bo­nus sys­tem is
ba­sed on sco­res awar­ded to fa­cul­ty mem­bers for their con­tri­bu­tion in re­se­arch, te­aching, aca­de­mic
ad­mi­nist­ra­tion and com­mu­ni­ty ser­vi­ce. Fa­cul­ty mem­bers’ per­for­man­ce is eva­lu­a­ted on 10 dis­tinct
cri­te­ria. The most out­stan­ding fa­cul­ty mem­bers al­so earn an exemp­tion in te­aching ob­li­ga­tions (10
ins­te­ad of 12 we­ek­ly hours), in ad­di­tion to the bo­nus.
The qu­es­tion is, what weight do FSU im­mig­rants ha­ve in the bo­nu­ses awar­ded by the ins­ti­tu­
tion? Ba­sed on the abo­ve fi­gu­res, we can ex­pect the FSU im­mig­rant scien­tists to stand out. An ana­
ly­sis of the fin­dings shows that this is in­de­ed the ca­se. Tab­le 7 and the re­sults of a chi-squ­a­red test
on the da­ta from the 2007-8 aca­de­mic year show a sig­ni­fi­cant cor­re­la­tion bet­we­en fa­cul­ty mem­bers’
cu­mu­la­ti­ve sco­res on the 10 bo­nus cri­te­ria (ba­sed on out­stan­ding per­for­man­ce) and coun­try of ori­
gin (χ2(2) = 7.74, p < .05). Whi­le 38.8% of all fa­cul­ty mem­bers earned a sco­re which awar­ded them
a bo­nus, over 50% of all FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers earned a bo­nus. In con­trast, on­ly 33.3%
of all Is­ra­e­li-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers earned a bo­nus ba­sed on out­stan­ding per­for­man­ce.

Tab­le 7. Di­stri­bu­tion of Fa­cul­ty Mem­bers’ Sco­res on Bo­nus Cri­te­ria,


by Coun­try of Ori­gin.

Is­ra­el FSU USA Ot­her To­tal


Sco­re N % N % N % N % N %
Fails bo­nus cri­te­ria 86 66.7 20 50 16 64 4 33.3 126 61.2
Sa­tis­fies bo­nus cri­te­ria 43 33.3 20 50 9 36 8 66.7 80 38.8
To­tal 129 100 40 100 25 100 12 100 206 100

Tab­le 7 and chi-squ­a­re test re­sults in­di­ca­te a sig­ni­fi­cant cor­re­la­tion bet­we­en sco­ring on ex­cel­
len­ce cri­te­ria and coun­try of ori­gin (χ² (2) = 7.74, p < .05). 50% of fa­cul­ty mem­bers from the FSU
sco­red on ex­cel­len­ce cri­te­ria, as did 66.7% of fa­cul­ty mem­bers from ot­her over­se­as coun­tries (ex­
cept the US); ho­we­ver on­ly 36% of fa­cul­ty mem­bers who im­mig­ra­ted from the USA and 33.3% of
na­ti­ve Is­ra­e­lis sco­red on ex­cel­len­ce in the cri­te­ria of re­se­arch, te­aching, aca­de­mic ad­mi­nist­ra­tion,
and con­tri­bu­tion to the com­mu­ni­ty.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

128
As no­ted, re­se­arch is one of the main are­as that con­tri­bu­ted to the hig­her sco­res of FSU im­
mig­rant fa­cul­ty. The­re­fo­re, the re­se­arch te­am at­temp­ted to exa­mi­ne the dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en sco­res
and coun­try of ori­gin of fa­cul­ty mem­bers. Ba­sed on an ana­ly­sis of va­rian­ce of the da­ta in Tab­le 8,
no sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ces we­re found bet­we­en the groups of fa­cul­ty mem­bers by coun­try of ori­gin
(F(3,76) = 0.13, p > .05). Still, it is no­tab­le that the achie­ve­ments of FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­
bers we­re the hig­hest sco­ring of all groups (44.45 on ave­ra­ge, com­pa­red to an ave­ra­ge sto­re of all
groups of 39.04).

Tab­le 8. Re­se­arch Sco­res – Ave­ra­ges and SD.

Coun­try of ori­gin Ave­ra­ge SD N


Is­ra­el 36.69 33.53 43
FSU 44.45 36.54 20
USA 42.33 34.21 9
Ot­her 39.12 28.98 8
To­tal 39.04 33.45 80

If this is not enough, an in-depth ana­ly­sis in­di­ca­tes that 68.8% of all FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty
mem­bers al­so re­cei­ved an ex­tra re­duc­tion in their te­aching lo­ad, com­pa­red to 41.2% of the ot­her
new im­mig­rants and com­pa­red to 34.2% of Is­ra­e­li-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers.
The fi­gu­res in en­ti­re­ty spe­ak for them­sel­ves.

Sum­ma­ry

The abo­ve ar­tic­le exa­mi­ned the ex­tent of im­mig­ra­tion of scien­tists from FSU to Is­ra­el, and
dwelt on the pro­blem of their ab­sorp­tion and in­teg­ra­tion in­to Is­ra­e­li aca­de­me. As a ca­se in point,
the pa­per fo­cu­ses on the ab­sorp­tion of FSU im­mig­rant scien­tists at the Ariel Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter of
Sa­ma­ria, in an at­tempt to as­sess the­se scien­tists’ con­tri­bu­tion to the ins­ti­tu­tion.
An ana­ly­sis of the da­ta avai­lab­le to the re­se­ar­chers in­di­ca­tes that FSU im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­
bers cons­ti­tu­te 20% of the se­nior fa­cul­ty, and 35% of the top-ran­king fa­cul­ty mem­bers (of a rank of
pro­fes­sor), which is much hig­her than their pro­por­tion in the to­tal num­ber of fa­cul­ty mem­bers.
An ana­ly­sis of the da­ta al­so in­di­ca­tes that the­se scien­tists do not on­ly stand out in the ins­ti­tu­tion
in terms of their re­la­ti­ve weight, but their ef­fec­ti­ve scien­ti­fic con­tri­bu­tion is al­so dis­pro­por­tio­na­te­ly
high. They ac­count for a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te­ly high per­cen­ta­ge of out­stan­ding fa­cul­ty mem­bers and for
a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te­ly high per­cen­ta­ge of fa­cul­ty mem­bers who ha­ve earned re­cog­ni­tion for their per­
for­man­ce in re­se­arch. Mo­re­o­ver, the fin­dings of this stu­dy in­di­ca­te that not on­ly do­es this group’s
con­tri­bu­tion ex­ce­ed the con­tri­bu­tion of ot­her fa­cul­ty groups at the ins­ti­tu­tion; the FSU im­mig­rant
fa­cul­ty mem­bers are at the top of the py­ra­mid, by vir­tue of their en­tit­le­ment to a re­duc­tion in their te­
aching lo­ad. This bo­nus is awar­ded to the fa­cul­ty mem­bers who earn the hig­hest eva­lu­a­tion sco­res.
They al­so earned the hig­hest sco­res in scien­ti­fic pub­li­ca­tions. Al­most 69% of the out­stan­ding FSU
im­mig­rant scien­tists earned a re­duc­tion in their te­aching lo­ad, com­pa­red to 41% of the out­stan­ding
new im­mig­rant fa­cul­ty mem­bers from ot­her coun­tries, and com­pa­red to on­ly 34% of the out­stan­
ding Is­ra­e­li-born fa­cul­ty mem­bers.
All in all, the­re is no doubt that their con­tri­bu­tion has sig­ni­fi­cant­ly en­ri­ched the ins­ti­tu­tion.
Mo­re­o­ver, the re­se­arch fin­dings in­di­ca­te that im­mig­rant scien­tists ha­ve be­co­me well in­teg­ra­
ted at the AUC, which is an in­teg­ral part of the Is­ra­e­li aca­de­mic world. The­se fin­dings are of gre­at
im­por­tan­ce inas­much as the pro­blem of the émigrés so­cial in­teg­ra­tion is con­cer­ned. Em­plo­y­ment
in par with one’s skills and qu­a­li­fi­ca­tions is known to be the ma­jor ga­te­way for new­co­mers to both
eco­no­mic well-being and so­cial in­teg­ra­tion. Far from being oc­cu­pa­tio­nal­ly dow­ngra­ded, the im­
mig­rant fa­cul­ty ex­cel­led. Ac­ross post-So­viet Je­wish dias­po­ra, the sha­re of pro­fes­sio­nals who could
re­gain their ori­gi­nal oc­cu­pa­tions is thought to lie bet­we­en 15% in Ger­ma­ny and 30% in the US and
Nitza DAVIDOVITCH, Dan SOEN, Zila SINUANY-STERN. Cultural Capital and the Riches of Manna: Integration of
Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Is­ra­el (Rem­me­nick, 2003). The­se scho­lars be­long to the 30% who might be de­e­med a suc­cess sto­ry. 129
Mo­re­o­ver, one has to be­ar in mind that the work­pla­ce is al­so a me­e­ting pla­ce bet­we­en the im­mig­rant
and their lo­cal Is­ra­e­li pe­ers. The mo­ments of phy­si­cal co-pre­sen­ce and fa­ce-to-fa­ce con­ver­sa­tion
in­du­ced by wor­king to­get­her en­han­ce “net­wor­ked so­cia­li­ty” as well as friend­ship (Ur­ry, 2003) thus
con­tri­bu­ting to trans­cen­den­ce over ti­me of the boun­da­ries of et­hnic com­mu­ni­ty, and gra­du­al inc­lu­
sion of the mem­bers of the im­mig­rant scho­lars in­to the he­ge­mo­nic ma­jo­ri­ty’s per­so­nal net­works
(Rem­me­nick, 2007).
To sum it all, this ca­se stu­dy ser­ves to show that the FSU scien­tists’ tran­smig­ra­tion may be
jud­ged a suc­cess sto­ry for both si­des: On one si­de, their ab­sorp­tion in the Is­ra­e­li aca­de­mic world
fa­ci­li­ta­ted their in­teg­ra­tion in­to the Is­ra­e­li so­cie­ty. On the ot­her si­de, their aca­de­mic dis­tinc­tion gre­
at­ly con­tri­bu­ted to the de­ve­lop­ment of Is­ra­e­li hig­her edu­ca­tion ins­ti­tu­tions. It se­ems that the fo­reign
born ha­ve con­tri­bu­ted dis­pro­por­tio­na­te­ly to Is­ra­e­li aca­de­mia. Thus, Is­ra­el is be­ne­fit­ting from in­vest­
ments ma­de by ot­her coun­tries.

Re­fe­ren­ces

Al­ba, R. D. & Nee, V. (1997). Ret­hin­king as­si­mi­la­tion the­o­ry for a new era of im­mig­ra­tion. In­ter­na­tio­
nal Mig­ra­tion Re­view, 12, 502–551.
Alt­bach, P. G. (Ed.) (2000). The chan­ging aca­de­mic work­pla­ce: Com­pa­ra­ti­ve per­spec­ti­ves. Chest­nut
Hill, Mass: Bos­ton Col­le­ge.
As­hke­na­zi, D. (1995). Im­mig­rants on ice. Ve’­a­dim: Pro­fes­sio­nal Ma­ga­zi­ne of La­bor Re­la­tions in Is­ra­el,
85, 56–57. (in Heb­rew).
As­hke­na­zi, D. (1997). Why we­re they not as­si­mi­la­ted. Sta­tus: Mont­hly Ma­ga­zi­ne for Ma­na­ge­ment Thin­
king, 67, 52–54. (in Heb­rew).
Ba­ra­da, M. (2006). The Ka­mea Pro­gram. Je­ru­sa­lem: The Knes­set (Is­ra­e­li Par­lia­ment), In­for­ma­tion &
Re­se­arch Dept. (in Heb­rew).
Ba­ruch, A. (1997). The Ka­mea Pro­gram – Las­ting as­si­mi­la­tion of scien­tists. Jews of the So­viet Union in
Tran­si­tion, 3, 184–186. (in Heb­rew).
Ba­ruch, A. (2000). Ten-year an­ni­ver­sa­ry of the scien­tists’ im­mig­ra­tion: In­ter­me­dia­ry sum­ma­ry. Jews of
the So­viet Union in Tran­si­tion, 4, 158–180. (in Heb­rew).
Bec­ker, H.S. (1962). The na­tu­re of a pro­fes­sion. In N.B. Hen­ry (ed.), Edu­ca­tion for the pro­fes­sions – The
61 year­bo­ok of the NSSE (pp. 27–46). Il­li­nois: The Uni­ver­si­ty of Chi­ca­go Press.
Ben Da­vid, Y. (1985). Uni­ver­si­ties in Is­ra­el: Di­lem­mas of growth, va­rie­ty, and ma­na­ge­ment. In W.
Ac­ker­man, A. Car­mon, and D. Zuc­ker (eds.), Edu­ca­tion in a De­ve­lo­ping So­cie­ty: The Is­ra­e­li Sys­tem
(I, pp. 527–562). Tel Aviv – Je­ru­sa­lem: Ha­kib­butz Ha­meu­had Pub­li­ca­tion and Van Le­er Ins­ti­tu­te. (in
Heb­rew).
Ben Re­fa­el, A., Ols­tein, A. & Geist, A. (1994). As­pects of iden­ti­ty and lan­gu­a­ge in the ab­sorp­tion of im­
mig­rants from the CIS: Re­se­arch re­port. Tel-Aviv: Tel Aviv Uni­ver­si­ty. (in Heb­rew).
Ber­ry, John W. (1997). Im­mig­ra­tion, Ac­cul­tu­ra­tion, and Adap­ta­tion. Ap­plied Psy­cho­lo­gy: An In­ter­na­tio­
nal Re­view, 46, 5–68.

Cen­tral Bu­re­au of Sta­tis­tics (2006). Is­ra­el Sta­tis­ti­cal An­nu­al, 57. Je­ru­sa­lem.


Cen­tral Bu­re­au of Sta­tis­tics (2007). URL:
http://www.cbs.gov.il/re­a­der/?MIval=cw_usr_view_SHTML&ID=389 (in Heb­rew). Ac­ces­sed March
24, 2010.
Cen­tral Bu­re­au of Sta­tis­tics (2008). Is­ra­el Sta­tis­ti­cal Abst­ract 59. Je­ru­sa­lem.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

130
Chen, D. (ed.) (1998). The Scho­ol of Edu­ca­tion to­wards the 21st cen­tu­ry. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Uni­ver­si­ty.
(in Heb­rew).
Chis­wick, B. (1998). Heb­rew lan­gu­a­ge usa­ge: De­ter­mi­nants and ef­fects on earnings among im­mig­rants
in Is­ra­el. Jour­nal of Po­pu­la­tion Eco­no­mics, 11, 253–271.
Chis­wick, B.R. & Re­pet­to, G. (2000). Im­mig­rant ad­just­ment in Is­ra­el li­te­ra­cy and flu­en­cy in Heb­rew,
IZA Dis­cus­sion Pa­per, 177.
Chis­wick, B.R., Lee, Y.L. & Mil­ler, P.W. (2006). A lon­gi­tu­di­nal ana­ly­sis of im­mig­rant oc­cu­pa­tio­nal mo­
bi­li­ty: A test of the im­mig­rant as­si­mi­la­tion, In­ter­na­tio­nal Mig­ra­tion Re­view, 39, 332–353.
Co­hen, A. & Kir­chme­y­er, C. (1994). Unions and et­hnic di­ver­si­ty: The Is­ra­e­li ca­se of East Eu­ro­pe­an im­
mig­rants, The Jour­nal of Ap­plied Be­ha­vio­ral Scien­ce, 30, 141–158.
Co­hen, Y. (2007). Self-se­lec­tion and earnings as­si­mi­la­tion: Im­mig­rants from the for­mer So­viet Union in
Is­ra­el and the Uni­ted Sta­tes. De­mog­rap­hy, 44(3), 649–668.
Da­vi­do­vich, N. (2004). De­ve­lop­ment trends of the re­gio­nal col­le­ges and their con­se­qu­en­ces for the Is­ra­
e­li sys­tem of hig­her edu­ca­tion. The­sis sub­mit­ted for de­gree of Doc­tor of Phi­lo­sop­hy, Bar Ilan Uni­ver­si­ty.
(in Heb­rew).
Da­vi­do­vich, N. & Iram, Y. (2006). Hig­her edu­ca­tion in Is­ra­el at a cros­sro­ads: The ef­fect of re­gio­nal col­
le­ges on the map of hig­her edu­ca­tion in Is­ra­el, Re­se­arch in Com­pa­ra­ti­ve and In­ter­na­tio­nal Edu­ca­tion,
1, 271–285.
Da­vi­do­vich, N. & Si­nu­a­ni-Stern, Z. (2007). Le­vel of achie­ve­ments of men and wo­men in aca­de­mia: A
ca­se stu­dy: The Aca­de­mic Col­le­ge of Ju­dea and Sa­ma­ria. Su­gy­ot Hev­ra­tiot Be­yisra­el. Vo­lu­me 3, Tel
Aviv. 21–44. (in Heb­rew).
Da­vi­do­vitch, N. & So­en, D. (2006). Using stu­dents’ as­ses­sments to im­pro­ve in­struc­tors’ qu­a­li­ty of te­
aching. Jour­nal of Furt­her and Hig­her Edu­ca­tion, 30(4): 351–376.
Do­ron, A. (1993/1994). Conc­lu­sions and re­com­men­da­tions of the na­tio­nal com­mit­tee for long-term
plan­ning of the ab­sorp­tion of im­mig­rant scien­tists. Jews of the So­viet Union in Tran­si­tion, 1, 201–207.
(in Heb­rew).
Do­ron, R. (1995). The at­ti­tu­de of fa­cul­ty to Rus­sian im­mig­rant ab­sorp­tion in Is­ra­e­li col­le­ges for the trai­
ning of tech­ni­cians and prac­ti­cal en­gi­ne­ers. Eu­ro­pe­an Jour­nal of En­gi­ne­e­ring Edu­ca­tion, 20, 107.
Ec­kstein, Z. & Weiss, Y. (2004). On the wa­ge growth of im­mig­rants: Is­ra­el, 1990-2000. Jour­nal of the
Eco­no­mic As­so­cia­tion, 2(4), 665–695.
Eps­tein, A., Khei­mets, N. & Orit­zky, M. (2003). The con­tri­bu­tion of in­ter­cul­tu­ral brid­ging me­cha­nisms
to the in­teg­ra­tion of scien­tists. Ga­dish: Jour­nal for Adult Edu­ca­tion, 8, 137–155. (in Heb­rew).
Eps­tein, A. & Khei­mets, N. (2001). Is­ra­el bet­we­en ‘et­hnog­rap­hic mul­ti­cul­tu­ra­lism and dis­tinc­ti­ve plu­ra­
lism’. The in­teg­ra­tion of for­mer re­si­dents of the CIS. Mif­neh: Plat­form for So­cial Mat­ters, 35, 23–29.
(in Heb­rew).
Eyal, B., Gi­la­di, A., Hu­pert, D. & Fi­ne, B. (1997). The Ka­mea Pro­gram – Las­ting as­si­mi­la­tion of scien­
tists. Jews of the So­viet Union in Tran­si­tion, 3, 184–186. (in Heb­rew).
Faist, T. (2000). The vo­lu­me and dy­na­mics of in­ter­na­tio­nal mig­ra­tion and tran­sna­tio­nal so­cial spa­ces.
Ox­ford, UK: Cla­ren­don Press.
Fried­berg, R. M. (2000). You can’t ta­ke it with you? Im­mig­rant as­si­mi­la­tion and the por­ta­bi­li­ty of hu­
man ca­pi­tal. Jour­nal of La­bor Eco­no­mics, 18, 221–51.
Gan­dal, N., Han­son, G. H., Mat­thew, M. J. & Slaugh­ter, J. (2004). Tech­no­lo­gy, tra­de, and ad­just­ment to
im­mig­ra­tion in Is­ra­el. Eu­ro­pe­an Eco­no­mic Re­view, 48, 403–428.
Ge­va-May, I. (2000). On im­pacts of com­pa­ra­ti­ve po­li­cy ana­ly­sis. Im­mig­ra­tion to Is­ra­el: What ot­her coun­
tries can le­arn. In­ter­na­tio­nal Mig­ra­tion, 38, 3–46.
Nitza DAVIDOVITCH, Dan SOEN, Zila SINUANY-STERN. Cultural Capital and the Riches of Manna: Integration of
Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Ge­va-May, I. (1998). Po­li­cy fe­a­si­bi­li­ty and im­mig­rant ab­sorp­tion in a mass im­mig­ra­tion con­text: The 131
ca­se of scien­tist ret­rai­ning in Is­ra­el, Re­view of Po­li­cy Re­se­arch 1541-132X, 15, 226.
Gib­son, M. A. (1997). Com­pli­ca­ting the im­mig­rant/in­vo­lun­ta­ry mi­no­ri­ty ty­po­lo­gy. Ant­hro­po­lo­gy & Edu­
ca­tion Qu­ar­ter­ly, 28, 431–454.
Gil­lep­sie, K. H. (ed.), Hil­sen, L. R. & Wad­sworth, E. C. (ass. eds.) (2002). A gui­de to   fa­cul­ty de­ve­lop­
ment. Bol­ton, MA: An­ker Pub­lis­hing.
Glick Schil­ler, N., Basch, L. & Szan­ton Blanc, C. (1995). From im­mig­rant to tran­smig­rant: The­o­ri­zing
tran­sna­tio­nal mig­ra­tion. Ant­hro­po­lo­gi­cal Qu­ar­ter­ly, 68, 1, 48–63.
Gre­en­wald, A. (2000). Se­cond ses­sion: Ope­ning the ga­tes of hig­her edu­ca­tion – pub­lic po­li­cy con­si­de­
ra­tions. Po­si­tion pa­per pre­sen­ted at the third an­nu­al “Bes­ha’­ar” con­fe­ren­ce: Win­dow to the Aca­de­mic
Dre­am. Tel Aviv. (in Heb­rew).
Gu­ar­ni­zo, L. E. & Smith, M. P. (1998). The lo­ca­tions of tran­sna­tio­na­lism. In M. P. Smith & L. E. Gu­
ar­ni­zo (Eds.): Tran­sna­tio­na­lism from be­low (pp. 3–34). Com­pa­ra­ti­ve Ur­ban and Com­mu­ni­ty Re­se­arch
Se­ries, V.VI. New Bruns­wick: Tran­sac­tion Pub­lis­hers.
Haw­kins, H. (1993). Ame­ri­can uni­ver­si­ties & the inc­lu­sion of pro­fes­sio­nal scho­ols. His­to­ry of Hig­her
Edu­ca­tion An­nu­al, 13, 53–68.
He­arn, J. C. (1999). Pay and per­for­man­ce in the uni­ver­si­ty: An exa­mi­na­tion of fa­cul­ty sa­la­ries. The Re­
view of Hig­her Edu­ca­tion, 22(4), 391–410.
Hel­man, A. (1998). Stu­dies as a so­cio­e­co­no­mic in­vest­ment. Afi­kei Has­ka­la, 58 (Feb­ru­a­ry), 5–8. (in
Heb­rew).
Ho­rev, S. (2006). The In­de­pen­den­ce Scroll of the Sta­te of Is­ra­el and its sig­na­to­ries. Hai­fa: Du­chi­fat. (in
Heb­rew).
Iram, Y. (1978). The ef­fect of tra­di­tions in hig­her edu­ca­tion on the aca­de­mic cour­se of the Heb­rew Uni­
ver­si­ty. Iyu­nim Be­hi­nuch, 28, 123–140. (in Heb­rew).
Iram, Y. (1983). Vi­sion and ful­fil­lment: The evo­lu­tion of the Heb­rew Uni­ver­si­ty, 1901–1950. His­to­ry
of Hig­her Edu­ca­tion An­nu­al, 3, 123–43.
Iram, Y. (1999). Uni­ty ver­sus di­ver­si­ty in plu­ra­lis­tic so­cie­ties. In R. La­or and D. Man (eds.), Di­ver­si­ty
and Mul­ti­cul­tu­ra­lism in Is­ra­e­li So­cie­ty (pp. 11–14). Ra­mat Gan: Bar-Ilan Uni­ver­si­ty. (in Heb­rew).
Is­ra­e­li, A. (1997). Mas­ter plan: Is­ra­e­li re­gio­nal col­le­ges. Fe­ed­back – ap­plied re­se­arch, plan­ning and
con­sul­ta­tion for edu­ca­tio­nal, wel­fa­re, and la­bor sys­tems. Je­ru­sa­lem. (in Heb­rew).
Kai­ser, A., & Ne­il­son, E. (2003). Ef­fects of per­for­man­ce-ba­sed com­pen­sa­tion and fa­cul­ty track on the
cli­ni­cal ac­ti­vi­ty, re­se­arch port­fo­lio, and te­aching mis­sion of a lar­ge de­part­ment of Me­di­ci­ne. Jour­nal of
Me­di­cal Edu­ca­tion, 78(7), 690–701.
Khei­mets, N. & Eps­tein, A (2001). En­glish as a cen­tral com­po­nent of suc­cess in the pro­fes­sio­nal and so­
cial in­teg­ra­tion of scien­tists from the for­mer So­viet Union in Is­ra­el. Lan­gu­a­ge in So­cie­ty, 30, 187–215.
Kim­mer­ling, B. (1998). The new Is­ra­e­lis: Mul­tip­le cul­tu­res wit­hout mul­ti­cul­tu­ra­lism. Al­pa­y­im: Mul­ti­dis­
cip­li­na­ry Jour­nal for Stu­dy, Thought, and Li­te­ra­tu­re, 16, 264–308. (in Heb­rew).
Kre­ber, C. (ed.) (2001). Scho­lars­hip re­vi­si­ted: Per­spec­ti­ves on scho­lars­hip of te­aching. New Di­rec­tions
for Te­aching and Le­ar­ning. San Fran­cis­co: Jos­sey-Bass.
Law of Re­turn (1950). URL: www.knes­set.gov.il/laws/spe­cial/heb/chock_has­hvut.htm (in Heb­rew).
Ac­ces­sed March 24, 2010.
Ler­ner, J., Ker­tes, J. & Zil­ber, N. (2005). Im­mig­rants from the for­mer So­viet Union, 5 years post-im­
mig­ra­tion to Is­ra­el: adap­ta­tion and risk fac­tors for psy­cho­lo­gi­cal di­stress. Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal Me­di­ci­ne, 35,
1805–1814.
Les­hem, A. (1993). Is­ra­e­li so­cie­ty and its at­ti­tu­de to the im­mig­rants of the ‘90s. Bi­ta­hon Sot­zia­li, 40,
54–73. (in Heb­rew).
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

132
Lu­ria, S.E., & Lu­ria, Z. (1970). The ro­le of the Uni­ver­si­ty: Ivo­ry to­wer, ser­vi­ce sta­tion, or fron­tier post?
Da­e­da­lus, 99, 75–83.
Man­ning, C.W. & Rom­ney, L.C. (1973). Fa­cul­ty ac­ti­vi­ty ana­ly­sis: Pro­ce­du­res Ma­nu­al. Tech Re­port No.
44. Na­tio­nal Cen­ter for Hig­her Edu­ca­tion Ma­na­ge­ment Sys­tems at Wes­tern In­ters­ta­te Com­mis­sion for
Hig­her Edu­ca­tion. Boul­der, CO.
Meir­son, B. (1991). Im­mig­rant-scien­tists should pre­fe­rab­ly be in­teg­ra­ted in exis­ting fra­me­works. In­ter­
view with Dr. Ba­ruch Meir­son. Jews of the So­viet Union, 14, 231–239. (in Heb­rew).
Me­na­chem, G. & Geist, A. (1999). Lan­gu­a­ge, em­plo­y­ment, and af­fi­lia­tion with Is­ra­el among im­mig­rants
from the CIS in the ‘90s. Me­ga­mot: Jour­nal for the Be­ha­vio­ral Scien­ces, 40(1), 132–148. (in Heb­rew).
Mey-Ami, N. (2008). In­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rants in in­dust­ry, bu­si­ness, and scien­ce. Sub­mit­ted to the
Com­mit­tee for Im­mig­ra­tion, Ab­sorp­tion and the Dias­po­ra. (in Heb­rew).
Mil­ler, R.I. (1990). Ma­jor Ame­ri­can hig­her edu­ca­tion is­su­es and chal­len­ges in the 1990s. Lon­don: Jes­
si­ca Kings­ley.
Mi­nist­ry of Cul­tu­re, Scien­ce, and Sports: URL: http://www.most.gov.il/ (in Heb­rew). Ac­ces­sed March
24, 2010.
Mi­nist­ry of In­dust­ry, Tra­de, and Em­plo­y­ment: URL:
http://www.ta­mas.gov.il/NR/exe­res/C6DF0E1A-6480-4AFC-8B0C-FE05929061C9.htm (in Heb­rew).
Ac­ces­sed March 24, 2010.
Miz­ra­chi, Y. (1994). His­to­ry of the ten­sion bet­we­en li­be­ral ge­ne­ral hig­her edu­ca­tion and dis­cip­li­na­ry
spe­cia­li­zed hig­her edu­ca­tion and exa­mi­ning pos­si­bi­li­ties of a ba­lan­ced cur­ri­cu­lar pro­gram at the re­gio­
nal col­le­ges. Scho­ol of Edu­ca­tio­nal Le­a­ders­hip, Je­ru­sa­lem. (in Heb­rew).
MOIA web si­te: URL: www.moia.gov.il/Moia_he/Scien­tists/AbsorptionCenter.htm. Ac­ces­sed March
24, 2010.
MOIA (2008). Im­mig­ra­tion to Is­ra­el sum­ma­ry da­ta for pre­vio­us years. Mi­nist­ry web­si­te: www.moia.
gov.il/Moia_he/Sta­tis­tics/ImmigrationToIsraelPrevYears/ Ac­ces­sed on Ja­nu­a­ry 10, 2009. (in Heb­rew).
MOIA (2008). Da­ta on im­mig­rant scien­tists for the years 1989-1999. Mi­nist­ry web­si­te URL: www.
moia.gov.il/Moia_he/Sta­tis­tics/Stat+89-99. (in Heb­rew). Ac­ces­sed Feb­ru­a­ry 29, 2009.
MOIA (2000). Tre­a­ting scien­tists: The crux of the pro­blem – long-term ab­sorp­tion of scien­tists. URL:
www.moia.gov.il/NR/rdon­ly­res/F7889A5-046B-4FAB-B788-83CE0E520FD2/0/4.doc. (in Heb­rew)
Ac­ces­sed Feb­ru­a­ry 29, 2009.
Ne’­eman, Y. (1991). In­teg­ra­tion of scien­tists and aca­de­mics. Ha­mi­fal: Plat­form for the pro­mo­tion of is­
su­es re­la­ted to la­bor pro­duc­ti­vi­ty, ef­fi­ca­cy, and ma­na­ge­ment. Ju­ly, 16-17, 19, 37. (in Heb­rew).
Ne’­eman, Y. (1993/1994). In­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rant scien­tists in the se­ven­ties and ni­ne­ties, Jews of the
So­viet Union in Tran­si­tion, 1, 194–200. (in Heb­rew).
Ne’­eman, Y. (2000). From a strug­gle of in­di­vi­du­als to a na­tio­nal strug­gle, Jews of the So­viet Union in
Tran­si­tion, 4, 37–39. (in Heb­rew).
Ni­rel, N. (1999). Em­plo­y­ment of im­mig­rant phy­si­cians from the for­mer So­viet Union in 1998: Sum­ma­ry
of re­se­arch fin­dings. Je­ru­sa­lem: Bro­ok­da­le Ins­ti­tu­te. (in Heb­rew).
Ofer, G., Plug, K. & Ka­sir, N. (1991). Em­plo­y­ment of im­mig­rants from the So­viet Union in 1990 and
con­se­qu­ent­ly: Re­tai­ning and chan­ging oc­cu­pa­tions. Eco­no­mic Qu­ar­ter­ly, 148, 135–180. (in Heb­rew).
Pa­zi, A. (Ja­nu­a­ry 2002). Uni­ver­si­ties un­der sie­ge, spa­ce for thought. Bas­ha­ar, 18 (in Heb­rew).
PBC (Plan­ning & Bud­ge­ting Com­mit­tee) (2008). An­nu­al re­port No. 33, 2005/6. Je­ru­sa­lem: CHE. (Heb­
rew).
Por­tes, A., Gu­ar­ni­zo, L. E. & Lan­dolt, P. (1999). The stu­dy of tran­sna­tio­na­lism: Pit­falls and pro­mi­se of
an emer­gent re­se­arch field. Et­hnic and Ra­cial Stu­dies, 22(2), 217–237.
Nitza DAVIDOVITCH, Dan SOEN, Zila SINUANY-STERN. Cultural Capital and the Riches of Manna: Integration of
Immigrant Scientists in Israeli Academia PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Ra­bi, S. Bha­gat, R. & Lon­don M. (1999). Get­ting Star­ted and Get­ting Ahe­ad: Ca­re­er Dy­na­mics of Im­ 133
mig­rants, Hu­man Re­sour­ce Ma­na­ge­ment Re­view, 9, 349–365.
Raij­man, R. (2009). Im­mig­ra­tion in Is­ra­el: A map of trends and em­pi­ri­cal re­se­arch: 1990–2007. Is­ra­e­li
So­cio­lo­gy, 10(2): 339-380.
Rem­me­nick, L. I. (2007). For­mer So­viet Jews in Is­ra­el and in the West: In­teg­ra­tion, ex­clu­sion and tran­
sna­tio­na­lism. In L. Re­men­nick & A. Pras­hiz­ky (Eds.): Im­mig­rant Scho­lars wri­te about iden­ti­ty and in­teg­
ra­tion (pp. 3–23). Ra­mat-Gan: So­cio­lo­gi­cal Ins­ti­tu­te for Com­mu­ni­ty Stu­dies, Bar-Ilan Uni­ver­si­ty.
Rem­me­nick, L. I. (2007). Rus­sian Jews on three con­ti­nents: Iden­ti­ty, in­teg­ra­tion and con­flict. New
Bruns­wick, NJ: Tran­sac­tion Pub­lis­hers.
Rem­me­nick, L. I. (2003). Ca­re­er con­ti­nui­ty among im­mig­rant pro­fes­sio­nals: Rus­sian en­gi­ne­ers in Is­ra­el.
Jour­nal of Et­hnic and Mig­ra­tion Stu­dies. 29(4), 701–721.
Re­men­nick, L. I. (2002). Tran­sna­tio­nal com­mu­ni­ty in the ma­king: Rus­sian-Je­wish im­mig­rants of the
1990s in Is­ra­el. Jour­nal of Et­hnic and Mig­ra­tion Stu­dies, 28, 515–530.
Rot­hschild, L. & and Darr, A. (2005). Tech­no­lo­gi­cal in­cu­ba­tors and the so­cial const­ruc­tion of in­no­va­tion
net­works: an Is­ra­e­li ca­se stu­dy. Tech­no­va­tion 25, 59–67.
Ru­bins­tein, A. (1994). The Re­gio­nal Col­le­ges. Is­ra­e­li Po­li­cy on Col­le­ge De­ve­lop­ment. Je­ru­sa­lem: Cen­
ter for Re­se­arch of Is­ra­e­li So­cial Po­li­cy. (in Heb­rew).
Se­my­o­nov, M., Raij­man, R., & Kot­su­bins­ki, E. (2002). So­viet im­mig­rants in the Is­ra­e­li la­bor mar­ket: A
stu­dy of the first de­ca­de. Fi­nal re­port to the Frei­de­rich Ebert Foun­da­tion (un­pub­lis­hed).
Se­ver, R. (2001). Mi­xed in or in­ter­min­gled: Con­cep­tu­al ba­sis for the exa­mi­na­tion of mul­ti­cul­tu­ra­lism
is­su­es. Ga­dish: Jour­nal for Adult Edu­ca­tion, 7, 45–54. (in Heb­rew).
Shye, S. & Weil, M. (1993). The ab­sorp­tion of im­mig­rant scien­tists. Eva­lu­a­tion re­port sub­mit­ted to the
Is­ra­e­li Mi­nist­ry of Scien­ce and Tech­no­lo­gy.
Shye, S. (1996). In­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rant scien­tists 1992-95: Eva­lu­a­tion of aid sys­tems. Gut­man Cen­ter
for Ap­plied So­cial Re­se­arch, Me­ga­ma – Con­sul­tants for Ma­na­ge­ment and Plan­ning. (in Heb­rew).
Shye, S., Du­chin, R., Sab­le­son, A., Veil, M. & Hak­lay-Kauf­man, Y. (1996). In­teg­ra­tion of im­mig­rant
scien­tists, 1992–1995: Eva­lu­a­tion of go­vern­ment aid sys­tems. Sub­mit­ted to the Mi­nist­ry of Im­mig­ra­tion
and the Mi­nist­ry of Scien­ce and Arts. (in Heb­rew).
Sla­vin, M. (1989). Em­plo­y­ment of im­mig­rant scien­tists (Is­ra­e­li events), Ma­da: Scien­ti­fic New­spa­per for
Ge­ne­ral In­te­rest, 33, 264. (in Heb­rew).
Smith, M. P. & Gu­ar­ni­zo, L. E. (Eds.) (1998). Tran­sna­tio­na­lism from be­low. Com­pa­ra­ti­ve Ur­ban and
Com­mu­ni­ty Re­se­arch Se­ries, V, VI. New Bruns­wick: Tran­sac­tion Pub­lis­hers.
Smo­o­ha, S. (1998). The im­pli­ca­tions of the Tran­si­tion to Pe­a­ce for Is­ra­e­li So­cie­ty. The An­nals of the
Ame­ri­can Aca­de­my of Po­li­ti­cal & So­cial Scien­ces, 555, 26–45.
So­en, D. (2001). The Rus­sians are co­ming, the Rus­sians are co­ming – In­teg­ra­tion of Rus­sian im­mig­rant
chil­dren in Is­ra­e­li scho­ols. Edu­ca­tion & Con­text, 23: 91–106. (in Heb­rew).
So­lu­tions for the em­plo­y­ment of im­mig­rant scien­tists (1997). Jews of the So­viet Union in Tran­si­tion, 3,
187–191. (in Heb­rew).
Stier, H., & Le­va­non V. (2003). Fin­ding an ade­qu­a­te job: Em­plo­y­ment and in­co­me of re­cent im­mig­rants
to Is­ra­el. In­ter­na­tio­nal Mig­ra­tion, 14, 81–107.
Si­nu­a­ny-Stern, Z. & Da­vi­do­vich, N. (2007). The re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en te­aching and re­se­arch ac­ti­vi­ties
of fa­cul­ty: Ca­se stu­dy of Col­le­ge of Ju­dea and Sa­ma­ria. Mos­cow Sta­te Uni­ver­si­ty Jour­nal of Edu­ca­tion,
Pe­da­go­gi­cal Se­ries (2). (in Rus­sian).
Smi­lor, R. W. (1993). The En­trep­re­neu­rial Uni­ver­si­ty: The ro­le of hig­her edu­ca­tion in the Uni­ted Sta­tes
in tech­no­lo­gy com­mer­cia­li­za­tion and eco­no­my de­ve­lop­ment. UNESCO.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

134
The Hel­sin­ki Group on Wo­men and Scien­ce (2002). Na­tio­nal Po­li­cies on Wo­men and Scien­ce in Eu­ro­
pe.
Tolts, M. (2004). The post-So­viet Je­wish po­pu­la­tion in Rus­sia and the world. Jews in Rus­sia and Eastern
Eu­ro­pe, 1(52), 37–63.
To­ren, N. (1988). Scien­ce and cul­tu­ral con­text: So­viet scien­tists in com­pa­ra­ti­ve per­spec­ti­ve. New York:
Pe­ter Lang.
To­ren, N. (1991). Uti­li­za­tion of the fa­cet the­o­ry for ana­ly­zing the at­ti­tu­de of im­mig­rant scien­tists to their
jobs. Me­ga­mot: Qu­ar­ter­ly of the Be­ha­vio­ral Scien­ces, 33, 431–442. (in Heb­rew).
Triest, Y. (1997). To pluck up and to bre­ak down, to de­stroy and to overt­hrow, to build and to plant (Je­
re­miah 1:10). Mik­batz, 3, 55–78. (in Heb­rew).
Tri­po­nov, A. & Wei­ner (1995). Scien­tist dis­cour­se. Jews of the So­viet Union in Tran­si­tion, 2, 215–222.
(in Heb­rew).
Trow, M. (1970). Re­flec­tions on the tran­si­tion from mass to uni­ver­sal hig­her edu­ca­tion. Da­e­da­lus, Jour­
nal of the Ame­ri­can Aca­de­my, Win­ter, 1–42.
Tza­ban, Y. (1994). Eight thou­sand scien­tists are a so­lu­tion and not a pro­blem. Jews of the So­viet Union
in Tran­si­tion, 1, 217–219. (in Heb­rew).
Ur­ry, J. (2003). So­cial net­works tra­vel and talk. Bri­tish Jour­nal of So­cio­lo­gy, 54(2), 155–175.
Wad­sworth, E. C. (ed.) (1994). To im­pro­ve the aca­de­my re­sour­ces for fa­cul­ty. In­struc­tio­nal and Or­ga­ni­
za­tio­nal De­ve­lop­ment, Vol. 13, New Forms Press. 

Yaoz, H. & Iram, Y. (1987). Chan­ges in the cur­ri­cu­lum in com­pa­ra­ti­ve non­fic­tion li­te­ra­tu­re. Iyu­nim Be­
hi­nuch, 46/47, 152–170. (in Heb­rew).
Yehu­da Ha­le­vy (1943). Songs of Zion. Tel Aviv: Mah­ba­rot Le­sif­rut. (in Heb­rew).

Ad­vi­ced by Mir­cea Ber­tea, Ba­bes-Bo­ly­ai Uni­ver­si­ty, Ro­ma­nia

Nit­za Da­vi­do­vitch He­ad, Aca­de­mic De­ve­lop­ment & As­ses­sment Unit, Ari‘el Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­tre, Ari‘el Is­ra­el.
E-mail: d.nit­za@ariel.ac.il
Web­si­te: http://www.ariel.ac.il

Dan So­en Ph.D., He­ad of So­cio­lo­gy & Ant­hro­po­lo­gy Dept., Ari‘el Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­tre and the Kib­but­
zim Scho­ol of Edu­ca­tion, Tel-Aviv, Is­ra­el
E-mail: so­en@ma­cam.ac.il
Web­si­te: http://www.ariel.ac.il

Zi­la Si­nu­a­ny-Stern Vi­ce-Rec­tor, Ari’el Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­tre and Ben-Gu­rion Uni­ver­si­ty of the Ne­gev, Is­ra­el
E-mail: szi­la@ariel.ac.il
Web­si­te: http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

135

Re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness and re­a­ding


pre­fe­ren­ces of THE 6th gra­de
stu­dents of ba­sic scho­ol
in es­to­nia

An­ne Uusen
Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Tal­linn, Es­to­nia
E-mail: an­ne.uusen@tlu.ee

Abst­ract

Re­a­ding skills, re­a­ding in­te­rest, un­ders­tan­ding of text and ot­her as­pects con­nec­ted with re­a­ding ha­ve
be­en re­se­ar­ched qui­te a lot du­ring the last de­ca­des in Es­to­nia. A num­ber of stu­dies ha­ve re­a­ched the
conc­lu­sion that ba­sic scho­ol stu­dents in Es­to­nia are rat­her go­od re­a­ders. Ho­we­ver, te­achers of­ten claim
that te­ena­gers tend to re­ad less and less and al­so in new­spa­pers the­re are com­plaints about bad re­a­ding
skills of youngs­ters. One of the re­a­sons of the abo­ve men­tio­ned at­ti­tu­de is that we tend to de­fi­ne the con­
cept of re­a­ding dif­fe­rent­ly and if so­me­bo­dy com­plains be­cau­se of stu­dents’ low re­a­ding in­te­rest, he/she
most­ly re­fers to re­a­ding bel­les-let­tres or fic­tion.
Li­ving in the 21st cen­tu­ry de­mands much mo­re from te­ena­gers as re­a­ders than it did in the past cen­tu­ry
and ma­ny well-known re­a­ding re­se­ar­chers stress the ne­ed to be ab­le to pro­per­ly do our jobs, and sim­ply,
to li­ve and ma­na­ge an eve­ry­day li­fe. In the­se two are­as we ne­ed to be ab­le to un­ders­tand what all kinds
of writ­ten mes­sa­ges are about.
The con­tent of the bro­a­der me­a­ning of re­a­ding and the con­cept of re­a­ding li­te­ra­cy is dis­cus­sed in the
cur­rent ar­tic­le. Al­so an over­view of the re­sults of the stu­dy about re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness and re­a­ding pre­fe­
ren­ces, the go­al of which was to find out what kind of texts are aut­hen­tic for the stu­dents and to start a
lar­ger stu­dy for ana­ly­zing the amount of ti­me te­ena­gers spend with re­a­ding, what they re­ad etc., is gi­ven
in this ar­tic­le.
Ba­sed on the re­sults of the stu­dy it be­ca­me evi­dent that stu­dents re­ad qui­te a lot, but they rat­her re­ad
new­spa­pers and ma­ga­zi­nes than bel­les-let­tres or fic­tion. The most fre­qu­ent texts that stu­dents re­ad in the
new­spa­pers are news. Al­so co­mic strips, TV-pro­grams and bo­ok re­views are re­ad rat­her of­ten. A po­si­ti­ve
fin­ding was that a lar­ge pro­por­tion of stu­dents re­ad bel­les-let­tres qui­te of­ten.
The re­sults of the con­duc­ted qu­es­tion­nai­re pro­vi­ded the ba­sis for im­pro­ving and com­ple­ting the qu­es­tion­
nai­re for a lar­ger stu­dy as well as fo­od for thought about bro­a­de­ning the as­sort­ment of re­a­ding ma­te­rials
for stu­dents and for ma­king Es­to­nian lan­gu­a­ge les­sons mo­re prag­ma­tic as well.
Key words: re­a­ding, re­a­ding skills, re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness, func­tio­nal re­a­ding, re­a­ding li­te­ra­cy.

In­tro­duc­tion

Re­a­ding and un­ders­tan­ding texts of all kinds form a ba­sic com­pe­ten­ce for par­ti­ci­pa­ting in
so­cial and cul­tu­ral li­fe and for being suc­ces­sful on a job. The PISA-sur­ve­ys ha­ve shown that, alt­
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

136
hough most Eu­ro­pe­an ado­les­cents ha­ve ade­qu­a­te re­a­ding com­pe­ten­ces at their dis­po­sal by the end
of scho­ol, about a qu­ar­ter of them can­not me­et the mi­ni­mal stan­dards. Not on­ly has the Eu­ro­pe­an
Com­mis­sion fai­led in dec­re­a­sing the num­bers in this risk-group of low achie­vers in re­a­ding, (a go­al
ai­med at in the Edu­ca­tion Ben­chmarks), but the ra­te of low achie­vers has even inc­re­a­sed sin­ce 2000.
For this re­a­son, the im­pro­ve­ment of re­a­ding li­te­ra­cy counts among the 5 Edu­ca­tion Ben­chmarks for
Eu­ro­pe de­fi­ned by the Eu­ro­pe­an Com­mis­sion in the fra­me­work of the Lis­bon-Stra­te­gy (Eu­ro­pe­an
Com­mis­sion 2008: 92).
Re­a­ding skill, re­a­ding in­te­rest, un­ders­tan­ding of text and ot­her as­pects con­nec­ted with re­a­ding
ha­ve be­en re­se­ar­ched qui­te a lot du­ring the last de­ca­des in Es­to­nia. Du­ring the last de­ca­de the Ins­
ti­tu­te of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty has con­duc­ted about twen­ty stu­dies ai­med
di­rec­tly at re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness, re­a­ding in­te­rest, un­ders­tan­ding of text, etc. and a num­ber of the­se
ha­ve al­lo­wed to draw the conc­lu­sion that ba­sic scho­ol stu­dents are rat­her go­od re­a­ders, alt­hough
so­me of them pre­fer wat­ching TV or using the com­pu­ter over re­a­ding (Jukk, 2009; Lut­sepp, 2004;
Ni­it, 2002; Pe­rov­ska­ja, 2003; Pi­ir, 2003; Põldsa­lu, 2002). A lar­ger pro­por­tion of the­se stu­dies ha­ve
fo­cu­sed on one or two as­pects of re­a­ding (Har­mi­paik, 2000; Ra­ta­sep, 2006; Sikk, 2005) or on the
is­su­es of un­ders­tan­ding the text (Met­sla, 2001; Kul­der­knup, 1999; Lil­le­pea, 2001).
In the PISA (Pro­gram for In­ter­na­tio­nal Stu­dent As­ses­sment) sur­vey in 2006, which pri­ma­ri­ly
me­a­su­red the skill of func­tio­nal re­a­ding, Es­to­nian stu­dents we­re ve­ry high­ly ran­ked. When we con­
si­der the num­ber of stu­dents, who­se re­sults we­re on Le­vel 3, 4, or 5, then among the OECD (Or­ga­
ni­za­tion for Eco­no­mic Co-ope­ra­tion and De­ve­lop­ment) coun­tries Es­to­nia held the 13th po­si­tion. But
when we lo­ok at the num­ber of stu­dents, who­se know­led­ge cor­res­pon­ded to or ex­ce­e­ded Le­vel 2,
then Es­to­nia held the 8th po­si­tion (Hen­no et al, 2007, 124–125). Thus, Es­to­nia be­longs among the
coun­tries, who­se re­sults are sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­ni­fi­cant­ly hig­her than the ave­ra­ge of all the coun­tries.
Sin­ce 1998 na­tion-wi­de pla­ce­ment tests in Es­to­nia ha­ve be­en car­ried out among the stu­dents in
Gra­des 3 and 6 to de­ter­mi­ne their le­vel of re­a­ding skill; the main stress of the tests is on ap­ply­ing the
skills of un­ders­tan­ding a text. Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, the pla­ce­ment tests al­so me­a­su­re the cons­ti­tu­ent skills
of the Es­to­nian lan­gu­a­ge (re­a­ding, wri­ting, lis­te­ning). So­me exer­ci­ses con­cer­ning the lan­gu­a­ge are
al­so inc­lu­ded. The fo­cus is on re­a­ding and un­ders­tan­ding dif­fe­rent ty­pes of texts. The re­sults of the
pla­ce­ment tests ha­ve sho­wed that stu­dents ha­ve ave­ra­ge skills in re­a­ding (Pan­dis, 2006).
Thus, com­plai­ning about stu­dents’ po­or skills in re­a­ding se­ems to be un­fit­ting. Ne­vert­he­less,
in Es­to­nian press and among te­achers the con­cern about stu­dents’ in­suf­fi­cient in­te­rest in re­a­ding,
which com­pa­red to the past has con­si­de­rab­ly dec­re­a­sed, is ve­ry fre­qu­ent, be­cau­se the ove­rall opi­
nion is that stu­dents tend to re­ad less and less (Hein et al, 2007; Hint, 2008; Va­her, 2008).

In­ter­pre­ting the No­tions of Re­a­ding and Re­a­ding Skill

The pro­blem, at le­ast part­ly, lies in the fact that re­a­ding and re­a­ding skill are of­ten in­ter­pre­ted
in dif­fe­rent wa­ys. Par­ti­ci­pa­ting in the in­ter­na­tio­nal pro­ject ADORE – Te­aching Strug­gling Ado­les­
cent Re­a­ders pro­ved our opi­nion that ap­pro­a­ches to the no­tions of re­a­ding and re­a­ding skill (or at
le­ast the con­cep­tion of the most im­por­tant as­pects or in­di­ca­tors of re­a­ding skill) are so­mew­hat dif­
fe­rent al­so in ot­her Eu­ro­pe­an coun­tries. One third of the pro­ject was spent on the dis­cus­sion, which
ai­med at re­a­ching a com­mon un­ders­tan­ding on who is an ado­les­cent with re­a­ding di­sa­bi­li­ties. The
re­se­ar­chers from Nor­way and Fin­land (the coun­tries had ve­ry go­od re­sults in PISA-sur­ve­ys) stress
the cri­ti­cal im­por­tan­ce of un­ders­tan­ding the text in ex­plai­ning the no­tion of re­a­ding, and that the
me­a­ning and im­por­tan­ce of re­a­ding ha­ve chan­ged du­ring the last de­ca­de. Vic­tor van Da­al (2007)
first points out the im­por­tan­ce of re­a­ding in ac­qui­ring edu­ca­tion and in co­ping well in eve­ry­day li­fe.
In Da­al’s opi­nion re­a­ding bo­oks for one’s own in­te­rest is a sphe­re, whe­re un­ders­tan­ding the text is
a „bo­nus“for the re­a­der.
The­re is a qui­te una­ni­mous opi­nion about the fact that un­ders­tan­ding the text that is being re­ad
is to gre­at ex­tent de­pen­dent on cer­tain au­to­ma­tic pro­ces­ses (Kintsch & Raw­son, 2005). As au­to­ma­
Anne UUSEN. Reading Activeness and Reading Preferences of the 6th Grade Students of Basic School in Estonia
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
tic pro­ces­ses the aut­hors see such pro­ces­ses, the per­for­ming of which do not re­qui­re in­ten­tio­nal 137
ef­fort, such as the lis­te­ning skill (in ca­se of ma­te­rial pre­sen­ted in the na­ti­ve lan­gu­a­ge). Anot­her
au­to­ma­tic pro­cess ne­eded for un­ders­tan­ding the text that is being re­ad is un­doub­ted­ly re­cog­ni­zing
words (i.e. me­cha­ni­cal re­a­ding skill), which pro­vi­des the first me­ans to un­ders­tand what a text is
about (Van der Leij & Van Da­al, 1999). Thus, lis­te­ning skill and the skill of re­a­ding words are un­qu­
es­tio­nab­ly high­ly im­por­tant at the ini­tial sta­ges of le­ar­ning to re­ad.
Per­fet­ti, Lan­di and Oakhill (2005) re­a­ched the conc­lu­sion that es­sen­tial cons­ti­tu­ent skills that
chil­dren should ac­qui­re are 1) ap­pre­hen­ding and un­ders­tan­ding the me­a­ning and the form of sen­
ten­ces in a text; 2) com­po­sing si­tu­a­tion mo­dels; and most im­por­tant­ly 3) dra­wing conc­lu­sions,
i.e. ma­king a text co­he­rent/un­ders­tan­dab­le, be­cau­se the­re is not a sin­gle text that is com­ple­te­ly
ex­pli­cit. The skills that sup­port the be­fo­re-men­tio­ned un­ders­tan­ding pro­ces­ses inc­lu­de 1) ge­ne­ral
know­led­ge – know­led­ge about the world and how things func­tion in the world, etc.; 2) lin­guis­tic
know­led­ge – being awa­re of pho­no­lo­gy, syn­tax, morp­ho­lo­gy, and prag­ma­tics; 3) vo­ca­bu­la­ry – the
vo­ca­bu­la­ry, which con­sists in words the me­a­ning, but al­so the pho­no­lo­gi­cal, ort­hog­rap­hic and syn­
tac­tic fe­a­tu­res of which are known (Mikk, 1980; Per­fet­ti, 1985).
The Es­to­nian spe­cia­lists of re­a­ding Ma­re Müürsepp (1995) and Me­e­li Pan­dis (2001) ha­ve ex­
plai­ned in brief the skill of re­a­ding as com­pre­hen­ding the writ­ten lan­gu­a­ge and res­pon­ding to it,
in­ter­pre­ting sym­bols, and the com­mu­ni­ca­tion bet­we­en the wri­ter and the re­a­der. Ste­re­o­ty­pi­cal­ly, re­
a­ding is re­gar­ded as the me­cha­ni­cal re­a­ding skill (Jürimäe, 2001). Anot­her ste­re­o­ty­pi­cal con­cep­tion
about re­a­ding ex­pres­ses the opi­nion that re­a­ding (al­so the skill of re­a­ding) me­ans re­a­ding fic­tion.
Des­pi­te of the de­mand of the new cur­ri­cu­lum (2002) to lo­ok at the con­cept of re­a­ding and wri­ting
from a much bro­a­der view­point, the­re are still ma­ny te­achers who de­fi­ne re­a­ding most­ly as re­a­ding
of clas­si­cal li­te­ra­tu­re. Hen­ce the claim that te­ena­gers re­ad less ge­ne­ral­ly me­ans that in the spe­a­ker’s
opi­nion they no lon­ger re­ad (enough) fic­tion. This was one ar­gu­ment that the na­ti­ve lan­gu­a­ge te­
achers used to jus­ti­fy their wish to see li­te­ra­tu­re as a se­pa­ra­te sub­ject in the cur­ri­cu­lum from Gra­de
5 on­wards. Wan­ting to talk about re­a­ding in a bro­a­der sen­se pe­op­le tend to use the ex­pres­sion func­
tio­nal li­te­ra­cy, which in eve­ry­day lan­gu­a­ge is rat­her un­com­for­tab­le to use.

Func­tio­nal Re­a­ding or Re­a­ding Li­te­ra­cy

Li­ving in the 21st cen­tu­ry de­mands much mo­re from te­ena­gers as re­a­ders than it did in the past
cen­tu­ry (Dil­lon, O´Brien & Heil­man, 2000; Hof­fmann & Pe­ar­son, 2000). Lau­ren Res­nick (1987)
has no­ted that the skills and abi­li­ties that em­plo­y­ers de­mand to­day are at le­ast tho­se de­man­ded for
col­le­ge en­tran­ce just a few years ago, and she has ar­gu­ed al­so that in the ne­ar fu­tu­re the en­try le­vel
jobs will re­qui­re re­a­ding skills equi­va­lent to tho­se of to­da­y’s col­le­ge sop­ho­mo­res.
Edu­ca­tors ha­ve inc­re­a­sin­gly co­me to re­cog­ni­ze that being li­te­ra­te re­qui­res the re­a­ders to ha­ve
the abi­li­ty to de­al with all kinds of texts, inc­lu­ding for exam­ple me­dia and on-li­ne texts. With mo­re
stu­dents ha­ving ac­cess to ho­me com­pu­ters and mo­re and mo­re scho­ols pro­vi­ding In­ter­net ac­cess in
the clas­sro­om, me­dia and on­li­ne re­sour­ces are li­ke­ly to be­co­me an aut­hen­tic li­te­ra­cy ma­te­rial used
far mo­re ex­ten­si­ve­ly in con­tem­po­ra­ry re­a­ding in­struc­tions even at scho­ol (Lab­bo, 1996).
In Fin­land and ot­her coun­tries the for­mer no­tion of func­tio­nal li­te­ra­cy has be­en re­pla­ced with
the no­tion of re­a­ding li­te­ra­cy.
Re­a­ding li­te­ra­cy is a per­son’s skill of using va­rio­us kinds of writ­ten texts (al­so tab­les, diag­
rams, po­sters, etc.) to achie­ve one’s aims: a per­son mas­ters re­a­ding and wri­ting on the le­vel, which
enab­les him/her to li­ve a full li­fe in a so­cial en­vi­ron­ment (Must et al 2001). A no­ted Fin­nish re­se­ar­
cher of re­a­ding Pir­jo Lin­na­kylä (2000) adds the cul­tu­ral en­vi­ron­ment to the so­cial en­vi­ron­ment and
re­cog­ni­zes that re­cent­ly the const­ruc­ti­vist ap­pro­ach has be­en ex­pan­ded so that the pro­cess of un­ders­
tan­ding re­a­ding is ap­pro­a­ched from the so­cio­const­ruc­ti­vist or the so­cio­cul­tu­ral point of view.
The so­cio­const­ruc­ti­vist point of view stres­ses that the re­a­der’s in­ter­pre­ta­tion is not in­flu­en­ced
sim­ply by his/her per­so­nal ex­pec­ta­tions, know­led­ge and in­ten­tions, but al­so by the­se that ori­gi­na­te
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

138
and ari­se in so­cia­li­zing with ot­her re­a­ders. Ho­we­ver, the so­cio­cul­tu­ral point of view rat­her stres­ses
the cul­tu­ral­ly aut­hen­tic (true, ori­gi­nal) re­al-li­fe texts and the pro­ces­ses of un­ders­tan­ding, whe­re the
sur­roun­ding com­mu­ni­ty and the cul­tu­ral con­text ha­ve an im­por­tant ro­le in de­ve­lo­ping a me­a­ning.
It is com­ple­te­ly dif­fe­rent, whet­her the sa­me text is re­ad for one’s own ple­a­su­re or for a class
dis­cus­sion, and the pro­cess of re­a­ding pro­bab­ly gre­at­ly va­ries in eit­her one of them. Even when the
idea of a text is cre­a­ted in­di­vi­du­al­ly, it is ne­vert­he­less so­cial­ly groun­ded and in­flu­en­ced by cul­tu­ral
in­ter­pre­ta­tion (Lin­na­kylä, 2000; Lan­ger, 1995).
The afo­re­men­tio­ned pro­ves that tal­king about re­a­ding, re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness or in­te­rest of stu­
dents in the 21st cen­tu­ry should lar­ge­ly be ba­sed on the so­cio­const­ruc­ti­vist or so­cio­cul­tu­ral stand­
point. In ot­her words, ta­king in­to ac­count the ty­pes of texts stu­dents re­gard aut­hen­tic at a cer­tain
age or what they dai­ly re­ad in ca­se of ne­ed or wish, re­a­ding should not be li­mi­ted sim­ply to re­a­ding
fic­tion (Eha­la, 2009).

Met­ho­do­lo­gy of Re­se­arch

The abo­ve dis­cus­sed the­o­re­ti­cal stand­points and par­ti­ci­pa­tion in the ADORE pro­ject in 2006–
2008 pro­vi­ded the op­por­tu­ni­ty and the ne­ed to tho­rough­ly re­se­arch the re­a­ding pro­blems of ado­
les­cent re­a­ders and del­ve mo­re de­ep­ly in­to the no­tion of re­a­ding, which ex­ci­ted in­te­rest in and
promp­ted to launch a bro­a­der sur­vey on re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness and in­te­rest in re­a­ding of the 6th gra­de
stu­dents in ba­sic scho­ol.
The qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve re­se­arch met­hod in the form of qu­es­tion­nai­res was used, which inc­lu­ded
open-en­ded and mul­tip­le-choi­ce qu­es­tions. The sur­vey was con­duc­ted by post (qu­es­tion­nai­res we­re
sent by post), when per­so­nal con­tact with the te­acher of the class that par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the sur­vey was
not re­a­so­nab­le in this ti­me pe­riod, and with the help from dis­tan­ce le­ar­ning stu­dent te­achers, who
con­duc­ted the sur­vey in the scho­ol whe­re they we­re te­aching. The scho­ols in the sur­vey we­re se­lec­
ted ran­dom­ly by the prin­cip­le that most of the re­gions of Es­to­nia and both ty­pes of scho­ols (ba­sic
scho­ols and gym­na­siums) would be rep­re­sen­ted. All the scho­ols that par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the sur­vey are
or­di­na­ry pub­lic scho­ols.
227 res­pon­dents from 14 ran­dom­ly se­lec­ted scho­ols par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the sur­vey. 116 of them
we­re bo­ys and 111 we­re girls.
The qu­es­tion­nai­re inc­lu­ded 24 qu­es­tions that co­ve­red the fol­lo­wing to­pics: a) ge­ne­ral in­for­ma­
tion about the stu­dent; b) stu­dent’s at­ti­tu­de to­wards re­a­ding and his/her re­a­ding skill; c) fre­qu­en­cy
of and pre­fe­ren­ces in re­a­ding fic­tion, me­dia texts, stu­dy ma­te­rials, te­le­vi­sion, and com­pu­ter texts; d)
the ba­ses of cho­o­sing the re­a­ding ma­te­rial; e) ge­ne­ral re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness. Dra­wing up the qu­es­tions
was ba­sed on the key ele­ments of go­od wor­king prac­ti­ces pro­mo­ting the skill of re­a­ding, which tur­
ned out du­ring the ADORE pro­ject, and the in­ter­views of so­cio­lo­gi­cal sur­ve­ys con­duc­ted in Es­to­nia
and Fin­land (ADORE-Pro­ject: Exe­cu­ti­ve Sum­ma­ry, 2009; Hans­son, 2009; Lin­na­kylä et al, 2000).
In this pa­per the fo­cus is on­ly on ge­ne­ral as­pects of li­te­ra­tu­re and me­dia re­a­ding and on re­a­ding on
the com­pu­ter. Da­ta pro­ces­sing and ana­ly­sis (per­cen­ta­ges, fre­qu­en­cies of ans­wers) we­re con­duc­ted
by using MS Ex­cel.
The qu­es­tions about the fre­qu­en­cy of re­a­ding fic­tion tre­a­ted in the ar­tic­le inc­lu­de:
• When and why did you last re­ad a bo­ok of fic­tion?
• Try to re­mem­ber the num­ber of bo­oks you ha­ve re­ad in the last 12 months (tex­tbo­oks and
ob­li­ga­to­ry li­te­ra­tu­re do not count).
In ca­se of re­a­ding me­dia texts the fol­lo­wing as­pects are ana­ly­zed:
• How of­ten do you re­ad me­dia texts?
• What do you re­ad in new­spa­pers/ma­ga­zi­nes?
In ca­se of re­a­ding texts on the com­pu­ter the fol­lo­wing qu­es­tions are dis­cus­sed:
• How much ti­me do you spend using the com­pu­ter?
• What do you most­ly do on the com­pu­ter?
Anne UUSEN. Reading Activeness and Reading Preferences of the 6th Grade Students of Basic School in Estonia
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
• What kind of texts do you re­ad on the com­pu­ter? 139
As one of the aims of the sur­vey desc­ri­bed in this ar­tic­le was to map ge­ne­ral ten­den­cies and to
gi­ve ge­ne­ral over­view about re­a­ding ha­bits of ado­les­cent re­a­ders for pre­pa­ring a lar­ger fu­tu­re re­se­
arch, it is prac­ti­cal to con­fi­ne in the ar­tic­le on­ly to per­cen­ta­ges and fre­qu­en­cies of ans­wers.

Re­sults of Re­se­arch

Re­a­ding fic­tion

As al­re­a­dy men­tio­ned be­fo­re Es­to­nian te­ena­ge stu­dents are se­en as mo­dest re­a­ders of fic­tion.
Ho­we­ver, the re­sults of the sur­vey sho­wed that 66% of the par­ti­ci­pants we­re re­a­ding a bo­ok of
fic­tion at the ti­me of the sur­vey or had fi­nis­hed re­a­ding such a bo­ok on­ly re­cent­ly. 19% of the res­
pon­dents had last re­ad a bo­ok of fic­tion the month be­fo­re and 7% in the pre­vio­us se­mes­ter (see Fi­gu­
re 1). Thus, most of the stu­dents had re­ad a bo­ok of fic­tion du­ring the pre­vio­us six months.

160
149

140

120

100

80

60
43
40

20 16
10
6 3
0
Currently Last month Last Last summer Last Earlier
semester schoolyear

Fi­gu­re 1. When was the last ti­me stu­dents re­ad a bo­ok of fic­tion
(ab­so­lu­te fre­qu­en­cy of ans­wers).

A mo­re in-depth ana­ly­sis sho­wed the dec­re­a­se in re­a­ding in­te­rest in Gra­des 5 and 6 and this
most­ly ap­plied to bo­ys. The sa­me ten­den­cy could be se­en in all the coun­tries par­ti­ci­pa­ting in the
ADORE pro­ject. Stu­dents most­ly (75%) re­ad for scho­ol pur­po­ses, eit­her promp­ted by the te­acher or
on one’s own ini­tia­ti­ve. This me­ans that te­achers play an im­por­tant ro­le in en­cou­ra­ging and gui­ding
stu­dents’ re­a­ding in­te­rest. 25% of the res­pon­dents re­ad on their own ini­tia­ti­ve.
The re­sults of the sur­vey sho­wed that the stu­dents in the 2nd sta­ge of stu­dies most­ly re­ad 3–9
bo­oks a year (53% of the res­pon­dents) (see Fi­gu­re 2). 21% of the res­pon­dents we­re ab­le to re­ad
on­ly a coup­le of bo­oks a year. 14% of the stu­dents re­ad 10–19 bo­oks and 8% re­ad even mo­re than
20 bo­ok a year. Na­tu­ral­ly the­re we­re stu­dents, who had re­ad no bo­oks in the last twel­ve months. At
le­ast this was the ans­wer pro­vi­ded by 7 stu­dents (3%). Ho­we­ver, it se­ems sligh­tly un­be­lie­vab­le that
one could co­pe at scho­ol wit­hout re­a­ding any bo­oks. The most pro­bab­le ex­pla­na­tion would be that
the­se stu­dents we­re not ab­le to re­mem­ber any bo­oks they had re­ad.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

140 140

120
120

100

80

60
48

40 32

20
10 10
7

0
None 1-2 books 3-9 books 10-19 books 20-29 books More than 30

Fi­gu­re 2. The num­ber of bo­oks re­ad du­ring the last 12 months


(ab­so­lu­te fre­gu­en­cy of ans­wers).

In the qu­es­tion­nai­re the ans­wers pro­vi­ded by stu­dents with ve­ry go­od re­a­ding skill we­re cle­ar­ly
re­cog­ni­zab­le, be­cau­se their ar­gu­men­ta­tion and ex­pla­na­tions we­re mo­re pre­ci­se. Go­od re­a­ders, who
re­ad a lot, mar­ked that they had re­ad 10–19 bo­oks or mo­re in the pre­vio­us year. The stu­dents who
do not li­ke re­a­ding, re­ad 1–2 bo­oks a year. This is un­ders­tan­dab­le. Tho­se who do not li­ke re­a­ding
hard­ly wish to spend ti­me with bo­oks.
Re­a­ding me­dia texts

Du­ring the ADORE-pro­ject it was dis­co­ve­red that ado­les­cent strug­gling re­a­ders be­ne­fit from
texts that are aut­hen­tic, or in­te­res­ting and re­le­vant for them. One ty­pe of such texts for them is me­
dia texts.
A ve­ry lar­ge pro­por­tion of the stu­dents who par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the stu­dy (41%) clai­med that they
re­ad me­dia eve­ry day or at le­ast on­ce a we­ek (31%) (see Fi­gu­re 3). This shows that the stu­dents in
the 2nd sta­ge of stu­dies are eager re­a­ders of me­dia. Thus it is cle­ar why in a num­ber of Eu­ro­pe­an
coun­tries (e.g. Fin­land and Ger­ma­ny) me­dia text we­re used as re­a­ding ma­te­rials in the les­sons ob­
ser­ved wit­hin the ADORE pro­ject.

100 94
90

80
71
70

60

50

40

30 26
21
20 15

10

0
Every day At least once a At least once a More seldom Not at all
week month

Fi­gu­re 3. How of­ten do stu­dents re­ad new­spa­pers and ma­ga­zi­nes


(ab­so­lu­te fre­qu­en­cy of ans­wers).
Anne UUSEN. Reading Activeness and Reading Preferences of the 6th Grade Students of Basic School in Estonia
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
What do stu­dents re­ad in new­spa­pers and ma­ga­zi­nes? News was most fre­qu­ent­ly men­tio­ned 141
(61 ti­mes) along with the to­pics that in­te­rest the stu­dents (45 ti­mes). The­se we­re fol­lo­wed by co­mic
strips (32 ti­mes), ads and ad­ver­ti­se­ments (20 ti­mes). Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, girls in Gra­des 5 and 6 al­so re­ad
news of be­au­ty and fas­hion (18 ti­mes), whi­le bo­ys re­ad sports news (15 ti­mes). Al­so hot gos­sip on
ce­leb­ri­ties is po­pu­lar (12 ti­mes in all). Stu­dents are al­so in­te­res­ted in ho­ros­co­pes, we­at­her fo­re­cast,
anec­do­tes and TV pro­gram; they do tests and sol­ve cros­sword puz­zles, lo­ok for re­ci­pes, re­ad bo­ok
re­views, etc. Stu­dents al­so no­ted that they lo­ok for and re­ad news and in­for­ma­tion re­gar­ding the
lo­cal li­fe and scho­ol. They al­so re­ad ma­ga­zi­nes and ar­tic­les tou­ching their sphe­re of in­te­rest qui­te a
lot. Three stu­dents mar­ked that they lo­ok at the pic­tu­res and re­ad the tit­les. This shows that stu­dents
are rat­her ver­sa­ti­le re­a­ders of the me­dia, be­cau­se they ha­ve men­tio­ned al­most all the sec­tions.
Both the ma­le and fe­ma­le re­a­ders equ­al­ly re­ad news and TV pro­grams. It is on­ly de­ligh­tful that
te­ena­ge young pe­op­le are high­ly in­te­res­ted in what is hap­pe­ning around them.

Re­a­ding on the com­pu­ter

Tal­king about stu­dents’ re­a­ding ha­bits and ac­ti­ve­ness one tends to for­get (or one do­es not think
about it) that in the 21st cen­tu­ry stu­dents re­ad a lot of texts on the com­pu­ter.
120

100 97

80

60 54
45
40

18
20
5 5
1 2
0
About 1 h 1-2 h a 2-4 h a More than Some h a Some h a Seldom Never
a day day day 4 h a day week month

Fi­gu­re 4. Ti­me spent on the com­pu­ter (abos­lu­te fre­qu­en­cy of ans­wers).

43% of the stu­dents who par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the sur­vey be­lie­ve they spend (about) 2-4 hours on
the com­pu­ter and 24% be­lie­ve they spend mo­re than 4 hours. Thus, 2/3 of the stu­dents are en­ga­ges
with dif­fe­rent ac­ti­vi­ties on the com­pu­ter two or mo­re hours a day, which is a rat­her long pe­riod
con­si­de­ring that mo­re than half of the day stu­dents nor­mal­ly spend at scho­ol. 20% of the stu­dents
clai­med they spend about an hour a day on the com­pu­ter and the re­mai­ning 10% use the com­pu­ter
rat­her sel­dom.
On the com­pu­ter stu­dents most­ly com­mu­ni­ca­te with their friends in MSN and ot­her so­cial
uti­li­ties and in chat-ro­oms (no­ted 176 ti­mes). Al­so pla­y­ing com­pu­ter ga­mes is ve­ry po­pu­lar (no­ted
148 ti­mes), as well as lo­o­king ma­te­rials of in­te­rest (59 ti­mes) and re­a­ding the news (51 ti­mes). Ho­
we­ver, com­pa­red to adults stu­dents wri­te and re­ad e-mails (no­ted 51 ti­mes) and lo­ok ma­te­rials for
scho­ol on the In­ter­net (41 ti­mes) less fre­qu­ent­ly. Thus we ha­ve to start thin­king on how te­achers
could gui­de stu­dents’ ha­bits in using the com­pu­ter and use it for in­flu­en­cing their re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness
and re­a­ding in­te­rest.
Furt­her­mo­re, even ma­ny of the stu­dents we­re not awa­re that al­so whi­le using the com­pu­ter
they ac­tu­al­ly get most of the in­for­ma­tion through re­a­ding. On­ly 21% of the stu­dents no­ted that they
spend most of the ti­me on the com­pu­ter re­a­ding.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

142 Dis­cus­sion

The Es­to­nian so­cie­ty and the­re­fo­re al­so Es­to­nian te­achers ex­pect high-le­vel per­for­man­ce from
eve­ry stu­dent in al­most eve­ry field of stu­dy­ing, inc­lu­ding re­a­ding and wri­ting. At the sa­me ti­me they
do not re­a­li­ze qui­te well, what kind of skills or know­led­ge cer­tain “high le­vel per­for­man­ce” ac­tu­al­ly
has to inc­lu­de. In this res­pect re­a­ding is not an ex­cep­tion. It is a rat­her ge­ne­ral opi­nion among the te­
achers in Es­to­nia that te­ena­gers are bad re­a­ders, be­cau­se they do not re­ad enough, whe­re­as re­cent­ly
they most­ly re­fer to re­a­ding fic­tion. But no­wa­da­ys re­a­ding li­te­ra­cy do­es not re­fer on­ly to the abi­li­ty
of re­a­ding texts of cer­tain ty­pe or with a cer­tain func­tion, but rat­her to the abi­li­ty to co­pe al­so with
me­dia and on-li­ne texts in eve­ry­day li­fe as well as in the fu­tu­re work li­fe.
The re­sults of the re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness and re­a­ding in­te­rest in the stu­dents of the 2nd sta­ge of stu­
dies in ba­sic scho­ol con­fir­med the ne­ed to ba­se the no­tion of re­a­ding on the so­cio-cul­tu­ral point of
view and al­so ga­ve fo­od for though in res­pect to ma­king te­aching re­a­ding mo­re viab­le.
The stu­dents who par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the stu­dy saw them­sel­ves rat­her as ave­ra­ge re­a­ders, who do
not re­ad ve­ry much, whe­re­as self-as­ses­sment dec­re­a­ses by age and the self-as­ses­sment of bo­ys is
lo­wer than that of girls. Ho­we­ver, Es­to­nian stu­dents re­ad qui­te a lot, but they do not re­ad so much
fic­tion than new­spa­pers and ma­ga­zi­nes. Most of the stu­dents, who par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the stu­dy, re­ad the
lat­ter al­most eve­ry day. In res­pect to re­a­ding me­dia texts te­ena­ge re­a­ders do not dif­fer sig­ni­fi­cant­ly
from adult re­a­ders: of the lat­ter mo­re than 80% of the res­pon­dents re­ad new­spa­pers eve­ry day or at
le­ast a coup­le of ti­mes a we­ek (Müürsepp, 2009). As a po­si­ti­ve re­sult we can no­te the fact that te­ena­
ge stu­dents are ve­ry in­te­res­ted in what is going on in the coun­try at the mo­ment: news we­re no­ted
as the most fre­qu­ent­ly re­ad me­dia texts. Na­tu­ral­ly, stu­dents al­so re­ad co­mic strips, TV pro­grams
and com­mer­cial texts.
Al­so the Fin­nish re­se­ar­chers had the sa­me re­sult (Lin­na­kylä, 2002). The qu­es­tion­nai­re car­ried
out in Fin­land wit­hin an in­ter­na­tio­nal sur­vey sho­wed that re­a­ding me­dia texts ma­le and fe­ma­le
re­a­ders tend to ha­ve so­mew­hat dif­fe­rent pre­fe­ren­ces (Lin­na­kylä et al, 2000). In that res­pect the Es­
to­nian and Fin­nish re­sults we­re si­mi­lar. Fe­ma­le re­a­ders in Fin­land pre­fer co­pies and ar­tic­les about
ho­me, he­alth and fas­hion, and ho­ros­co­pes, whi­le ma­le re­a­ders rat­her li­ke to re­ad co­mic strips (in
the gi­ven sur­vey co­mic strips we­re the ty­pe of text that was ve­ry fre­qu­ent­ly re­ad), news on sports
and eco­no­mics, and edi­to­rials.
The si­tu­a­tion with re­a­ding fic­tion is not as bad as it is be­lie­ved to be. The sur­vey in­tro­du­ced
in the ar­tic­le sho­wed that mo­re than half of the res­pon­dents re­ad a bo­ok of fic­tion se­ve­ral ti­mes a
month. A lar­ger part of the stu­dents re­ads at le­ast 3 bo­oks each year (and ma­ny of the stu­dents re­ad
even mo­re). Kno­wing that stu­dents spend an ave­ra­ge of 2–4 hours com­mu­ni­ca­ting with friends, pla­
y­ing ga­mes, and lo­o­king for ma­te­rials on the In­ter­net, the num­ber is not so small. Even most of the
adults re­ad less fic­tion com­pa­red to stu­dents (Müürsepp, 2009). Young pe­op­le ne­ed to ha­ve ti­me to
spend al­so on ot­her things.
Com­pa­ring the is­sue of re­a­ding fic­tion with the re­sults of the cor­res­pon­ding sur­vey con­duc­ted
in Fin­land we can sta­te that ba­sed on the gi­ven re­sults Es­to­nian stu­dents re­ad mo­re fic­tion than their
pe­ers in the neigh­bo­ring coun­try. Lin­na­kylä (2000) stu­dy sho­wed that 53% (41% of girls and 12%
of bo­ys) of 15-years-old stu­dents clai­med that they re­ad fic­tion se­ve­ral ti­mes a month (Es­to­nian
re­sults 66%). Ho­we­ver, on their own ini­tia­ti­ve Fin­nish stu­dents re­ad con­si­de­rab­ly less fic­tion com­
pa­red to ot­her texts (e.g. new­spa­pers and ma­ga­zi­nes).

Conc­lu­sion

An im­por­tant go­al of the qu­es­tion­nai­re tre­a­ted in the ar­tic­le was get­ting a ge­ne­ral over­view
of the re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness and re­a­ding pre­fe­ren­ces of te­ena­ge re­a­ders and ba­sed on the re­sults chan­
ging the te­achers’ at­ti­tu­de to­wards stu­dents as re­a­ders and pre­pa­ring a bro­a­der re­se­arch for get­ting
a scien­ti­fic ba­se for in­tro­du­cing chan­ges in de­ve­lo­ping li­te­ra­cy. It was equ­al­ly im­por­tant to sup­port
Anne UUSEN. Reading Activeness and Reading Preferences of the 6th Grade Students of Basic School in Estonia
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
the opi­nion that the di­dac­tic spe­cia­lists of the Es­to­nian lan­gu­a­ge hold: it is ti­me to start bro­a­de­ning 143
and mo­der­ni­zing the se­lec­tion of re­a­ding ma­te­rials and to ma­ke te­aching Es­to­nian mo­re prag­ma­tic
(Eha­la, 2009).
The re­sults of the pre­li­mi­na­ry re­se­arch on the re­a­ding ha­bits of ado­les­cent re­a­ders in Es­to­nia
con­vin­ced re­se­ar­chers of the ur­gent ne­ed to stri­ve for achie­ving the abo­ve-men­tio­ned go­als.
Al­so the re­sults of the Ado­re-pro­ject con­fir­med that one of the key ele­ments of inc­re­a­sing
te­ena­ge re­a­ders` mo­ti­va­tion to re­ad is te­achers’ know­led­ge on li­te­ra­cy in­struc­tion and cho­o­sing
en­ga­ging re­a­ding ma­te­rials. In terms of in­struc­tio­nal prac­ti­ces and re­a­ding ma­te­rials sup­por­ting
re­a­ding en­ga­ge­ment and mo­ti­va­tion, it is im­por­tant to pro­mo­te re­al-world in­te­rac­tion by pro­vi­ding
stu­dents with hands-on ac­ti­vi­ties and per­so­nal­ly re­le­vant and in­te­res­ting text. It can be said that the
2nd sta­ge stu­dents of ba­sic scho­ol be­ne­fit from texts that are aut­hen­tic, or in­te­res­ting and re­le­vant
for them. Sin­ce in­di­vi­du­al stu­dents’ in­te­rests may va­ry con­si­de­rab­ly, it is wi­se to let stu­dents cho­o­
se their own re­a­ding ma­te­rials whe­ne­ver pos­sib­le and pro­vi­de them with a wi­de se­lec­tion of texts
(Ado­re-pro­ject, 2010).

Re­fe­ren­ces

ADORE-pro­ject. Exe­cu­ti­ve Sum­ma­ry. http://www.ali­net.eu/in­dex.php?op­tion=com_con­tent&view=ar­


tic­le&id=4&Ite­mid=4, vi­si­ted on Feb­ru­a­ry 15, 2010.
Co­pe, B. & Ka­lant­zis, M. (Edit.). (2000). Mul­ti­li­te­ra­cies. Li­te­ra­cy Le­ar­ning and the De­sign of So­cial
Fu­tu­res. Lon­don: Rout­led­ge.
Dil­lon, D. R, O`Brien, D. G. & Heil­mann, E. E. (2000). Li­te­ra­cy re­se­arch in the next mil­le­nium: From
pa­ra­digms to prag­ma­tism and prac­ti­ca­li­ty. In J. E. Re­a­den­ce & D. M. Ba­ro­ne (Edit.). En­vi­sio­ning the
Fu­tu­re of Li­te­ra­cy. Ne­wark, De­la­wa­re: IRA, 3–18.
Eha­la, M. (2009, Feb­ru­a­ry 13). Prag­ma­a­ti­li­se­ma ema­ke­e­leõpe­tu­se po­ole [To­wards mo­re prag­ma­tic mot­
her ton­gue te­aching]. Õpe­ta­ja­te Leht, p. 14.
Har­mi­paik, R. (2000). Seik­lus­jutt 10–15 aastas­te las­te lu­ge­mi­se­e­lis­tus­tes [Ad­ven­tu­re sto­ries in re­a­ding
pre­fe­ren­ces of 10–15 years old stu­dents]. [Ba­che­lor’s the­sis in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in
the TU.]
Hein, I., Klan­dorf, A., Küti­mets, K., Lei­ger, P., Mägi, K., No­ot­re, S., Puik, T. & So­o­sa­ar, H. (2007). Kas
po­le üle­pea lu­ge­nud või on ai­nes üle pea kas­va­nud [Ha­ve not re­ad at all or too smart for the sub­ject]?
Õpe­ta­ja­te Leht, Feb­ru­a­ry 16.
Hen­no, I., Ti­re, G., Lep­mann, T., Reis­ka, P. ja Eha­la, M. (2007). Üle­va­a­de rah­vus­va­he­li­se õpi­las­te õpi­
tu­le­mus­lik­ku­se hin­da­mi­se pro­gram­mi PISA 2006 tu­le­mus­test. Na­tio­nal Exa­mi­na­tion and Qu­a­li­fi­ca­tion
Cen­tre. http://www.ekk.edu.ee/vvfi­les/0/PISA_l6ppa­ru­an­ne_041207.pdf, Vi­si­ted on May 14, 2009.
Hint, M. (2009). Fak­ti­te­ad­mi­sed ja fak­tid võide­tud, analüüsios­kus ka. Kui­das eda­si [Fac­tu­al know­led­ge
and facts are won, ana­ly­zing skills al­so. What next?]? Õpe­ta­ja­te Leht, 6, Ja­nu­a­ry 23.
Hof­fman, J & Pe­ar­son, P. D. (2000). Re­a­ding te­acher edu­ca­tion in the next mil­len­nium: What your
grand­mot­her’s te­acher didn’t know that your grand­daugh­ter’s te­acher should. In. J. E. Re­a­den­ce & D.
M. Ba­ro­ne (Edit.). En­vi­sio­ning the Fu­tu­re of Li­te­ra­cy. Ne­wark, De­la­wa­re: IRA, 18–32.
Jukk, P. (2009). Lu­ge­mi­se­e­lis­tu­sed II ko­o­liast­mes [Re­a­ding pre­fe­ren­ces in the 2nd sta­ge of ba­sic scho­ol].
[Mas­ter’s the­sis in the Ins­ti­tu­te of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Jürimäe, M. (2001). Fo­ne­e­mi­te­ad­lik­ku­se roll eesti las­te lu­ge­ma õppi­mi­sel [The ro­le of pho­ne­me awa­re­
ness in the pro­cess of le­ar­ning to re­ad]. [Mas­ter’s the­sis in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the
TU.]
Kintsch, W. ja Raw­son, K. A. (2005). Com­pre­hen­sion. In M.J. Snow­ling & C. Hul­me (Edit.), The Scien­
ce of Re­a­ding: A Hand­bo­ok. Ox­ford: Blac­kwell Pub­lis­hing, 209–226.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

144
Kul­der­knup, E. (1999). Teks­ti mõist­mi­ne ning teks­tist õppi­mi­se stra­te­e­giad 3. ja 4. klas­sis [Un­ders­tan­
ding the text and stra­te­gies of le­ar­ning from the text in gra­des 3 and 4]. [Mas­ter’s the­sis in the Fa­cul­ty
of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Lab­bo, L. (1996). A se­mio­tic ana­ly­sis of young chil­dren’s sym­bol ma­king in a clas­sro­om com­pu­ter cen­
ter. Re­a­ding Re­se­arch Qu­ar­ter­ly, 51, 356–385.
Lan­ger. J. (1995). En­vi­sio­ning Li­te­ra­tu­re. Ne­wark: IRA.
Lil­le­pea, K. (2001). Teks­ti mõist­mi­se ja teks­tist õppi­mi­se os­kus 3. klas­sis [Un­ders­tan­ding the text and
skill of le­ar­ning from the text in gra­de 3]. [Di­plo­ma pa­per in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the
TU.]
Lin­na­kylä, P. (2000). Lu­ku­tai­to tie­don ja op­pi­mi­sen yh­teis­kun­nas­sa [Re­a­ding skill in the so­cie­ty of in­for­
ma­tion and le­ar­ning]. – K. Sa­ja­va­a­ra & A. Pi­i­rai­nen-Marsh (Toim.) Kie­li, dis­kurs­si & yh­teis. Jüväskylä:
So­vel­ta­van kie­len­tut­ki­muk­sen kes­kus, 107–132.
Lin­na­kylä, P. (2002). Nu­or­ten lu­ke­mi­sak­ti­i­vi­su­us ja lu­ku­har­ras­tus [Re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness and re­a­ding in­te­
rest]. – J. Välijärvi & P. Lin­na­kylä (Toim.) Tu­le­vai­su­u­den osa­a­jat. PISA 2000 Suo­mes­sa. Kou­lu­tuk­sen
tut­ki­mus­lai­tos & Ope­tus­hal­li­tus.
Lin­na­kylä, P., Ma­lin, A., Blomq­vist, I. & Sul­ku­nen, S. (2000). Lu­ku­tai­to työssä ja ar­jes­sa [Re­a­ding skill
in the work and eve­ry­day li­fe]. Se­cond In­ter­na­tio­nal Adult Li­te­ra­cy Sur­vey in Fin­land. Na­tio­nal Bo­ard
of Edu­ca­tion & Ins­ti­tu­te for Edu­ca­tio­nal Re­se­arch. Jyväskylä.
Lut­sepp, L. (2004). 9. klas­si õpi­las­te lu­ge­mus [Re­a­ding ac­ti­ve­ness of stu­dents of 9th gra­de]. [Edu­ca­tio­nal
fi­nal the­sis in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Met­sla, K. (2001). Lu­ge­mi­sest aru­sa­a­mi­ne ja mõnin­gaid võtteid sel­le aren­da­mi­seks 1.klas­sis [Re­a­ding
com­pre­hen­sion and so­me met­hods to de­ve­lop this in gra­de 1]. [Di­plo­ma pa­per in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­
tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Must, O., jt (2001). Lu­ge­mis­kir­ja­os­kus [Re­a­ding li­te­ra­cy]. Aka­de­e­mia, 7.
Müürsepp, M. (1995). Hak­ka­me lu­ge­ma ja kir­ju­ta­ma [Let us start to re­ad and wri­te]. Tal­linn: Ha­ri­
dustööta­ja­te ko­o­li­tus­kes­kus.
Müürsepp, M. (2009). Va­ba aeg ja kul­tu­u­ri­tar­bi­mi­ne [Free ti­me and usa­ge of cul­tu­re]. – Hans­son, L
(Edit.) Töö, ko­du ja va­ba aeg. Tal­linn: TLÜ, 175–195.
Ni­it, K. (2002). Va­ba­lu­ge­mi­ne kui lu­ge­misõpe­tu­se ülim eesmärk alg­klas­si­des [Free re­a­ding as the most
wis­hed go­al in pri­ma­ry gra­des]. [Di­plo­ma pa­per in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Pan­dis, M. (2001). 3. klas­si õpi­las­te funk­tsio­na­al­ne lu­ge­mi­sos­kus [Func­tio­nal re­a­ding skill of third gra­de
stu­dents]: ta­se­metööd 1998–2000. – Algõpe­tu­se ak­tu­a­al­seid pro­ble­e­me, X, 69–80. Tal­linn: TPÜ.
Pan­dis, M. (2002). Lu­ge­mi­sos­kus ja sel­le­ga se­o­tud te­gu­rid 1.–3. klas­sis [Re­a­ding skill and the fac­tors
con­nec­ted with this in gra­des 1–3]. [Mas­ter’s the­sis in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Per­fet­ti, C. A., Lan­di, N. ja Oakhill, J. (2005). The ac­qui­si­tion of re­a­ding com­pre­hen­sion skill. In M.
J. Snow­ling & C. Hul­me (Edit.). The Scien­ce of Re­a­ding: A Hand­bo­ok. Ox­ford: Blac­kwell Pub­lis­hing,
227–247.
Per­fet­ti, C.A. (1985). Re­a­ding abi­li­ty. New York: Ox­ford Uni­ver­si­ty Press.
Pe­rov­ska­ja, T. (2003). Las­te lu­ge­mis­hu­vi tei­ses ko­o­liast­mes [Re­a­ding in­te­rest of chil­dren in se­cond sta­ge
of ba­sic scho­ol]. [Di­plo­ma pa­per in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Pi­ir, K. (2003). Eesti ja ve­ne õppe­ke­e­le­ga ko­o­li­de 11. klas­si­de õpi­las­te lu­ge­mi­se­e­lis­tu­sed ja – har­ju­mu­
sed [Re­a­ding pre­fe­ren­ces and ha­bits of 11th gra­de stu­dents` in Rus­sian spe­a­king and Es­to­nian spe­a­king
scho­ols]. [Ba­che­lor’s the­sis in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Põldsa­lu, C. (2002). Eesti uue­ma las­te­kir­jan­du­se vas­ta­vus alg­klas­si­las­te lu­ge­mis­hu­vi­de­le [Su­ita­bi­li­ty of
Es­to­nian new chil­dren’s li­te­ra­tu­re to re­a­ding in­te­rest of pri­ma­ry scho­ol stu­dents]. [Di­plo­ma pa­per in the
Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Anne UUSEN. Reading Activeness and Reading Preferences of the 6th Grade Students of Basic School in Estonia
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Ra­ta­sep, A. (2006). Pro­jek­ti “Lu­ge­da on mõnus” võima­lu­sed ak­ti­iv­se lu­ge­ja ku­ju­ne­mi­sel in­fo-kom­mu­ni­ 145
kat­sio­o­ni­teh­no­lo­o­gia va­hen­di­te to­el [Pro­ject “Re­a­ding is fun” as pos­si­bi­li­ty to form ac­ti­ve re­a­der with
the help of ICT]. [Mas­ter’s the­sis in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Res­nick, L. B. (1987). Edu­ca­tion and le­ar­ning to think. Was­hing­ton, DC: Na­tio­nal Aca­de­my Press.
Sikk, Ü. (2005). Lap­se ene­se­ref­lek­tsio­on lu­ge­ja­na ja “hea lu­ge­ja” mõis­te [Child`s self-re­flec­tion as re­a­
der and con­cept of “go­od re­a­der”]. [Mas­ter’s the­sis in the Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tio­nal Scien­ces in the TU.]
Va­her, B. (2008). Kir­jan­du­se mõjust ja lu­ge­mi­sos­ku­sest [About the in­flu­en­ce of li­te­ra­tu­re and about re­a­
ding skills]. Õpe­ta­ja­te Leht, Ap­ril 4.
Van Da­al, V. (2007). Soc­ra­tes ADORE Te­aching Ado­les­cent Strug­gling Re­a­ders. [Nor­we­gian desc­rip­
tion of the cur­rent sta­te of the ADORE pro­ject]
Van der Leij, A. & Van Da­al, V. H. P. (1999). Au­to­ma­ti­za­tion as­pects of dys­le­xia: spe­ed li­mi­ta­tions in
word iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, sen­si­ti­vi­ty to inc­re­a­sing task de­mands, and ort­hog­rap­hic com­pen­sa­tion. Jour­nal of
Le­ar­ning Di­sa­bi­li­ties, 32, 417–428.

Ad­vi­ced by Lei­da Talts, Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Es­to­nia

An­ne Uusen As­so­cia­te pro­fes­sor at Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty (De­part­ment of Pri­ma­ry Scho­ol Edu­ca­tion),
Nar­va Stre­et, 25, 10120 Tal­linn, Es­to­nia.
Pho­ne: +372 6199710.
E-mail: an­ne.uusen@tlu.ee
Web­si­te: http://www.tlu.ee/in­dex.php?LangID=2&CatlD=1400
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

146

Rus­sian-Es­to­nian Bi­lin­gu­a­lism
Re­se­arch and its Prac­ti­cal Me­a­ning
for Es­to­nian Scho­ols

Na­ta­lia Zam­ko­va­ja, Iri­na Mois­se­jen­ko, Na­ta­lia Tshui­ki­na


Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Tal­linn, Es­to­nia
e-mail: ta­lyz@in­box.ru, iri­na­mo@hot.ee, na­ta­lia.tshui­ki­na@tlu.ee

Abst­ract

The ar­tic­le de­als with the re­se­ar­ches do­ne in the field of Rus­sian-Es­to­nian bi­lin­gu­a­lism for the mo­dern
pe­riod of Es­to­nian li­fe, com­pa­ring to the re­sults drawn from the ti­mes when Es­to­nia for­med a part of
the So­viet Union. The aut­hors pre­sent the si­tu­a­tion of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents di­stri­bu­tion in the Es­to­nian-me­
dium scho­ols. The pro­blem pro­ved to be to­pi­cal - the num­ber of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents in Es­to­nian-me­dium
scho­ols has be­en gro­wing. It me­ans that met­hods of te­aching Rus­sian lan­gu­a­ge for this pe­op­le ha­ve to be
mo­di­fied. Wit­hin the re­se­arch the da­ta on amount of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents in Es­to­nian scho­ols got­ten from
the Mi­nist­ry of Edu­ca­tion and Scien­ce has be­en spe­ci­fied. The qu­es­tion­nai­re was sent to all Es­to­nian
scho­ols, and the re­cei­ved da­ta we­re pro­ces­sed and sys­te­ma­ti­zed ac­cor­ding to the re­gions and le­vels of
stu­dy, which enab­led to pre­sent the di­stri­bu­tion of Rus­sian-Es­to­nian bi­lin­gu­a­lism in Es­to­nian-me­dium
(with Es­to­nian as a lan­gu­a­ge of in­struc­tion) scho­ols. The da­ta on using Rus­sian in the fa­mi­lies of the
stu­dents we­re al­so re­cei­ved.
Key words: bi­lin­gu­a­lism, Rus­sian-Es­to­nian bi­lin­gu­a­lism, mot­her ton­gue.

In­tro­duc­tion

Being a mem­ber of Eu­ro­pe­an Union, Es­to­nia had to enact so­me me­a­su­res in or­der to pro­tect lin­
guis­tic and et­hnic mi­no­ri­ties in Es­to­nia. The­re­fo­re, two bi­lin­gu­al re­gi­mes are pro­vi­ded. The first one
is the bi­lin­gu­al ter­ri­to­rial re­gi­me; the se­cond bi­lin­gu­al re­gi­me as­su­res cul­tu­ral au­to­no­my for et­hnic
mi­no­ri­ties (Cons­ti­tu­tion of Es­to­nian Re­pub­lic, §§ 50, 51). Ho­we­ver, a lot of pe­op­le from so-cal­led
Rus­sian-spe­a­king fa­mi­lies (for­ming mo­re than 30% of Es­to­nia’s po­pu­la­tion) send their chil­dren to
scho­ols with Es­to­nian as a lan­gu­a­ge of in­struc­tions. A fun­da­men­tal re­se­arch has not be­en con­duc­ted
yet; ho­we­ver it is be­co­ming ob­vio­us that the le­vel of both Es­to­nian and Rus­sian lan­gu­a­ges achie­ved
by the Rus­sian-spe­a­king chil­dren is far from per­fect (e.g., see Ah­met 2003, Ran­nut 2005, Lo­op­man
2004). Ne­vert­he­less, it is the mot­her ton­gue that most­ly de­fi­nes a per­son’s self-iden­ti­fi­ca­tion.
The pro­blem of bi­lin­gu­a­lism in ge­ne­ral and of Rus­sian-Es­to­nian bi­lin­gu­a­lism par­ti­cu­lar­ly is
re­al­ly to­pi­cal; it has be­en pro­ved by nu­me­rous re­se­arch de­vo­ted to bi­lin­gu­a­lism and bi­lin­gu­al edu­
ca­tion (see Ba­ker 2000; Ba­ker, 1996; Ba­ke, Prys. Jo­nes 1998; Co­el­ho 1998; Se­ars 1998; Mon­ta­na­ri
2002; Skut­nabb-Kan­gas 1981; Рюнканен 2006, 2007; Han­ni­kai­nen 2002; Протасова, Родина,
Natalia ZAMKOVAJA, Irina MOISSEJENKO, Natalia TSHUIKINA. Russian-Estonian Bilingualism Research and its
Practical Meaning for Estonian Schools PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
2005 etc.), as well as by in­te­rest shown in mass me­dia (e.g., GOOGLE and YANDEX.RU of­fer 147
about 103 thou­sand and 2 mil­lion pub­li­ca­tions res­pec­ti­ve­ly on key words Rus­sian child (chil­dren)
in Es­to­nian scho­ol in the be­gin­ning of 2009).
In Es­to­nia pre­fe­reb­ly na­tio­nal-Rus­sian bi­lin­gu­a­lism was exa­mi­ned in 1970-s, de­ter­mi­ned
by so­cial-po­li­cal con­di­tions: the­re used to be a uni­que mul­ti­na­tio­nal sta­te with one in­ter­lan­gu­a­ge
(Селицкая 1976, Рейцак 1976; Моисеенко 1978).
Re­cent­ly bi­lin­gu­a­lism ha­ve be­en stu­died ac­ti­ve­ly in the Es­to­nian Re­pub­lic from the ot­her sight
an­gle: both the­o­re­ti­cal as­pect of bi­lin­gu­a­lism and Rus­sian-Es­to­nian bi­lin­gu­a­lism are in the li­me­light
(Замковая, Моисеенко 2008; Hint, 2002; Раннут 2004; Ran­nut, 2003; Синдецкая, Чуйкина 2006;
Ауг 2007; Мальцева-Замковая, Моисеенко, Чуйкина 2008; Русскоязычная семья и эстонская
школа 2008, Постникова 2008).

Pro­blem for the Re­se­arch

As for the Rus­sian lan­gu­a­ge, ba­sed on the ob­ser­va­tion the lar­gest part of such pu­pils af­ter le­a­
ving an Es­to­nian me­dium scho­ol are not flu­ent in wri­ting and re­a­ding Rus­sian, inc­lu­ding ort­hog­rap­
hy, punc­tu­a­tion and gram­mar. Their spe­ech do­es not dif­fe­ren­tia­te in the sphe­res of com­mu­ni­ca­ting
(e.g., in­for­mal and for­mal sty­le). So­me­ti­mes they spe­ak Rus­sian with an Es­to­nian ac­cent, though
with the pa­rents they use on­ly Rus­sian. The re­sults of the first ob­ser­va­tions can be found in ar­tic­
les by N.Tshui­ki­na and N.Sin­det­ska­ja (Чуйкина, Синдецкая 2005, 2006). Si­mi­lar and tho­roug­her
stu­dy on the qu­es­tion was con­duc­ted in the So­viet ti­mes (see, e.g., Моисеенко 1979, Хинт 1989,
Селицкая 1976, Рейцак 1976), ho­we­ver, the si­tu­a­tion has chan­ged and ne­eds so­me new ap­pro­a­
ches (Моисеенко, Замковая 2002; Мальцева-Замковая, Моисеенко, Чуйкина 2009). Ho­we­ver,
such mat­ters are not enough, the pro­blem ne­ed to be tho­rough­ly stu­died, es­pe­cial­ly in Es­to­nia, as
the list of re­se­ar­ches is li­mi­ted to the abo­ve men­tio­ned pub­li­ca­tions.

Met­ho­do­lo­gy of the Re­se­arch

In or­der to de­fi­ne the tar­get group qu­es­tion­nai­res we­re wor­ked out. The qu­es­tion­nai­res we­re
de­sig­ned for the scho­ols’ ad­mi­nist­ra­tion and sent to all re­gions of the Es­to­nian Re­pub­lic (Har­ju­maa,
Hi­iu­maa, Ida-Vi­ru­maa, Jar­va­maa, Jõge­va­maa, Lääne­maa, Lääne-Vi­ru­maa, Põlva­maa, Pärnu­maa,
Rap­la­maa, Sa­a­re­maa, Tar­tu­maa, Val­ga­maa, Vil­jan­di­maa, Võru­maa). The aim of the qu­es­tio­ning
was to re­cei­ve the fol­lo­wing da­ta:
1) to­tal amount of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents in eve­ry sin­gle scho­ol;
2) bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents’ di­stri­bu­tion on dif­fe­rent te­aching sta­ges (1–3, 4–6, 7–9, 10–12);
3) ho­me lan­gu­a­ge/s of the bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents.
On the next step, the re­cei­ved da­ta was com­pa­red to the num­bers pro­vi­ded by the Es­to­nian Mi­
nist­ry of Edu­ca­tion and Scien­ce.
The chan­ge (dy­na­mics) in the amount of stu­dents for the last 7 years was to be high­ligh­ted.
The da­ta of aca­de­mic years 2001/2002 and 2008/2009 we­re com­pa­red.
The re­cei­ved re­cords we­re sys­te­mi­zed in or­der to eli­cit re­gions with hig­hest di­stri­bu­tion of bi­
lin­gu­al stu­dents, so that to be tho­rough­ly stu­died.

Re­sults of the Re­se­arch

The aim for the first sta­ge of the re­se­arch was to de­fi­ne the tar­get group and to desc­ri­be the
group (re­gions, sta­tis­tics, dy­na­mics).
In or­der to eli­cit the tar­get group we ha­ve col­lec­ted in­for­ma­tion about the num­ber of bi­lin­gu­al
stu­dents in se­con­da­ry and high scho­ols of Es­to­nia with Es­to­nian as a lan­gu­a­ge of in­struc­tion. The
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

148
da­ta ha­ve be­en or­ga­ni­zed ta­king in­to ac­count the re­gions and te­aching sta­ges – they are drawn to
the fol­lo­wing tab­le (Tab­le 1):

Tab­le 1. Qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve da­ta on bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents in Es­to­nian-me­dium


scho­ols.

STAGE / REGION 1–3 4–6 7–9 10–12 TOTAL


Har­ju­maa 372 380 381 307 1 440
Hi­iu­maa 1 1
Ida-Vi­ru­maa 149 165 179 82 575
Jar­va­maa 7 9 21 6 43
Jõge­va­maa 44 32 29 17 122
Lääne­maa 11 12 27 35 85
Lääne-Vi­ru­maa 48 48 40 30 166
Põlva­maa 6 6 5 7 24
Pärnu­maa 63 73 56 23 215
Rap­la­maa 33 35 21 9 98
Sa­a­re­maa 5 4 8 2 19
Tar­tu­maa 85 94 82 60 321
Val­ga­maa 47 40 38 21 146
Vil­jan­di­maa 26 26 32 16 100
Võru­maa 9 11 11 6 37
To­tal: 905 936 930 621 3 392

As the tab­le (Tab­le 1) shows, 3 392 stu­dents of Es­to­nian-me­dium scho­ols are bi­lin­gu­al, which
ma­kes 3.1% of to­tal amount of stu­dents in Es­to­nian-me­dium scho­ols. The hig­hest num­ber of bi­lin­
gu­al pu­pils are in Har­ju­maa (42.4% out of se­lec­tion in all re­gions), Ida-Vi­ru­maa (16.95%), Tar­tu­
maa (9.5%), Pärnu­maa (6.3%), Lääne-Vi­ru­maa (4.9%). The le­ast num­ber of such stu­dents is­land
re­gions pre­sent: Hi­iu­maa (0.02%), Sa­a­re­ma (0.6%). The­re­fo­re, the tar­get group for furt­her re­se­arch
is pre­sen­ted by bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents from 5 re­gions of gre­a­ter rep­re­sen­ta­tion.
Re­se­arch da­ta on dif­fe­rent scho­ols most­ly con­firm the evi­den­ce that gre­a­ter num­ber of bi­lin­
gu­al stu­dents stu­dy in Es­to­nian scho­ols of lar­ger towns with a li­be­ral sha­re of Rus­sian-spe­a­king
po­pu­la­tion. E.g., the­re are a lit­tle less than 10% (64 stu­dents out of 740) in Tal­linn French Ly­ceum,
mo­re than 10% (86 out of 710) in Tal­linn Gym­na­sia ARTE, mo­re than 8% (60 out of 839) in Tal­linn
Ger­man Gym­na­sia, mo­re than 30% in Tal­linn La­ag­na Gym­na­sia (239 out of 710), mo­re than a half
(176 out of 235) in Nar­va Es­to­nian Gym­na­sia.
Ho­we­ver, the­re are scho­ols with gre­at amount of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents in smal­ler towns and ru­ral
set­tle­ments. E.g., the­re are about 30% bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents in Kun­da Ge­ne­ral Gym­na­sia (152 out of
419), mo­re than 20% in Ki­viõli Se­con­da­ry Scho­ol (67 out of 317), al­most 10% in Ko­hi­la Gym­na­sia
(72 out of 751), mo­re than 10% in Aegvi­i­du Gym­na­sia (7 out of 56), about 20% in Must­vee Gym­
na­sia (30 out of 158). This ob­vio­us­ly can be ex­plai­ned by the fact that the­re is a lack of Rus­sian-
me­dium scho­ols in most of the men­tio­ned com­mu­ni­ties, whi­le the num­ber of Rus­sian-spe­a­king
po­pu­la­tion is con­si­de­rab­ly lar­ge.
One can find the fol­lo­wing di­stri­bu­tion of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents wit­hin the te­aching sta­ges: the­re
are 3.4% of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents in the first te­aching sta­ge in 2008/2009 (905 out of 26779), 3.4% in
the se­cond sta­ge (936 out of 27583), 2.9% in the third sta­ge (930 out of 32098), 2.6% in high scho­
ol (621 out of 23882). The fi­gu­res pro­ve that the di­stri­bu­tion ac­cor­ding to the te­aching sta­ges do­es
not fluc­tu­a­te con­si­de­rab­ly.
The dy­na­mics of „dif­fu­sion“ pro­cess among bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents one can ob­ser­ve in the fol­lo­
wing tab­le (Tab­le 2):
Natalia ZAMKOVAJA, Irina MOISSEJENKO, Natalia TSHUIKINA. Russian-Estonian Bilingualism Research and its
Practical Meaning for Estonian Schools PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Tab­le 2. Num­ber of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents of Es­to­nian-me­dium scho­ols in 149
2001/2002 and 2008/2009.

Aca­de­mic year / Inc­re­a­se in the num­ber of Dec­re­a­se in the num­ber of


2001/2002 2008/2009
re­gion bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents
Har­ju­maa 690 1440 +750
Hi­iu­maa 2 1 -1
Ida-Vi­ru­maa 436 575 +139
Jar­va­maa 64 43 -21
Jõge­va­maa 106 122 +16
Lääne­maa 64 85 +21
Lääne-Vi­ru­maa 236 166 -70
Põlva­maa 49 24 -25
Pärnu­maa 57 215 +158
Rap­la­maa 95 98 +3
Sa­a­re­maa 0 19 +19
Tar­tu­maa 136 321 +185
Val­ga­maa 61 146 +85
Vil­jan­di­maa 40 100 +60
Võru­maa 15 37 +22
To­tal: 2051 3392 +1315 -117

Com­pa­ring the qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve da­ta of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents stu­dy­ing in Es­to­nian-me­dium scho­ols


in 2001-2001 (Русскоязычная семья и эстонская школа 2008) and 2008/2009 (see Tab­le 3) it
be­co­mes ob­vio­us that the num­ber of such stu­dents ha­ve grown by 1315 pe­op­le, which is es­pe­cial­ly
ex­hi­bi­to­ry at the ti­me when the to­tal amount of stu­dents in scho­ols of Es­to­nia has fal­len.

Tab­le 3. To­tal amount of stu­dents in scho­ols of Es­to­nia.

Te­aching sta­ge/
1–3 4–6 7–9 10–12
Aca­de­mic year
1992/1993 61 619 60 477 60 955 27 140
2001/2002 46 565 62 058 64 437 34 552
2008/2009 36 866 36 689 42 699 31 266

We can tra­ce the ten­den­cy on inc­re­a­sing num­ber of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents in the re­gions with lar­ger
towns, such as Tal­linn, Pärnu, Tar­tu. Such an ex­ter­nal fac­tor that so­me Rus­sian-me­dium scho­ols in
the re­gions (e.g., Pärnu and Tar­tu) get clo­sed al­so in­flu­en­ces the growth of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents. As
the tab­le shows, the num­ber of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents in ru­ral are­as and on the is­lands ha­ve be­en stab­le
or dec­re­a­sed in so­me ca­ses (see Põlva­maa, Rap­la­maa, Hi­iu­maa, Jar­va­maa). That may be cau­sed by
the fact that so­me pe­op­le ha­ve mo­ved to lar­ger towns for work.
Qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve chan­ges in the re­se­ar­ched group ac­cor­ding to te­aching sta­ges for the last 7 years
are pre­sen­ted in the fol­lo­wing tab­le (Tab­le 4):

Tab­le 4. Qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve chan­ges of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents ac­cor­ding to te­aching
sta­ges from 2001/2002 to 2008/2009.

Num­ber of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents (and %) / 2001/2002 2008/2009


Te­aching sta­ge
1–3 483 (1) 905 (2,45)
4–6 597 (0,9) 936 (2,56)
7–9 578 (1, 35) 930 (2,18)
10–12 393 (1,25) 621 (2, 29)
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

150
Da­ta com­pa­ri­son from the tab­le brings to conc­lu­sion that the­re has be­en pro­por­tio­nal inc­re­a­se
in the num­ber of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents of all te­aching sta­ges. Ana­ly­sis of the last two tab­les gi­ves an
op­por­tu­ni­ty to tra­ce the dy­na­mics of si­ze of the tar­get group in de­tails. E.g., in the first te­aching sta­
ge in 2001/2002 bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents for­med on­ly 1% of the to­tal amount of pu­pils in Es­to­nia, in the
se­cond sta­ge – less that 1%, in the third – 1.35%, in high scho­ol – 1.25%.
Com­pa­ring the da­ta of 2001/2002 (Русскоязычная семья и эстонская школа 2008) and
2008/2009 we can no­ti­ce re­mar­kab­le growth in num­ber of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents, es­pe­cial­ly in the two
first sta­ges. This again pro­ves a dic­tinct ten­den­cy of „en­lar­ge­ment“ in the group of bi­lin­gu­al stu­
dents of Es­to­nian-me­dium scho­ols.
Get­ting edu­ca­tion in the Es­to­nian lan­gu­a­ge by a lar­ge amount of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents exer­ci­se a
sig­ni­fi­cant af­fect on the “con­di­tion” of the mot­her ton­gue, in ma­ny ca­ses it cau­ses the dec­re­a­se in
the le­vel of com­pe­ten­ce in the na­ti­ve lan­gu­a­ge (Вaker, 2005: 27). In this con­text anot­her re­se­arch
has be­co­me ex­tre­me­ly to­pi­cal, the re­se­arch of how the mot­her ton­gue is sup­por­ted in the stu­dents’
ho­mes. In or­der to light out so­me of the facts the­re is a tab­le de­monst­ra­ting the “ho­me” lan­gu­a­ges
in use by the bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents (Tab­le 5).

Tab­le 5. Ho­me lan­gu­a­ge / lan­gu­a­ges of stu­dents.

HOME LANGUAGE/REGIONS One lan­gu­a­ge Two and mo­re lan­gu­a­ges


Har­ju­maa 328 (Rus­sian) 294
Hi­iu­maa
Ida-Vi­ru­maa 275 (Rus­sian) 31
3 (Es­to­nian)
Jar­va­maa 9
Jõge­va­maa 53 15
Lääne­maa 48 31
Lääne-Vi­ru­maa 41 60
Põlva­maa 3 (Rus­sian) 13
1 (Es­to­nian)
Pärnu­maa 132 41
Rap­la­maa 48 28
Sa­a­re­maa 19
Tar­tu­maa 61 89
Val­ga­maa 43 30
Vil­jan­di­maa 6 36
Võru­maa 22 9
To­tal: 1071 705

The fi­gu­res in the Tab­le 5 (alt­hough the da­ta are not fi­nal) in­di­ca­te that the lar­ger part of bi­lin­
gu­al stu­dents spe­ak Rus­sian at ho­me, ho­we­ver tho­se who spe­ak both (Rus­sian and Es­to­nian) lan­gu­
a­ges form a con­si­de­rab­le sha­re (al­most 40%). Da­ta from so­me scho­ol aut­ho­ri­ties show that so­me
fa­mi­lies pur­po­se­ful­ly re­fu­se to spe­ak na­ti­ve Rus­sian lan­gu­a­ge and even es­ca­pe from com­mu­ni­ca­
ting in the two lan­gu­a­ges with the chil­dren in pre­fe­ren­ce to the Es­to­nian lan­gu­a­ge. At the sa­me ti­me
the­re are fa­mi­lies (and it is symp­to­ma­tic) whe­re pa­rents spe­a­king to each ot­her the two lan­gu­a­ges or
on­ly Rus­sian in com­mu­ni­ca­tion with chil­dren cho­o­se on­ly Es­to­nian. The­re are al­so oc­ca­sions when
pa­rents with po­or skills of Es­to­nian do pre­fer to con­ver­se to the chil­dren in this lan­gu­a­ge.
The tab­le shows that in so-cal­led Rus­sian re­gions fa­mi­lies do spe­ak pre­fe­rab­ly Rus­sian, whi­
le in the re­gions with li­mi­ted spre­ad of the Rus­sian lan­gu­a­ge pa­rents ge­ne­ral­ly con­ver­se with the
chil­dren in both lan­gu­a­ges. Im­pos­si­bi­li­ty or li­mi­ta­tions in using the lan­gu­a­ge out­si­de fa­mi­ly can
na­tu­ral­ly le­ad to a sig­ni­fi­cant dec­re­a­se in the le­vel of the lan­gu­a­ge com­pe­ten­ce.
Lan­gu­a­ge choi­ce in a fa­mi­ly is of­ten ran­dom. Few pa­rents use pur­po­se­ful­ly in their com­mu­ni­
ca­tion one or two lan­gu­a­ges. Ho­we­ver, the­re are three lan­gu­a­ge stra­te­gies in up­brin­ging a bi­lin­gu­al
Natalia ZAMKOVAJA, Irina MOISSEJENKO, Natalia TSHUIKINA. Russian-Estonian Bilingualism Research and its
Practical Meaning for Estonian Schools PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
child to con­si­der: 1. one per­son – one lan­gu­a­ge; 2. both pa­rents spe­ak both lan­gu­a­ges to the child; 151
3. pa­rents spe­ak to the child a na­ti­ve lan­gu­a­ge, the ot­her lan­gu­a­ge is spo­ken out­si­de the fa­mi­ly. The
last stra­te­gy of­ten ta­kes pla­ce in the con­text of na­tio­nal mi­no­ri­ty. That is the si­tu­a­tion that is de­ve­lo­
ped in most fa­mi­lies rai­sing a bi­lin­gu­al child (Ba­ker, 2000). It is al­so true for Es­to­nia.
A mot­her ton­gue sup­port is de­fi­ni­te­ly ne­ces­sa­ry, as its “miss” of­ten cau­ses loss of et­hni­cal
iden­ti­ty and bre­aks con­nec­tions with the fa­mi­ly (from pre­sen­ta­tion by Fred Ge­nes­se „In­sight from
im­mer­sion Re­se­arch” on con­fe­ren­ce «Lõimi­tud ai­ne- ja ke­e­leõppe le­vik. Mit­me­ke­el­sus kui toi­me­
tu­le­ku võti pal­ju­kul­tu­u­ri­li­ses ma­ail­mas». Tal­linn, 24–25 Oc­to­ber 2008), which ne­ga­ti­ve­ly af­fects
full-bo­died per­so­na­li­ty for­ma­tion ab­le to self-re­a­li­za­tion in the con­text of mul­ti­cul­tu­ral so­cie­ty.

Dis­cus­sion

The early and the la­te im­mer­sion (Es­to­nian) pro­gram­mes for chil­dren from Rus­sian-spe­a­king
fa­mi­lies we­re al­so in­tro­du­ced in 2000 and 2004 res­pec­ti­ve­ly. Ho­we­ver, it is early to dis­cuss the le­
vel of the na­ti­ve lan­gu­a­ge com­mand, as even the first groups of the­se chil­dren ha­ve not fi­nis­hed the
scho­ol. Ne­vert­he­less, iso­la­ted ob­ser­va­tions are pre­sen­ted in so­me works (Новиков 2005; Игнатова
2005). The pro­ject is orien­ted to the Rus­sian-spe­a­king 6th–12th year stu­dents, not par­ti­ci­pa­ting in
im­mer­sion pro­gram­mes. The da­ta will be dis­pla­y­ed wit­hin pe­riods of stu­dies (in the end of 6th, 9th,
12th year).
The pro­blem can be vie­wed as im­por­tant from two stand­points. The first one re­la­tes to the idea
that any lan­gu­a­ge should be taught ad­di­ti­ve­ly, not sub­trac­ti­ve­ly. It me­ans that anot­her lan­gu­a­ge
should be ad­ded to your mot­her ton­gue, not to re­pla­ce it. The sta­te­ment may re­fer to the Cons­ti­
tu­tion of Es­to­nia, gu­a­ran­ty­ing bi­lin­gu­al re­gi­mes. Ho­we­ver, so­me re­se­ar­chers (e.g., works by T.
Skut­nabb-Kan­gas, one of the pro­mi­nent spe­cia­lists in the field of mul­ti­lin­gu­a­lism) emp­ha­si­ze the
im­por­tan­ce of such an idea on­ly in re­la­tion to en­dan­ge­red lan­gu­a­ges, ex­plai­ning the ro­le of so cal­led
lan­gu­a­ges-kil­lers. At the sa­me ti­me she draws exam­ples of lin­guis­tic ge­no­ci­de in Swe­den against
Fin­nish mi­no­ri­ty lan­gu­a­ge or Ame­ri­can En­glish against His­pa­nic mi­no­ri­ties’ lan­gu­a­ges. She al­so
sta­tes that it has not­hing in com­mon with the lan­gu­a­ge po­li­cy against Rus­sian-spe­a­king mi­no­ri­ty
in Es­to­nia. We can un­ders­tand that as­si­mi­la­ting 500 000 Rus­sians in Es­to­nia will not harm the Rus­
sian lan­gu­a­ge it­self (as well as Fin­nish in Swe­den and His­pa­nic lan­gu­a­ges in Ame­ri­ca res­pec­ti­ve­ly).
That is why the se­cond stand­point might be mo­re ra­tio­nal for the is­sue (ac­tu­al­ly, al­so sup­por­ted by
T. Skut­nabb-Kan­gas (2004)).
Alan N. Craw­ford, wor­king for the pro­ject of bi­lin­gu­al edu­ca­tion in Lat­via, dec­la­res the ro­le
of stu­dy­ing in a na­ti­ve lan­gu­a­ge for the ge­ne­ral men­tal de­ve­lop­ment, de­ve­lop­ment of lo­gic. In his
ar­tic­le he draws exam­ples from re­se­ar­ches con­duc­ted in Ame­ri­ca (Craw­ford 2002). As it is said be­
fo­re, bi­lin­gu­al edu­ca­tion in Es­to­nia has al­so ta­ken its pla­ce. Ho­we­ver, a Rus­sian child in Es­to­nian
scho­ol is a fact, which can­not be vio­la­ted. That is why one of the ap­pro­a­ches to sol­ving the pro­blem
is to find a way to sup­port the know­led­ge of the mot­her ton­gue and cul­tu­re in this group of chil­dren.
We sup­po­se that one of the ap­prop­ria­te me­a­su­res for that could be a spe­cial pro­gram­me of lan­gu­a­ge
stu­dies which finds its pla­ce in spe­cial text-bo­oks, ac­com­pa­ny­ing by te­acher’s ma­nu­al as well as a
spe­cial in-trai­ning cour­se for the te­achers of Rus­sian as a fo­reign lan­gu­a­ge.
The fu­tu­re re­se­arch im­plies se­ve­ral steps con­si­de­ring ge­ne­ral and spe­ci­fic stu­dies. First, it is
im­por­tant to de­fi­ne the ty­pes of bi­lin­gu­a­lism in ge­ne­ral, as well as the ty­pe of bi­lin­gu­a­lism to be
stu­died (as­su­ming that it could be mo­re sub­trac­ti­ve than ad­di­ti­ve).
Se­cond, the re­se­arch im­plies stu­dy­ing the le­vel of lan­gu­a­ge skills in dif­fe­rent as­pects: a) pho­ne­
tics, b) vo­ca­bu­la­ry, c) gram­mar and syn­tax, d) aut­hen­tic texts per­cep­tion by the stu­died group.
Third, it is es­sen­tial to es­ti­ma­te the ex­tent of in­flu­en­ce from me­dia, TV, ot­her re­la­ti­ves, af­ter-
scho­ol ac­ti­vi­ties on the tar­get group’s lan­gu­a­ge skills.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

152
Cross-cul­tu­ral com­mu­ni­ca­tion can be ap­plied he­re as so­me stu­dy of li­te­ra­tu­re used in te­aching
Rus­sian as a fo­reign lan­gu­a­ge in the as­pect of cul­tu­ral in­for­ma­tion sup­por­ting the ge­ne­ral know­
led­ge of Rus­sian cul­tu­re, his­to­ry and so on (which has be­en part­ly do­ne by T.Je­gos­hi­na (Егошина
2007)) and way of im­ple­men­ting the ot­her re­le­vant cul­tu­ral in­for­ma­tion both about Rus­sian and
Es­to­nian cul­tu­re (which can be con­si­de­red es­pe­cial­ly im­por­tant in the light of re­cent events in Tal­
linn, two na­tio­nal groups of pe­op­le li­ving in Es­to­nia do not un­ders­tant each ot­her due to dif­fe­rent
cul­tu­ral bac­kground) on the ba­sis of Rus­sian aut­hen­tic texts, spe­cial­ly pro­ces­sed to fit the ne­ed. The
re­qui­ment: re­le­vant cul­tu­ral in­for­ma­tion, lan­gu­a­ge dif­fi­cul­ties ap­prop­ria­te for the le­vel of stu­dents,
pos­si­bi­li­ty to use as mo­del for vo­ca­bu­la­ry and gram­mar exer­si­ses. The da­ta for de­ve­lo­ping such
exer­si­ses is going to be drawn from the re­se­arch pro­ject: it will desc­ri­be the le­vel of Rus­sian lan­gu­a­
ge skills, ge­ne­ral lin­guis­tic, cul­tu­ral and psy­cho­lo­gi­cal pro­blems of the stu­died group, met­hods used
to te­ach Rus­sian as well as pro­po­sals for im­pro­ving the abo­ve men­tio­ned.
The re­se­arch de­als with tra­di­tio­nal­ly used met­hods of Rus­sian as a fo­reign lan­gu­a­ge te­aching
and their ac­cep­ta­bi­li­ty in the men­tio­ned pro­cess; met­hods of te­aching Rus­sian as mot­her ton­gue in
re­la­tion to the is­sue. It is ob­vio­us that ne­it­her met­hods of te­aching Rus­sian as a fo­reign lan­gu­a­ge,
nor met­hods of te­aching Rus­sian as a mot­her ton­gue could be ap­plied se­pa­ra­te­ly.
In re­sult, the ob­jec­ti­ve of the pro­ject is to work out an op­ti­mal mo­del for te­aching Rus­sian-spe­
a­king chil­dren in the con­text of Es­to­nian-me­dium scho­ol.

Conc­lu­sion

The da­ta pre­sents the si­tu­a­tion of bi­lin­gu­al (Rus­sian-Es­to­nian) stu­dents di­stri­bu­tion in the Es­to­
nian-me­dium scho­ols. The pro­blem is ex­tre­me­ly to­pi­cal – it has be­en dis­cus­sed not on­ly in scien­ti­fic
re­se­arch, but al­so in dif­fe­rent mass me­dia sour­ces. This re­se­arch has be­en do­ne wit­hin two pro­jects
and its aim is to de­fi­ne the tar­get group as well as to desc­ri­be it (area di­stri­bu­tion, sta­tis­tics, dy­na­
mics).
First, the da­ta about the num­ber of such stu­dents (3 392) was col­lec­ted and sys­te­ma­ti­zed ac­cor­
ding to the re­gions and le­vels of stu­dy. The­re al­so was no­ti­ced that the lar­gest num­ber of bi­lin­gu­al
stu­dents is pre­sen­ted in Har­ju­maa (42.4%), Ida-Vi­ru­maa (16.95%), Tar­tu­maa (9.5%), Pärnu­maa
(6.3%) and Lääne-Vi­ru­maa (4.9%) – in the lar­ger towns with a big num­ber of Rus­sian-spe­a­king po­
pu­la­tion. The­re­fo­re, the­se fi­ve re­gions are me­ant to be the tar­get group of the furt­her re­se­arch. The
stu­dents are al­most even­ly di­stri­bu­ted on dif­fe­rent le­vels of stu­dy, ex­cept gym­na­sia.
The re­cei­ved da­ta was com­pa­red with the num­bers of 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 scho­ol years,
which sho­wed that the amount of bi­lin­gu­al stu­dents has ri­sen whi­le the to­tal num­ber of se­con­da­ry
scho­ols has drop­ped.
Edu­ca­tion in Es­to­nian for the men­tio­ned group has de­ep­ly in­flu­en­ced their mot­her ton­gue
know­led­ge. Most of them spe­ak Rus­sian at ho­me, whi­le qui­te a high per­cent (40%) of them use
both Rus­sian and Es­to­nian at ho­me. In who­le, most Rus­sian-spe­a­king pa­rents tend to pur­sue their
chil­dren to gain the Es­to­nian lan­gu­a­ge know­led­ge in or­der to achie­ve in so­cial li­fe – which in most
oc­ca­sions do­es not sup­port the mot­her ton­gue skills. It le­ads to sub­trac­ti­ve bi­lin­gu­a­lism. It be­co­
mes ob­vio­us that te­aching Rus­sian in Es­to­nian-me­dium scho­ols for stu­dent from Rus­sian-spe­a­king
fa­mi­lies should get sys­te­ma­tic and so­lid sup­port from fa­mi­lies, scho­ols and the sta­te. On­ly in this
si­tu­a­tion ef­fi­cient bi­lin­gu­a­lism is pos­sib­le, which main­tains et­hni­cal iden­ti­ty of a per­son sup­por­ting
his or her self-ful­fil­lment in a mul­ti­cul­tu­ral so­cie­ty.
Natalia ZAMKOVAJA, Irina MOISSEJENKO, Natalia TSHUIKINA. Russian-Estonian Bilingualism Research and its
Practical Meaning for Estonian Schools PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Ac­know­led­ge­ment 153

This re­se­arch has be­en do­ne and fi­nan­ced un­der tar­ge­ted pro­ject “Es­to­nian Text in Rus­sian
Cul­tu­re. Rus­sian Text in Es­to­nian Cul­tu­re” (SF 0130126s08, grand hol­der prof. Iri­na Be­lob­rov­tse­
va) and the Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty Re­se­arch Foun­da­tion pro­ject “Rus­sian Child in an Es­to­nian-Me­dium
Scho­ol” (TA 37309, grand hol­der Na­ta­lia Tshui­ki­na).

Re­fe­ren­ces
Ah­met, I. (2003). Ha­ri­dus vähe­mus­rah­vus­te ke­el­tes mit­me­ke­el­ses ühis­kon­nas ja ke­e­le­po­li­i­ti­ka Eesti
näitel. Ha­ri­dus ja ma­jan­dus 2003 : rah­vus­va­he­li­se te­adus­kon­ve­rent­si ma­ter­ja­lid. Tal­linn, 11–14.

Ba­ker, C. (1996). Foun­da­tions of Bi­lin­gu­al Edu­ca­tion and Bi­lin­gu­a­lism. Cle­ve­don: Mul­ti­lin­gu­al Mat­
ters.

Ba­ker, C. (2000). A Pa­rents and Te­achers Gui­de to Bi­lin­gu­a­lism. Cle­ve­don: Mul­ti­lin­gu­al Mat­ters.

Ba­ker, C. (2005). Kaks­ke­el­ne laps. Ha­ri­dus-ja Te­adus­mi­nis­te­e­rium. – El Pa­ra­di­so.

Ba­ker, C., Prys. Jo­nes, S. (1998). En­cyc­lo­pe­dia of Bi­lin­gu­a­lism and Bi­lin­gu­al Edu­ca­tion. Cle­ve­don:
Mul­ti­lin­gu­al Mat­ters.

Co­el­ho, E. (1998). Te­aching and Le­ar­ning in Mul­ti­cul­tu­ral Scho­ols: Cle­ve­land: Mul­ti­lin­gu­al Mat­ters.

Craw­ford, A.N. (2002). Bi­lin­gu­al Edu­ca­tion in Lat­via. Bi­lin­gu­al edu­ca­tion in Lat­via: In­ter­na­tio­nal ex­
per­ti­se. Ri­ga: So­ros Foun­da­tion, 40-62. (Bi­ling­va­la iz­gli­ti­ba Lat­vi­ja: starp­tau­tis­ka eks­per­ti­ze. Bi­ling­va­
la iz­gli­ti­ba Lat­vi­ja.).

Han­ni­kai­nen, L. (2002). The Rus­sian-Spe­a­king and Et­nic Rus­sian Mi­no­ri­ty in Fin­land in the Light of
Fin­lands In­ter­na­tio­nal Ob­li­ga­tions. Fin­nish Year­bo­ok of In­ter­na­tio­nal Law. Klu­wer Law In­ter­na­tio­nal,
471–486.

Hint, M. (2002). Ke­el on tõde on õige ja va­le. Tar­tu: Il­ma­maa.

Lo­op­man, K. (2004). Mu­u­ke­el­se lap­se õpe­ta­mi­ne eesti­ke­el­ses ko­o­lis - pro­ble­e­me ja la­hen­du­si. MA the­
sis. Tal­linn Pe­da­go­gi­cal Uni­ver­si­ty.

Mon­ta­na­ri, E. (2002). Wie Kin­der mehr­spra­ching auf­wach­sen: Ein Rat­ge­ber. 3.Auf­la­ge. Frank­furt a. M.:
Bran­des&Ap­sel Ver­lag.

Ran­nut, Ü. (2003). Mu­u­ke­el­se­te õpi­las­te in­teg­re­e­ri­mi­ne eesti ko­o­lis. Tal­linn: TPÜ kir­jas­tus.

Ran­nut, Ü. (2005). Ke­e­le­kes­kon­na mõju ve­ne õpi­las­te eesti ke­e­le oman­da­mi­se­le ja in­teg­rat­sio­o­ni­le
Eestis. Tal­linn: Tal­lin­na Üli­ko­o­li Kir­jas­tus.

Se­ars, C. (1998). Se­cond Lan­gu­a­ge Stu­dents in Mainst­re­am Clas­sro­oms: A Hand­bo­ok for Te­achers in
In­ter­na­tio­nal Scho­ols. Cle­ve­land: Mul­ti­lin­gu­al Mat­ters.

Skut­nabb-Kan­gas, T. (1981). Bi­lin­gu­a­lism or Not. The edu­ca­tion of Mi­no­ri­ties. Cle­ve­don: Mul­ti­lin­gu­al


Mat­ters.

Skut­nabb-Kan­gas, T. (2004). “Fin­no-Ug­ric Pe­op­les in the World Con­text” – ple­na­ry spe­ech at IV World
Cong­ress of the Fin­no-Ug­ric Pe­op­les, Tal­linn, Au­gust 15–19, 2004.

Ауг Н. (2007). Языковое развитие русскоговорящего ребенка в иноязычной среде. MA (aca­de­mic)


the­sis. Tal­linn: Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty.

Егошина Т. (2007). Учебный текст как носитель лингвогеографической и лингвокультурологической


информации. MA the­sis. Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

154
Игнатова Е. (2005). Динамика учебного процесса в классах с углубленным изучением эстонского
языка. MA the­sis. Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty.

Мальцева-Замковая Н., Моисеенко И. (2008a). Проблемы обучения русскому языку в ситуации


естественного русско-эстонского билингвизма. I Mеждународная научно-методическая конфе­
ренция «Состояние и перспективы методики преподавания русского языка и литературы».
Сборник статей. Москва: Издательство Российского университета дружбы народов, 782-785.

Мальцева-Замковая Н., Моисеенко И. (2008b). Этническая самоидентификация двуязычных


учащихся (русско-эстонское двуязычие) в условиях обучения в эстонской школе. Язык и культура.
Киев: Изд-во Киевского университета, 75–85.

Мальцева-Замковая Н., Моисеенко И., Чуйкина Н. (2008). Двуязычный ребенок (русско-эстонское


двуязычие) в школе с эстонским языком обучения. Коллеги – коллегам. Tal­linn: Ar­go, 7–14.

Моисеенко И. (1978). Условия формирования и сохранения двуязычия. Проблемы формирования


языковых контактов в процессе обучения русскому языку в эстонской школе. Русский язык в
эстонской школе VIII. Ученые записки ТГУ вып.510 (под ред. А.Метса). Тарту, 35–42.

Моисеенко И., Замковая Н. (2002). Статус русского языка в Эстонии и проблемы, связанные с
его преподаванием. Труды по русской и славянской филологии. Лингвистика. Новая серия VI.
Проблемы языка диаспоры. Tar­tu Üli­ko­li kir­jas­tus. Tar­tu, 173–186.

Моисеенко И., Мальцева-Замковая Н., Чуйкина Н. (2009). Ситуация распространения русско-


эстонского двуязычия в школах с эстонским языком обучения. Kul­tu­u­ri­de dia­lo­og – Võima­lus või
pa­ra­ta­ma­tus? (Dia­lo­gue of Cul­tu­res – Pos­si­bi­li­ty or Ine­vi­ta­bi­li­ty?) II. Te­adu­sar­tik­li­te ko­gu­mik. Tal­linn:
Tal­lin­na Üli­ko­o­li kir­jas­tus, 267–286.

Новиков В. (2005). Опыт укоренения языкового погружения в Таллиннской гимназии Ляэнемере.


MA (aca­de­mic) the­sis. Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty.

Постникова В. (2008). Русский художественный текст и трудности его восприятия учащимися-


билингвами, обучающимися в эстонской школе. MA the­sis. Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty.

Протасова Ю., Родина Н. (2005).Многоязычие в детском возрасте. Санкт-Петербург.: Златоуст.


Раннут М. (2004). Пособие по языковой политике. Tal­linn: AS At­lex.

Рейцак А. (1976). Четвертая ступень эстонско-русского двуязычия. Развитие национально-


русского двуязычия. М.: Наука, 351–365.

Русскоязычная семья и эстонская школа) (2008). So­cio­lo­gic Re­se­arch. Tal­linn: In­teg­ra­tio.

Рюнканен Т. (2006). Процесс интеграции русскоязычных учащихся-иммигрантов. Stu­dia Sla­vi­ca


Fin­lan­den­sia. To­mus XXIII. Вопросы идентичности в русскоязычной диаспоре. Hel­sin­ki, 149-184.

Рюнканен Т. (2007). Русский язык как родной в Финляндии: возможности сохранения, изучения
и развития. Русистика и современность. Том 2. Диалог культур в преподавании русского языка и
русской словесности. Санкт-Петербург: Издательский дом «МИРС», 213–217.

Селицкая И. (1976). Условия развития эстонско-русского двуязычия; Первая ступень эстонско-


русского двуязычия; Вторая ступень эстонско-русского двуязычия; Третья ступень эстонско-
русского двуязычия. Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. М.: Наука, 72–85, 213–222,
257–265 (res­pec­ti­ve­ly).

Хинт М. (1989). Проблемы двуязычия: взгляд без розовых очков. Эстония: О том, что волнует.
Таллинн.
Natalia ZAMKOVAJA, Irina MOISSEJENKO, Natalia TSHUIKINA. Russian-Estonian Bilingualism Research and its
Practical Meaning for Estonian Schools PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Чуйкина Н., Синдецкая Н. (2005). К проблемам формирования коммуникативной компетенции 155
в условиях эстонско-русского билингвизма. Изучение русского языка и русской культуры в
странах АТР: 15 лет РКИ на Дальнем Востоке. Тезисы II международной научно-практической
конференции. Владивосток, 29–30.

Чуйкина Н., Синдецкая Н. (2006). К вопросу о русско-эстонском билингвизме. Международная


научно-практическая конференция по проблемам преподавания русского языка и литературы
в странах Балтии (Сборник научно-методических материалов). Санкт-Петербург: Санкт-
Петербургский государственный университет, 48–52.

Ad­vi­ced by Lei­da Talts, Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Es­to­nia

Na­ta­lia Zam­ko­va­ja As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor, Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Nar­va Stre­et 25, 10120 Tal­linn, Es­to­nia.
Pho­ne: +372 6 409332.
E-mail: ta­lyz@in­box.ru
Web­si­te: http://www.tlu.ee/sla­a­vi­fil

Iri­na Mois­se­jen­ko As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor, Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Nar­va Stre­et 25, 10120 Tal­linn, Es­to­nia.
Pho­ne: +372 6409332.
E-mail: iri­na­mo@hot.ee
Web­si­te: http://www.tlu.ee/sla­a­vi­fil

Na­ta­lia Tshui­ki­na Lec­tu­rer Tal­linn Uni­ver­si­ty, Nar­va Stre­et 25, 10120 Tal­linn, Es­to­nia.
Pho­ne: +372 6409332.
E-mail: na­ta­lia.tshui­ki­na@tlu.ee
Web­si­te: http://www.tlu.ee/sla­a­vi­fil
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

156

Stan­dards for Field Eva­lu­a­tions


of Mo­di­fi­ca­tions to Edu­ca­tio­nal
Set­tings

Al­bert Zieg­ler
Ulm Uni­ver­si­ty, Ger­ma­ny
E-mail: al­bert.zieg­ler@uni-ulm.de

Dia­na Schim­ke, Heid­run Sto­e­ger


Uni­ver­si­ty of Re­gens­burg, Ger­ma­ny
E-mail: dia­na.schim­ke@pa­e­da­go­gik.uni­re­gens­burg.de,
heid­run.sto­e­ger@pa­e­da­go­gik.uni-re­gens­burg.de

Pe­ter Mer­rot­sy
Uni­ver­si­ty of New En­gland, Aust­ra­lia
E-mail: pmer­rots@une.edu.au

Abst­ract

It is of­ten not pos­sib­le to re­a­li­ze ide­al eva­lu­a­tion stan­dards when it co­mes to eva­lu­a­ting mo­di­fi­ca­tions to
edu­ca­tio­nal set­tings. In this ar­tic­le the­o­re­ti­cal and prac­ti­cal pro­blems in the eva­lu­a­tion of mo­di­fi­ca­tions
in edu­ca­tio­nal set­tings are dis­cus­sed. Ba­sed on the­se con­si­de­ra­tions the ENDIT mo­del of eva­lu­a­tion is
pre­sen­ted. It com­pri­ses fi­ve mi­ni­mal stan­dards ne­ces­sa­ry for a con­vin­cing eva­lu­a­tion: 1) ef­fect es­tab­
lis­hment, 2) con­trol of the no­vel­ty ef­fect, 3) disc­ri­mi­nant va­li­da­tion, 4) su­per­io­ri­ty over com­pa­red to
im­pli­cit con­trol groups, and 5) ti­me-de­la­y­ed con­trol group. The fi­ve stan­dards are ex­plai­ned and their
uti­li­ty for re­se­arch is de­monst­ra­ted, by way of an exam­ple, through the eva­lu­a­tion of a vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol
that was in­tro­du­ced in or­der to inc­re­a­se par­ti­ci­pa­tion in an e-men­to­ring com­mu­ni­ty. Par­ti­ci­pants in the
in­ves­ti­ga­tion com­pri­sed 231 fe­ma­le high-scho­ol stu­dents par­ti­ci­pa­ting in the e-men­to­ring com­mu­ni­ty
CyberMentor that aims at inc­re­a­sing in­te­rest and par­ti­ci­pa­tion in STEM (Scien­ce, Tech­no­lo­gy, En­gi­ne­
e­ring, and Mat­he­ma­tics).
Key words: e-men­to­ring, on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty, eva­lu­a­tion stan­dards, ENDIT met­hod.

In­tro­duc­tion

For ma­ny and di­ver­se re­a­sons, mo­di­fi­ca­tions are in­dis­pen­sab­le in all edu­ca­tio­nal set­tings.
Exam­ples inc­lu­de the in­tro­duc­tion of new scho­ol tex­tbo­oks, a chan­ge in te­acher, ad­just­ments to
the met­hod of in­struc­tion, adap­ta­tions in res­pon­se to inc­re­a­sed le­vels of stu­dent com­pe­ten­cy, and
so on. That is why edu­ca­tio­nal set­tings are not at all sta­tic, but rat­her dy­na­mic and ever-de­ve­lo­ping
en­ti­ties.
Albert ZIEGLER, Diana SCHIMKE, Heidrun STOEGER, Peter MERROTSY. Standards for Field Evaluations of Modi-
fications to Educational Settings PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
It is wi­de­ly ac­cep­ted that eva­lu­a­tions should be car­ried out at ma­ny points du­ring the cour­se 157
of an edu­ca­tion pro­gram (Co­ok & Camp­bell, 1979; Hou­se, 1978; Ros­si, Lip­sey & Fre­e­man, 2004).
The ra­tio­na­le for this may be, among ma­ny ot­hers:
• a cost–­be­ne­fit ana­ly­sis,
• the com­pa­ri­son of out­co­mes with ob­jec­ti­ves,
• the de­ter­mi­na­tion of cau­sal re­la­tions­hips bet­we­en va­riab­les.
The to­pic of this pa­per is the de­ter­mi­na­tion of cau­sal re­la­tions bet­we­en va­riab­les. Ho­we­ver,
dif­fi­cul­ties do ari­se in ma­ny eva­lu­a­tions, and we will il­lust­ra­te this with our own re­se­arch pro­ject,
the CyberMentor pro­gram.

The­o­re­ti­cal and Prac­ti­cal Pro­blems in the Eva­lu­a­tion of Mo­di­fi­ca­tions in Edu­ca­


tio­nal Set­tings

CyberMentor is an e-men­to­ring com­mu­ni­ty (Schim­ke, Sto­e­ger, & Zieg­ler, 2009a, 2009b). The
par­ti­ci­pants are girls bet­we­en the ages of 12 and 19 who are in­te­res­ted in STEM (Scien­ce, Tech­no­
lo­gy, En­gi­ne­e­ring, and Mat­he­ma­tics). Each high-scho­ol stu­dent is pai­red with one per­so­nal fe­ma­le
men­tor who is wor­king in a field of STEM. Men­tor and men­tee com­mu­ni­ca­te via email at le­ast on­ce
a we­ek. Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, an on-li­ne plat­form is pro­vi­ded which of­fers a wi­de ran­ge of on­li­ne com­mu­ni­
ty fe­a­tu­res. For exam­ple: each par­ti­ci­pant (men­tee and men­tor ali­ke) may in­tro­du­ce her­self on and
main­tain a per­so­nal pa­ge; mem­bers may par­ti­ci­pa­te in a dis­cus­sion fo­rum or chat with each ot­her;
and an on­li­ne jour­nal is pub­lis­hed re­gu­lar­ly.
For so­me, it will be ap­pa­rent that the eva­lu­a­tion of on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ties li­ke CyberMentor con­
fronts the re­se­ar­cher with va­rio­us pro­blems ty­pi­cal of ma­ny are­as in the so­cial scien­ces (Co­ok &
Camp­bell, 1979; Law, 2004; Tro­chim, 1986). Ma­ny pro­blems stem from the fact that on­li­ne com­
mu­ni­ties, li­ke ma­ny edu­ca­tio­nal set­tings, ha­ve their in­di­vi­du­al pre­his­to­ry that ne­eds to be ta­ken in­to
ac­count du­ring re­se­arch. On­ly when this is known can pre­sent in­te­rac­tions and ac­tors’ in­ten­tions
be un­ders­to­od. In this res­pect, each on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty is cha­rac­te­ri­zed by uni­qu­e­ness, and he­re it
is even pos­sib­le to spe­ak of each com­mu­ni­ty ha­ving its own iden­ti­ty. In con­trast to this, the par­ti­ci­
pants of the clas­sic ex­pe­ri­ment are al­most ahis­to­ri­cal and their idio­sync­ra­sies are un­ders­to­od to be
sour­ces of po­ten­tial bias. The ran­do­mi­zed al­lo­ca­tion to con­di­tions aims to ave­ra­ge out this dis­tor­
ting fac­tor.
The cha­rac­te­ris­tic iden­ti­ty of each edu­ca­tio­nal set­ting le­ads to a mul­ti­tu­de of se­rio­us met­ho­
do­lo­gi­cal pro­blems which ari­se when con­duc­ting re­se­arch. Thus, for exam­ple, the uni­qu­e­ness of
an on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty pre­vents the cre­a­tion of an ap­prop­ria­te con­trol group. This ap­plies equ­al­ly
to the ran­do­mi­zed al­lo­ca­tion of pe­op­le to an ex­pe­ri­men­tal and a con­trol group, and to the cre­a­tion
of a pa­ral­lel con­trol group. It might be pos­sib­le to find a group of pe­op­le who re­sem­ble the on­li­ne
com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers with res­pect to the per­so­nal at­tri­bu­tes con­si­de­red re­le­vant. Ho­we­ver, fin­ding
ana­lo­gous per­so­nal re­la­tions­hips bet­we­en the mem­bers (friend­ship, ani­mo­si­ty, mist­rust, etc.) is un­li­
ke­ly. It would be an enor­mous coin­ci­den­ce if com­pa­rab­le group dy­na­mics and struc­tu­res hap­pe­ned
to de­ve­lop in dif­fe­rent groups. In ot­her words: in the eva­lu­a­tion of on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ties, con­trol­led
ex­pe­ri­ments are not pos­sib­le due to the lack of ap­prop­ria­te con­trol groups. But how might the ef­fect
of an on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty’s de­ve­lop­ment be eva­lu­a­ted? How can chan­ges fol­lo­wing a mo­di­fi­ca­tion
be asc­ri­bed pre­ci­se­ly to that mo­di­fi­ca­tion?
Be­si­des the the­o­re­ti­cal pro­blems of for­ming ade­qu­a­te con­trol groups, the­re are al­so prac­ti­cal
con­si­de­ra­tions (for de­tails see Schim­ke et al., 2009b). The for­ma­tion of an ef­fi­cient on­li­ne com­mu­
ni­ty is ve­ry ex­pen­si­ve (e.g., de­sign and im­ple­men­ta­tion of the plat­form, pa­y­ment of staff, main­te­
nan­ce). If re­se­arch is pos­sib­le at all, then usu­al­ly one of three ca­ses ap­plies (Schim­ke, 2010, fort­
hco­ming). First, re­se­arch funds may fa­ci­li­ta­te the cre­a­tion of an on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty for ex­pe­ri­men­tal
pur­po­ses (this was the ca­se, for exam­ple, with CyberMentor); but on­ly in ra­re ca­ses is the cre­a­tion
of a con­trol group pos­sib­le. In fact, on­ly one out of the do­zens of stu­dies exa­mi­ning the in­tro­duc­tion
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

158
of vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ols was ab­le to cre­a­te a con­trol group (Far­zan et al., 2008). Se­cond, re­se­ar­chers
may be al­lo­wed to con­duct in­ves­ti­ga­tions in an exis­ting on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty. Ge­ne­ral­ly, ho­we­ver, in
the­se ca­ses per­mis­sion will not be gi­ven to con­duct ex­pe­ri­men­tal ma­ni­pu­la­tions, and, when this is
pos­sib­le, the cre­a­tion of con­trol groups is usu­al­ly not fe­a­sib­le. Third, spon­sors may be found for
set­ting up on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ties for cer­tain pur­po­ses – but not for the pur­po­se of re­se­arch. This is true
for the e-men­to­ring com­mu­ni­ty in which our re­se­arch pro­ject, desc­ri­bed be­low, is set. Fi­nan­cial sup­
port was pro­vi­ded for the so­le pur­po­se of pro­mo­ting girls’ in­te­rests in STEM (Scien­ce, Tech­no­lo­gy,
En­gi­ne­e­ring, and Mat­he­ma­tics) and upon the con­di­tion that all girls shall re­cei­ve op­ti­mal tre­at­ment.
From the per­spec­ti­ve of the ex­ter­nal spon­sors, es­tab­lis­hing a con­trol group would me­an kno­win­gly
sub­jec­ting so­me par­ti­ci­pants to con­di­tions that the re­se­ar­chers con­si­de­red less than ide­al. Hen­ce,
the cre­a­tion of a con­trol group was not pos­sib­le.
In sum­ma­ry, from a the­o­re­ti­cal per­spec­ti­ve the main dif­fi­cul­ty in the eva­lu­a­tion of mo­di­fi­ca­
tions to edu­ca­tio­nal set­tings re­sults from the fact that such set­tings ha­ve an in­trin­sic cha­rac­ter of
uni­qu­e­ness. This would ex­clu­de clas­sic ex­pe­ri­men­tal de­sign, which re­qui­res the ran­dom al­lo­ca­tion
of sub­jects to cer­tain con­di­tions. Even qu­a­si-ex­pe­ri­men­tal de­signs, whe­re the­re is no ran­dom al­lo­
ca­tion of re­se­arch par­ti­ci­pants to con­di­tions, are dif­fi­cult to re­a­li­ze. The uni­que cha­rac­ter of the
tre­at­ment con­di­tion in­hi­bits the cre­a­tion of a com­ple­te­ly pa­ral­lel con­trol group. The­se es­sen­tial­ly
the­o­re­ti­cal pro­blems are com­poun­ded by va­rio­us prac­ti­cal dif­fi­cul­ties. Thus, the ty­pi­cal ca­se, which
is cle­ar­ly do­mi­nant, is that the­re are no con­trol groups at all.

ENDIT: a Pro­po­sed Prac­ti­cal So­lu­tion

Both the the­o­re­ti­cal and the prac­ti­cal pro­blems of eva­lu­a­ting mo­di­fi­ca­tions in edu­ca­tio­nal set­
tings re­qui­re the de­ve­lop­ment of re­a­lis­tic eva­lu­a­tion stan­dards. Such stan­dards must al­low a re­a­so­
nab­le com­bi­na­tion of what is pos­sib­le in prac­ti­ce with what is ne­ces­sa­ry in the­o­ry. We sug­gest a
pro­ce­du­re com­pri­sing fi­ve com­po­nents and for­ming the ac­ro­nym ENDIT from the ini­tial let­ter of
each com­po­nent:
• Ef­fect es­tab­lis­hment
• No­vel­ty ef­fect
• Disc­ri­mi­nant va­li­da­tion
• Im­pli­cit con­trol group
• Ti­me-de­la­y­ed con­trol group.
We would li­ke to il­lust­ra­te the­se fi­ve com­po­nents using the exam­ple of an in­ves­ti­ga­tion wit­hin
the con­text of CyberMentor. Se­ve­ral months af­ter the be­gin­ning of the men­to­ring pro­gram, a vi­su­a­
li­za­tion to­ol was in­tro­du­ced in­to the com­mu­ni­ty plat­form. It il­lust­ra­tes both the in­di­vi­du­al and the
ave­ra­ge par­ti­ci­pa­tion be­ha­vior of the pro­gram par­ti­ci­pants. It was ho­ped that its use would ma­ke
the com­mu­ni­ty mo­re at­trac­ti­ve for its mem­bers, re­sul­ting in hig­her ra­tes of par­ti­ci­pa­tion and en­ga­
ge­ment (see be­low).
Ef­fect es­tab­lis­hment: The most ba­sic re­qui­re­ment for the pro­of of the ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of a mo­di­fi­
ca­tion – in our ca­se the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol – is that the ex­pec­ted out­co­me should
ap­pe­ar, to a cer­tain ex­tent, af­ter its in­tro­duc­tion. Conc­re­te­ly, for exam­ple, one should ob­ser­ve a gre­
a­ter in­ci­den­ce of par­ti­ci­pa­tion and/or lon­ger ti­mes of en­ga­ge­ment.
No­vel­ty ef­fect: A no­vel­ty ef­fect ty­pi­cal­ly oc­curs, not sur­pri­sin­gly, when so­met­hing new is in­
tro­du­ced. In on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ties such mo­di­fi­ca­tions could, for ins­tan­ce, be the pre­sen­ta­tion of new
con­tent or the an­noun­ce­ment of an in­no­va­tion. On­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty users ac­cor­din­gly show an inc­re­
a­sed de­gree of in­te­rest, and their par­ti­ci­pa­tion le­vel ri­ses. For exam­ple, Sun and Vas­si­le­va (2006, p.
10) wri­te: ‘The no­vel­ty ef­fect is well known in the area of Hu­man-Com­pu­ter In­te­rac­tion and may
ac­count for the ini­tial in­te­rest in the stu­dents to use the sys­tem with the new in­ter­fa­ce.’ The pos­si­
bi­li­ty of as­ses­sing such a no­vel­ty ef­fect lies in a com­pa­ri­son of chan­ges af­ter the mo­di­fi­ca­tion with
chan­ges af­ter ot­her mo­di­fi­ca­tions. Should the ef­fect af­ter the exa­mi­ned in­no­va­tion turn out to be
Albert ZIEGLER, Diana SCHIMKE, Heidrun STOEGER, Peter MERROTSY. Standards for Field Evaluations of Modi-
fications to Educational Settings PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
much big­ger than it ty­pi­cal­ly is af­ter ot­her in­no­va­tions, then a ge­nui­ne in­flu­en­ce of the mo­di­fi­ca­tion 159
is in­di­ca­ted.
Disc­ri­mi­nant va­li­da­tion: In or­der to ex­clu­de the pos­si­bi­li­ty that the ef­fect of a mo­di­fi­ca­tion
af­ter an in­no­va­tion could sim­ply be asc­ri­bed to the no­vel­ty ef­fect it­self, the pre­ce­ding two steps are
not suf­fi­cient. For this re­a­son, a disc­ri­mi­nant va­li­da­tion has to be al­so car­ried out. Such a va­li­da­tion
is ba­sed on the idea that in­no­va­tions are lin­ked to spe­ci­fic ex­pec­ta­tions. In our ini­tial exam­ple the
in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol is ex­pec­ted to re­sult in an inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­pa­tion be­ha­vior.
At the sa­me ti­me it is ex­pec­ted that the­re would be no ef­fect on ot­her va­riab­les, such as the in­te­rest
in STEM or self-ef­fi­ca­cy to­wards STEM. The mo­di­fi­ca­tion to be eva­lu­a­ted should ha­ve a spe­ci­fic
ef­fect, ot­her­wi­se chan­ges me­a­su­red in the eva­lu­a­tion could be the re­sult of so­me in­no­va­tion ha­ving
an un­dif­fe­ren­tia­ted ef­fect. A disc­ri­mi­nant va­li­da­tion thus re­qui­res the oc­cur­ren­ce of ne­ga­ti­ve pre­dic­
tions. In our exam­ple, the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol do­es not re­sult in any ef­fects ot­her
than a chan­ge in par­ti­ci­pa­tion.
Im­pli­cit con­trol group: As al­re­a­dy men­tio­ned, con­trol groups in the sen­se of the clas­sic ex­pe­ri­
ment are of­ten not pos­sib­le. Ne­vert­he­less, it is pos­sib­le to spe­ci­fy groups for ap­prop­ria­te com­pa­ri­
sons in­di­rec­tly. The­se are then ab­le to ful­fill a si­mi­lar func­tion as con­trol groups. For this pur­po­se,
one ta­kes ad­van­ta­ge of the fact that the par­ti­ci­pants use the new fe­a­tu­re in dif­fe­rent wa­ys and to
dif­fe­rent ex­tents. For ins­tan­ce, in our pro­ject so­me on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers used the vi­su­a­li­za­
tion to­ol mo­re of­ten than ot­hers. The­re­fo­re, this is an in­di­ca­tion of stron­ger par­ti­ci­pa­tion be­ha­vior
by so­me on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers com­pa­red with ot­hers.
Ti­me de­la­y­ed con­trol group: Alt­hough it is of­ten not pos­sib­le to cre­a­te a con­trol group at the
sa­me ti­me, in ma­ny ca­ses one can re­pe­at the in­ves­ti­ga­tion with a new co­hort. This is a well-known
stra­te­gy for te­achers who, over ma­ny years, test, im­pro­ve and re­fi­ne a pe­da­go­gi­cal ap­pro­ach for im­
par­ting con­tent to their stu­dents. This ap­plies to on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ties as well. For exam­ple, each year
a new men­to­ring se­a­son starts and a new group of fe­ma­le stu­dents en­ters the pro­gram.
Of cour­se, the fi­ve com­po­nents of the ENDIT met­hod do not re­pla­ce clas­si­cal ex­pe­ri­men­tal de­
sign with ran­do­mi­zed al­lo­ca­tion of tre­at­ment and con­trol groups along with the con­trol of va­riab­les.
Ho­we­ver, ta­ken as a ho­lis­tic mo­del, the in­for­ma­ti­ve va­lue of the fi­ve ENDIT com­po­nents is sub­stan­
tial. If re­sults are trian­gu­la­ted ac­ross the com­po­nents, then the­re is eit­her strong evi­den­ce that the
new fe­a­tu­re is ef­fec­ti­ve or that the out­co­mes should rat­her be asc­ri­bed to no­vel­ty ef­fects or ot­her
va­riab­les. In the fol­lo­wing sec­tion, we will de­monst­ra­te the use­ful­ness of the ENDIT mo­del on the
exam­ple used so far, the in­tro­duc­tion of a vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol to the on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty CyberMentor
pro­gram.

An Ap­pli­ca­tion of ENDIT

In this sec­tion, the use­ful­ness of ENDIT when eva­lu­a­ting the in­tro­duc­tion of a vi­su­a­li­za­tion
to­ol will be de­monst­ra­ted. The vi­su­a­li­za­tion ser­ved to il­lust­ra­te the ac­ti­vi­ties of the mem­bers of the
on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty. First we will desc­ri­be the to­ol and the un­der­ly­ing the­o­ry then we will out­li­ne the
met­hod used in the eva­lu­a­tion stu­dy and re­port on its re­sults.

The Vi­su­a­li­za­tion To­ol CyberCircle

The vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol pro­vi­des fe­ed­back about one’s own and ot­hers’ par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­tes wit­hin
the plat­form. Ac­cor­ding to her par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­te (plat­form vi­sits, dis­cus­sion-bo­ard posts, per­so­nal
mes­sa­ges, and chat posts), each mem­ber is pla­ced in one of the fol­lo­wing user groups: Be­gin­ner,
Ama­teur, VIP, Pro, and Top CyberMentee. The vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol is de­sig­ned as a circ­le and com­po­
sed of fi­ve con­cen­tric rings (see Fi­gu­re 1). The ou­ter ring rep­re­sents the Be­gin­ner CyberMentees.
The in­ner ring rep­re­sents the Top CyberMentees. Each mem­ber can iden­ti­fy her own sta­tus from the
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

160
po­si­tion of her per­so­nal icon or pro­fi­le pic­tu­re on the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol. A group icon on the vi­su­a­li­
za­tion to­ol in­di­ca­tes the group’s sta­tus.
The vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol ne­eds to pro­vi­de a clas­si­fi­ca­tion of all com­mu­ni­ty-mem­bers (N = 231)
by as­sig­ning each one to one sta­tus group. For ins­tan­ce, at the be­gin­ning of a pro­gram, all mem­bers
start as Be­gin­ner. As the­re is no li­mit to the ma­xi­mum num­ber of per­sons per sta­tus group, it was de­
ci­ded to rep­re­sent users as spots pla­ced in the ring that cor­res­ponds to their user-group. If you click
on the cor­res­pon­ding ring (e.g., Be­gin­ner), the­re ap­pe­ar as ma­ny user points in the ring as users
are asc­ri­bed to that sta­tus (see Fi­gu­re 1). In or­der to es­tab­lish a con­nec­tion bet­we­en the user points
and the ac­tu­al mem­bers, the users’ cor­res­pon­ding icons or mi­nia­tu­re pro­fi­le pic­tu­res are ar­ran­ged
around the circ­le. It was felt to be im­por­tant that each mi­nia­tu­re pic­tu­re be ‘clic­kab­le’ in or­der to
en­lar­ge the pic­tu­re of the per­son.

Fi­gu­re 1. So­cial Vi­su­a­li­za­tion To­ol CyberCircle.

Desc­rip­tion of the The­o­re­ti­cal Bac­kground for the In­tro­duc­tion of the Vi­su­a­li­


za­tion To­ol

Vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ols can be used in or­der to vi­su­a­li­ze ac­ti­vi­ties in an on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty. This is
con­si­de­red to be one pos­sib­le way of inc­re­a­sing par­ti­ci­pa­tion.
In the ti­mes of the Web 2.0, the­re are ra­re­ly ano­ny­mous com­mu­ni­ties wit­hout so­cial in­di­ca­tors
such as pro­fi­le pa­ges with pic­tu­res or per­so­nal mes­sa­ges. The fo­cus of such pro­fi­le pa­ges is on of­
fe­ring in­for­ma­tion about in­di­vi­du­als and es­tab­lis­hing con­tact among mem­bers. Ho­we­ver, in­ter­per­
so­nal dif­fe­ren­ces be­co­me ap­pa­rent through in­te­rac­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­tion with ot­her com­mu­ni­ty
mem­bers; thus, the ini­tial­ly high so­cial iden­ti­ty, as it ty­pi­cal­ly oc­curs in ano­ny­mous com­mu­ni­ties,
dec­re­a­ses (Po­stmes, Has­lam, & Swa­ab, 2005). In con­trast, per­so­nal iden­ti­ty or rat­her in­ter-per­so­nal
con­tact gains im­por­tan­ce.
Ren, Kraut, and Kies­ler (2007) al­so as­su­me such an iden­ti­ty pro­cess. They ar­gue that on­li­ne
com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers get to know each ot­her bet­ter through so­cial in­te­rac­tion, e.g., by me­ans of
per­so­nal mes­sa­ges, and hen­ce re­la­tions­hips bet­we­en the mem­bers de­ve­lop. The op­por­tu­ni­ties for
Albert ZIEGLER, Diana SCHIMKE, Heidrun STOEGER, Peter MERROTSY. Standards for Field Evaluations of Modi-
fications to Educational Settings PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
self-disc­lo­su­re and self-pre­sen­ta­tion, e.g., by me­ans of pro­fi­le pa­ges or chat posts, al­so fa­ci­li­ta­te 161
get­ting to know each ot­her. Thus the way of lo­o­king at the group shifts from the group it­self, as
iden­ti­ty-ba­sed at­tach­ment, to per­so­nal re­la­tions­hips bet­we­en in­di­vi­du­al mem­bers, i.e., bond-ba­sed
at­tach­ment. Again, ac­cor­ding to Po­stmes, Ba­ray, Has­lam, Mor­ton, and Swa­ab (2006), so­cial iden­
ti­ty can es­pe­cial­ly be inc­re­a­sed in such a si­tu­a­tion if each mem­ber can be in­di­vi­du­al­ly iden­ti­fied.
One pos­sib­le way of inc­re­a­sing the in­di­vi­du­al iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of in­di­vi­du­al mem­bers wit­hin an on­li­ne
com­mu­ni­ty and thus in­flu­en­cing their be­ha­vior is to em­ploy vi­su­a­li­za­tion, that is, ‘awa­re­ness to­ols
that show who is cur­rent­ly on­li­ne and what they are doing may help pe­op­le gain and main­tain a sen­
se of ot­hers and their ha­bits’ (Ren et al., 2007, p. 388).
The ex­tent to which the user be­ha­vior of on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers can ac­tu­al­ly be in­flu­
en­ced by vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ols, if at all, as Ren et al. (2007) pre­su­me, is exa­mi­ned in the fol­lo­wing
eva­lu­a­tion stu­dy.

Met­ho­do­lo­gy of Re­se­arch

Re­se­arch per­for­man­ce

Da­ta from 231 fe­ma­le stu­dents ha­ve be­en ana­ly­zed for this stu­dy (in or­der to il­lust­ra­te the use
of the diach­ro­nic con­trol group, anot­her group of par­ti­ci­pants is desc­ri­bed be­low). All girls who par­
ti­ci­pa­ted in the CyberMentor pro­gram vo­lun­te­e­red to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the stu­dy. The re­se­arch pe­riod of
ten months (du­ring the pe­riod from Ja­nu­a­ry to Sep­tem­ber) was di­vi­ded in­to three pha­ses: a star­ting
pha­se (months 1 and 2), a con­so­li­da­tion pha­se (month 3) and an ef­fect pha­se (months 4 and 5).
The vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol was in­teg­ra­ted in­to the com­mu­ni­ty plat­form af­ter the con­so­li­da­tion pha­
se (see Fi­gu­re 2). The de­ci­sion to in­teg­ra­te the to­ol at this point in ti­me is ba­sed on re­sults which
sta­te that sys­tem usa­ge dec­re­a­ses sig­ni­fi­cant­ly af­ter ap­pro­xi­ma­te­ly three months (Hart­wick & Bar­
ki, 1994). The com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers we­re in­for­med about the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol
via email.

Fi­gu­re 2. Pha­se di­vi­sion du­ring the re­se­arch pe­riod.


PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

162
Re­se­arch par­ti­ci­pants

The par­ti­ci­pants in the in­ves­ti­ga­tion com­pri­sed 231 fe­ma­le stu­dents par­ti­ci­pa­ting in the e-men­
to­ring com­mu­ni­ty CyberMentor. They we­re bet­we­en 12 and 19 years of age, and the ave­ra­ge age
was M = 14.92 years (SD = 1.79).
In or­der to cre­a­te im­pli­cit con­trol groups (see be­low), par­ti­ci­pants we­re clas­si­fied in one of the
three groups:
• Non-User (79 men­te­es ne­ver vi­si­ted the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol),
• Spar­se-User (78 men­te­es vi­si­ted the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol one to three ti­mes),
• User (74 men­te­es vi­si­ted the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol four or mo­re ti­mes).

Da­ta re­cor­ded and me­a­su­re­ment in­stru­ments

Par­ti­ci­pa­tion: Par­ti­ci­pa­tion in the on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty was re­cor­ded on the ba­sis of four in­di­ca­
tors:
• num­ber of plat­form vi­sits,
• num­ber of dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts
• num­ber of per­so­nal mes­sa­ges sent to ot­her com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers, and
• num­ber of chat posts.
This in­for­ma­tion was sto­red ano­ny­mous­ly in a MySQL da­ta­ba­se and could be exa­mi­ned in­di­
vi­du­al­ly. As the pha­ses to be exa­mi­ned are not equ­al in du­ra­tion (two-month star­ting pha­se; one-
month con­so­li­da­tion pha­se; two-month ef­fect pha­se), the ave­ra­ge va­lu­es for each va­riab­le ha­ve
be­en cal­cu­la­ted.
Elec­ti­ve be­ha­vior for the STEM field: The par­ti­ci­pants’ elec­ti­ve be­ha­vior for the STEM field
was re­cor­ded by me­ans of a fi­ve-item sca­le (Zieg­ler & Sto­e­ger, 2008). Re­se­arch par­ti­ci­pants sta­ted
on a six-point Li­kert sca­le how much they could ima­gi­ne:
• cho­o­sing STEM as field of stu­dy,
• ta­king up an oc­cu­pa­tion in a STEM field, and
• par­ti­ci­pa­ting in an ex­tra­cur­ri­cu­lar STEM event.
Cron­bach’s Alp­ha was sa­tis­fac­to­ry with 0.86 at the first and 0.88 at the se­cond point of me­a­su­
re­ment.
STEM-In­te­rest: The stu­dy used a six-point Li­kert sca­le adap­ted to the STEM field with six
items from Zieg­ler, Dre­sel, and Scho­ber (1998). Cron­bach’s Alp­ha was sa­tis­fac­to­ry with .85 at the
first and .90 at the se­cond point of me­a­su­re­ment.
Be­lief in one’s own abi­li­ties in the STEM field: A sca­le adap­ted to the STEM field was used to
re­cord the be­lief in one’s own abi­li­ties (Dweck, 1999; Dweck & Hen­der­son, 1988). All items had
to be as­ses­sed on a six-point sca­le. Cron­bach’s Alp­ha was sa­tis­fac­to­ry with .87 at the first and .85
at the se­cond test in­ter­val.

Re­sults of Re­se­arch

Ef­fect Es­tab­lis­hment

In this ana­ly­sis, of cour­se, on­ly the par­ti­ci­pants who ac­tu­al­ly used the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol are
con­si­de­red. It was shown that:
• the num­ber of plat­form vi­sits inc­re­a­sed sig­ni­fi­cant­ly from the con­so­li­da­tion pha­se (M = 17.15,
SD = 16.62) to the ef­fect pha­se (M = 27.82, SD = 23.07, t(73) = 4.59, p < .001);
• the num­ber of dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts inc­re­a­sed sig­ni­fi­cant­ly from the con­so­li­da­tion pha­se
(M = 2.27, SD = 3.35) to the ef­fect pha­se (M = 12.03, SD = 18.79, t(73) = 4.58, p < .001);
Albert ZIEGLER, Diana SCHIMKE, Heidrun STOEGER, Peter MERROTSY. Standards for Field Evaluations of Modi-
fications to Educational Settings PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
• the num­ber of per­so­nal mes­sa­ges inc­re­a­sed sig­ni­fi­cant­ly from the con­so­li­da­tion pha­se 163
(M = 6.93, SD = 8.34) to the ef­fect pha­se (M = 16.49, SD = 29.62, t(73) = 2.25, p < .01;
• the num­ber of chat posts inc­re­a­sed sig­ni­fi­cant­ly from the con­so­li­da­tion pha­se (M = 21.91,
SD = 71.37) to the ef­fect pha­se (M = 107.81, SD = 218.08, t(73) = 3.96, p < .001).
In sum­ma­ry, it can be sta­ted that par­ti­ci­pa­tion inc­re­a­sed af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­
za­tion to­ol to the on­li­ne plat­form. It has al­re­a­dy be­en men­tio­ned abo­ve that this alo­ne can­not be
re­gar­ded as a pro­of of ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of the mo­di­fi­ca­tion to the pro­gram.

No­vel­ty Ef­fect

The ob­jec­ti­ve of this desc­rip­ti­ve ana­ly­sis is to exa­mi­ne whet­her the inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­pa­tion
af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol can on­ly be asc­ri­bed to the no­vel­ty ef­fect. If this is
the ca­se, inc­re­a­ses in par­ti­ci­pa­tion should al­so ap­pe­ar af­ter ot­her mo­di­fi­ca­tions. Furt­her­mo­re, the
inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­pa­tion af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol should not be hig­her than the
inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­pa­tion af­ter ot­her mo­di­fi­ca­tions.
In or­der to check the no­vel­ty ef­fect, the chan­ges in the com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers’ par­ti­ci­pa­tion
be­ha­vior is exa­mi­ned af­ter pub­li­ca­tion of the in­ter­nal on­li­ne jour­nal CyberNews. Over the cour­se
of the re­se­arch pe­riod of fi­ve months, four is­su­es of the on­li­ne jour­nal we­re pub­lis­hed. The we­eks
of pub­li­ca­tion we­re we­eks 5, 10, 14, and 18, and the­se we­eks are each in­di­ca­ted by a red circ­le in
Fi­gu­re 3.
An exa­mi­na­tion of the we­ek­ly de­ve­lop­ment of plat­form vi­sits in­di­ca­tes that, af­ter new is­su­es
of the on­li­ne jour­nal ha­ve be­en pub­lis­hed wit­hin the plat­form, at the most short-term ef­fects and
per­haps no ef­fects can be ob­ser­ved. That is, if the­re we­re any ef­fects at all, they we­re of short du­ra­
tion.
Ana­lo­gous re­sults are found when ob­ser­ving the ot­her par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­tes for dis­cus­sion bo­ard
posts, per­so­nal mes­sa­ges, and chat posts. No­ne of the­se mo­di­fi­ca­tions led to an inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­pa­
tion as much or as per­ma­nent­ly as did the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol af­ter we­ek 12. This
sug­gests that the inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­pa­tion af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol can­not be
asc­ri­bed to the no­vel­ty ef­fect.

Disc­ri­mi­nant va­li­da­tion

The vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol was in­tro­du­ced in or­der to inc­re­a­se par­ti­ci­pa­tion be­ha­vior. Ne­vert­he­less,
the­re is no re­a­son to as­su­me that ot­her fac­tors such as the elec­ti­ve be­ha­vior in STEM, STEM in­te­
rest, or be­lief in one’s own abi­li­ties in the STEM field could al­so be in­flu­en­ced by the in­tro­duc­tion
of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol. In or­der to test the­se as­sump­tions, se­ve­ral t-tests we­re con­duc­ted. Ne­it­her
the elec­ti­ve be­ha­vior in STEM (t(143) = 0.12, p > .10), nor the in­te­rest in STEM (t(143) = -0.87,
p > .10), nor the be­lief in one’s own abi­li­ties in the STEM field (t(143) = 0.45, p > .10) chan­ged
sig­ni­fi­cant­ly from be­fo­re to af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol. Evi­dent­ly, the spe­ci­fic
chan­ges ex­pec­ted from the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol can be shown with res­pect to par­ti­
ci­pa­tion, but not with res­pect to any ot­her me­a­su­re.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

164

Fi­gu­re 3. We­ek­ly par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­tes (plat­form vi­sits, dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts,


per­so­nal mes­sa­ges, chat posts) over the cour­se of 20 we­eks.

Im­pli­cit con­trol group

It is as­su­med that the par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­te is de­pen­dent on the usa­ge fre­qu­en­cy of the vi­su­a­li­za­
tion to­ol. In the ca­se of Non-Users, by de­fi­ni­tion, one should not as­cer­tain any inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­
pa­tion.
Be­low, three dif­fe­rent groups of users are exa­mi­ned: Non-Users, Spar­se-Users, and Users. The
first two groups may be con­si­de­red to be con­trol groups. In or­der to check whet­her the in­tro­duc­tion
of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol has dif­fe­rent ef­fects on each group of users, ANOVAs we­re con­duc­ted,
with the group as fac­tor and the dif­fe­rent par­ti­ci­pa­tion va­riab­les in the ef­fect pha­se as de­pen­dent
va­riab­les. Sin­ce par­ti­ci­pa­tion in the earlier pha­ses (star­ting pha­se, con­so­li­da­tion pha­se) might al­so
Albert ZIEGLER, Diana SCHIMKE, Heidrun STOEGER, Peter MERROTSY. Standards for Field Evaluations of Modi-
fications to Educational Settings PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
ha­ve an in­flu­en­ce on la­ter par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­tes (ef­fect pha­se), the par­ti­ci­pa­tion va­riab­les of the first 165
two pha­ses we­re ad­ded as co­va­ria­tes.
The re­sults are dis­pla­y­ed in Fi­gu­re 4. When eva­lu­a­ting plat­form vi­sits, a cle­ar group ef­fect
(F(2,226) = 30.77, p < .001) was found. Post-hoc ana­ly­ses ve­ri­fy that on­ly the Users group sho­wed
a sig­ni­fi­cant inc­re­a­se af­ter the to­ol’s in­teg­ra­tion in­to the plat­form. The Non-Users group in fact sho­
wed a sig­ni­fi­cant dec­re­a­se.
The num­ber of dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts al­so sho­wed a sig­ni­fi­cant group ef­fect (F(2,226) = 13.20,
p < .001). Post-hoc ana­ly­ses ve­ri­fy that dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts inc­re­a­sed in the groups of Users and
Spar­se-Users. In the Non-Users group, the num­ber of dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts dec­re­a­sed sligh­tly, but
not sig­ni­fi­cant­ly, af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol.
Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, the num­ber of per­so­nal mes­sa­ges sho­wed the ex­pec­ted group ef­fect
(F(2,226) = 12.87, p < .001). Post-hoc ana­ly­ses ve­ri­fy that per­so­nal mes­sa­ges inc­re­a­sed sig­ni­fi­
cant­ly in the Users group af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol. The­re we­re no sig­ni­fi­cant
chan­ges in the ot­her two groups.
A cle­ar group ef­fect was al­so re­cor­ded con­cer­ning the num­ber of chat posts (F(2,226) = 18.03,
p < .001). Post-hoc ana­ly­ses ve­ri­fy a sig­ni­fi­cant inc­re­a­se among the Users and Spar­se-Users. The­re
we­re no sig­ni­fi­cant chan­ges in the Non-Users group.

Fi­gu­re 4. De­ve­lop­ment of the four par­ti­ci­pa­tion do­mains (plat­form vi­sits,


dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts, per­so­nal mes­sa­ges, and chat posts) of the
groups Non-Users, Spar­se-Users, and Users. Re­le­vant pha­ses:
star­ting pha­se, con­so­li­da­tion pha­se, and ef­fect pha­se.

Ti­me-de­la­y­ed con­trol group

Three years af­ter the men­to­ring pha­se in which the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol was in­tro­du­ced wit­hin the
com­mu­ni­ty plat­form, anot­her men­to­ring pha­se was star­ted. 744 girls par­ti­ci­pa­ted. They we­re al­so
bet­we­en 12 and 19 years old, and had an ave­ra­ge age (M = 14.93; SD = 2.11) com­pa­rab­le to that of
the group pre­vio­us­ly exa­mi­ned. The com­po­nents of the pro­gram, in par­ti­cu­lar the on­li­ne plat­form
(dis­cus­sion bo­ard, chat, pro­fi­le pa­ges, per­so­nal mes­sa­ges, on­li­ne ma­ga­zi­ne), we­re al­most iden­ti­cal
to tho­se of the earlier men­to­ring pha­se. The de­ci­si­ve dif­fe­ren­ce lies in the fact that the­re was no
vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol in­tro­du­ced in­to the com­mu­ni­ty plat­form in this la­ter men­to­ring pha­se. This com­
mu­ni­ty’s par­ti­ci­pants are thus su­itab­le as a de­la­y­ed con­trol group.
A com­pa­ri­son of the two groups (see Fi­gu­re 5) sho­wed ve­ry cle­ar­ly the dif­fe­ren­ces in the
par­ti­ci­pa­tion be­ha­vior af­ter the con­so­li­da­tion pha­se. First, 2x3 re­pe­a­ted me­a­su­re ana­ly­ses sho­wed
sig­ni­fi­cant main ef­fects for the plat­form vi­sits (F(2,972) = 114.16, p < .001), the dis­cus­sion bo­ard
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

166
posts (F(2,972) = 13.29, p < .001), and the per­so­nal mes­sa­ges (F(2,972) = 20.99, p < .001). That is,
par­ti­ci­pa­tion chan­ged sig­ni­fi­cant­ly over the cour­se of the three pha­ses. In the ca­se of the chat posts,
the­re was no sig­ni­fi­cant main ef­fect (F(2,972) = 1.97, p > .10). Se­cond, the 2x3 re­pe­a­ted me­a­su­res
al­so sho­wed sig­ni­fi­cant in­te­rac­tion ef­fects for the plat­form vi­sits (F(2,972) = 37.17, p < .001), the
dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts (F(2,972) = 27.73, p < .001), and the per­so­nal mes­sa­ges (F(2,972) = 17.69,
p < .001). For the chat posts we found a mar­gi­nal­ly sig­ni­fi­cant in­te­rac­tion ef­fect (F(2,972) = 2.97,
p < .10). Not on­ly did the par­ti­ci­pa­tion chan­ge over the cour­se of the stu­dy, it al­so de­ve­lo­ped dif­fe­
rent­ly in the ex­pe­ri­men­tal group com­pa­red with the ti­me-de­la­y­ed con­trol group.
T-tests did not show sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en the two groups (ex­pe­ri­men­tal and ti­me-
de­la­y­ed con­trol group), ne­it­her in the star­ting pha­se (plat­form vi­sits: t(973) = 0.05, p > .10; dis­
cus­sion bo­ard posts: t(973)= 0.26, p > .10; per­so­nal mes­sa­ges: t(973)= 0.12, p > .10; chat posts:
t(973)= -0.41, p > .10) nor in the con­so­li­da­tion pha­se (plat­form vi­sits: t(973)= 0.38, p > .10; dis­
cus­sion bo­ard posts: t(973)= -0.08, p > .10; per­so­nal mes­sa­ges: t(973)= 0.45, p > .10; chat posts:
t(973)= -0.68, p > .10). This is what one would ha­ve ex­pec­ted, sin­ce the ex­pe­ri­men­tal and the
con­trol group did not dif­fer un­til the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol was inc­lu­ded on the plat­form. In the ef­fect
pha­se (af­ter the to­ol was in­tro­du­ced in the ex­pe­ri­men­tal group, but not in the ti­me-de­la­y­ed con­trol
group), t-tests sho­wed sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ces bet­we­en the two groups (plat­form vi­sits: t(973)= 4.91,
p < .001; dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts: t(973)= 4.39, p < .001; per­so­nal mes­sa­ges: t(973)= 3.36, p < .01;
chat posts: t(973)= 3.33, p < .01). This in­di­ca­tes that the inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­pa­tion might be ba­sed on
the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol.
Whi­le the­re was no inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­pa­tion (in most ca­ses the­re was ac­tu­al­ly a sig­ni­fi­cant dec­
re­a­se) from the con­so­li­da­tion to the ef­fect pha­se in the ti­me-de­la­y­ed con­trol group (plat­form vi­sits:
t(743) = -8.83, p < .001; the dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts: t(743) = -1.83, p < .10; per­so­nal mes­sa­ges:
t(743) = -4.77, p < .001; chat posts: t(743) = -1.55, p > .10), par­ti­ci­pa­tion inc­re­a­sed sig­ni­fi­cant­ly
in the ot­her group af­ter the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol had be­en in­tro­du­ced (plat­form vi­sits: t(230) = 3.57,
p < .001; dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts: t(230) = 4.42, p < .001; per­so­nal mes­sa­ges: t(230) = 2.25, p < .05;
chat posts: t(230) = 3.82, p < .001).

Fi­gu­re 5. De­ve­lop­ment of the four par­ti­ci­pa­tion do­mains (plat­form vi­sits,


dis­cus­sion bo­ard posts, per­so­nal mes­sa­ges, and chat posts) of the
group using the plat­form with the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol and the group
using the plat­form wit­hout the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol.
Albert ZIEGLER, Diana SCHIMKE, Heidrun STOEGER, Peter MERROTSY. Standards for Field Evaluations of Modi-
fications to Educational Settings PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Dis­cus­sion 167

In this pa­per we ha­ve ad­dres­sed a pro­blem that com­mon­ly ari­ses in edu­ca­tio­nal re­se­arch: The
eva­lu­a­tion of mo­di­fi­ca­tions in uni­que edu­ca­tio­nal set­tings when the­re is no con­trol group avai­lab­le.
In such ca­ses, the main dif­fi­cul­ty lies in de­ter­mi­ning whet­her chan­ges that ap­pe­ar af­ter a spe­ci­fic
mo­di­fi­ca­tion can re­al­ly be asc­ri­bed to that mo­di­fi­ca­tion.
Es­sen­tial­ly, this is a pro­blem that has tra­di­tio­nal­ly in­vol­ved the exa­mi­na­tion of cau­sal re­la­tions.
In or­der to ful­fill the ex­pe­ri­men­tal stan­dards re­qui­red for this ap­pro­ach, one would in fact ne­ed a con­
trol group (Sha­dish, Co­ok, & Camp­bell, 2002). We ha­ve pro­po­sed the ENDIT met­hod for the met­ho­
di­cal­ly sen­si­ti­ve and vul­ne­rab­le si­tu­a­tion of not being ab­le to cre­a­te a con­trol group. This mo­del do­
es not re­pla­ce an ex­pe­ri­ment; ho­we­ver, in our opi­nion, it al­lows eva­lu­a­tions of the ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of a
mo­di­fi­ca­tion in pe­da­go­gi­cal set­tings which ap­pro­ach or ap­pro­xi­ma­te va­li­di­ty. We de­monst­ra­ted this
pro­cess by eva­lu­a­ting the in­tro­duc­tion of a vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol in­to an on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty plat­form.
This oc­cur­red with the ob­jec­ti­ve of inc­re­a­sing the par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­te of the com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers. A
hig­her par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­te is de­si­rab­le, as it in­flu­en­ces the suc­cess of the com­mu­ni­ty it­self. McKenna
and Bargh (1998) found, for exam­ple, that par­ti­ci­pa­tion in an on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty for pe­op­le with
stig­ma­ti­zed se­xu­al iden­ti­ties or po­li­ti­cal ide­o­lo­gies had po­si­ti­ve ef­fects on self-es­te­em, and that the
be­ne­fits we­re gre­a­ter for mo­re ac­ti­ve users than for less ac­ti­ve par­ti­ci­pants. Ac­ti­ve par­ti­ci­pa­tion in
on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ties al­so le­ads to lon­ger-term mem­bers­hip (But­ler, Sproull, Kies­ler, & Kraut, 2002).
This is es­pe­cial­ly im­por­tant for men­to­ring, be­cau­se em­pi­ri­cal re­sults show that the suc­cess of a men­
to­ring pro­gram is po­si­ti­ve­ly cor­re­la­ted with its du­ra­tion (Gros­sman & Rho­des, 2002).
In the first step of ENDIT, an exa­mi­na­tion of four dif­fe­rent in­di­ca­tors of par­ti­ci­pa­tion be­ha­vior
sho­wed that the par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­te do­es in fact inc­re­a­se sig­ni­fi­cant­ly af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the
vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol. Ho­we­ver, this re­sult do­es not rep­re­sent mo­re than a suf­fi­cient con­di­tion for the
ex­pec­ted ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol, as the inc­re­a­sed par­ti­ci­pa­tion ra­te could al­so be asc­
ri­bed, for exam­ple, to the no­vel­ty ef­fect (see al­so Sun & Vas­si­le­va, 2006).
In the se­cond (no­vel­ty ef­fect) and third (disc­ri­mi­nant va­li­da­tion) steps of ENDIT, it was first
shown that new fe­a­tu­res wit­hin the plat­form usu­al­ly do not le­ad to a no­vel­ty ef­fect. Hen­ce it se­ems
rat­her un­li­ke­ly that the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol could de­ve­lop such a strong ef­fect
sim­ply due to this bias. This is then sup­por­ted by the re­sults of the disc­ri­mi­nant va­li­da­tion. The
mo­di­fi­ca­tions af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol we­re spe­ci­fic and did not af­fect ot­her va­
riab­les. In par­ti­cu­lar, the­re we­re no ef­fects on the ge­ne­ral com­po­nents of the e-men­to­ring pro­gram,
that is, on the elec­ti­ve be­ha­vior in STEM, the in­te­rest in STEM, and the be­lief in one’s own abi­li­ties
in the STEM field, from the in­tro­duc­tion of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol.
In the two last steps of ENDIT we at­temp­ted to ad­dress the evi­dent lack of con­trol groups,
as dis­cus­sed abo­ve. For this pur­po­se, im­pli­cit con­trol groups we­re cre­a­ted. The­se we­re clas­si­fied
ac­cor­ding to whet­her the on­li­ne com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers we­re Users, Spar­se-Users or Non-Users (of
the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol). Dis­tinct inc­re­a­ses in par­ti­ci­pa­tion (for all four par­ti­ci­pa­tion in­di­ca­tors) we­re
found for the Users. In the ca­se of the Spar­se-Users, the­re we­re sig­ni­fi­cant inc­re­a­ses in par­ti­ci­pa­
tion in two out of four par­ti­ci­pa­tion fields. Among the Non-Users, no inc­re­a­se in par­ti­ci­pa­tion was
found; in fact, the­re we­re sig­ni­fi­cant dec­re­a­ses in so­me of the par­ti­ci­pa­tion fields.
As con­vin­cing as the­se re­sults might se­em at first, they cle­ar­ly do not re­ach the le­vel of pro­of
or the in­for­ma­ti­ve va­lue of an ex­pe­ri­ment in the clas­si­cal or scien­ti­fic sen­se of the term. In such an
ex­pe­ri­ment, par­ti­ci­pants would be al­lo­ca­ted ran­dom­ly to the three con­di­tions (Sha­dish et al., 2002).
Hart­wick and Bar­ki (1994) re­port that sys­tem usa­ge ty­pi­cal­ly dec­re­a­ses sig­ni­fi­cant­ly af­ter three
months, and, in­de­ed, this was the ca­se for the Non-Users in our stu­dy. On the ot­her hand, as shown
in the first ENDIT step, par­ti­ci­pa­tion inc­re­a­sed among the users of the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol, as we had
an­ti­ci­pa­ted. Ne­vert­he­less, it is pos­sib­le that this ab­sen­ce, among so­me mem­bers of the CyberMentor
com­mu­ni­ty, of the dec­re­a­se pre­dic­ted by Hart­wick and Bar­ki (1994), could be asc­ri­bed to spe­cial
cha­rac­te­ris­tics of this com­mu­ni­ty. In or­der to exa­mi­ne this furt­her, it was help­ful to lo­ok at a ti­me-
de­la­y­ed group. That is, in anot­her men­to­ring pha­se three years la­ter, no vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol was in­tro­
du­ced, and af­ter three months the par­ti­ci­pa­tion of this ti­me-de­la­y­ed con­trol group dec­re­a­sed furt­her.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

168
He­re it is ac­know­led­ged that the ti­me-de­la­y­ed group do­es not me­et the re­qui­re­ments of the clas­sic
ex­pe­ri­ment (Sha­dish et al., 2002), and, stric­tly spe­a­king, it is not even a pa­ral­lel con­trol group. The­
re are two re­a­sons for this. First, af­ter three years, co­hort ef­fects could ha­ve de­ve­lo­ped: that is, ty­pi­
cal 15-year-old girls from the years 2006 and 2009 could dif­fer in so­me im­por­tant as­pect. Se­cond,
the com­mu­ni­ties we­re in­de­ed com­pa­rab­le in va­rio­us as­pects, but not in all: for exam­ple, mo­re girls
par­ti­ci­pa­ted in the la­ter men­to­ring pro­gram that did not use the vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol.
In sum­ma­ry, we would li­ke to sta­te that no sin­gle ENDIT com­po­nent could pro­ve the ef­fec­ti­ve­
ness of a mo­di­fi­ca­tion to an edu­ca­tio­nal set­ting. This al­so ap­plies in the ca­se of our exam­ple used
to il­lust­ra­te the ENDIT met­hod, which was the eva­lu­a­tion of the in­cor­po­ra­tion of a vi­su­a­li­za­tion
to­ol in­to the CyberMentor com­mu­ni­ty plat­form. The re­sults for each eva­lu­a­tion step we­re in li­ne
with the as­sump­tion that the in­tro­duc­tion of a vi­su­a­li­za­tion to­ol can im­pro­ve par­ti­ci­pa­tion. Ho­we­
ver, one has to be awa­re of the fact that this is not a pro­of of ef­fec­ti­ve­ness in the sen­se of a for­mal,
scien­ti­fic ex­pe­ri­men­tal pro­of of ef­fec­ti­ve­ness. Ne­vert­he­less, one must ta­ke in­to ac­count the prac­ti­
cal con­di­tions un­der which, by ne­ces­si­ty, most stu­dies in edu­ca­tio­nal set­tings are con­duc­ted. Un­der
the­se con­di­tions the ful­fil­lment of the ENDIT com­po­nents is of­ten what co­mes clo­sest to con­trol­led
ex­pe­ri­men­tal stan­dards.

Re­fe­ren­ces

But­ler, B., Sproull, L., Kies­ler, S., & Kraut, R. (2002). Com­mu­ni­ty ef­fort in on­li­ne groups: Who do­es the
work and why? In S. Weis­band & L. At­wa­ter (Eds.), Le­a­ders­hip at a dis­tan­ce. Mah­wah, NJ: Erl­baum.
Co­ok, T. D., & Camp­bell, D. (1979). Qu­a­si-ex­pe­ri­men­ta­tion: De­sign and ana­ly­sis is­su­es for field set­
tings. Chi­ca­go: Rand-McNally.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-The­o­ries: Their Ro­le in Mo­ti­va­tion, Per­so­na­li­ty, and De­ve­lop­ment. Phi­la­delp­
hia: Ta­y­lor & Fran­cis.
Dweck, C. S., & Hen­der­son, V. L. (1988). The­o­ries of in­tel­li­gen­ce: Bac­kground and me­a­su­res. Un­pub­
lis­hed ma­nusc­ript, ma­de avai­lab­le by the aut­hors.
Far­zan, R., DiMicco, J., Brow­nholtz, B., Du­gan, C., Ge­y­er, W., & Mil­len, D. R. (2008). Re­sults from
de­plo­y­ing a par­ti­ci­pa­tion in­cen­ti­ve me­cha­nism wit­hin the en­ter­pri­se. Pa­per pre­sen­ted at the Con­fe­ren­ce
on Hu­man Fac­tors in Com­pu­ting Scien­ce. Flo­ren­ce, Ita­ly.
Gros­sman, J. B., & Rho­des, J., E. (2002). The Test of Ti­me: Pre­dic­tors and Ef­fects of Du­ra­tion in Youth
Men­to­ring Re­la­tions­hips. Ame­ri­can Jour­nal of Com­mu­ni­ty Psy­cho­lo­gy, 30(2), 199–219.
Hart­wick, J., & Bar­ki, H. (1994). Ex­plai­ning the ro­le of user par­ti­ci­pa­tion in in­for­ma­tion sys­tem use.
Ma­na­ge­ment Scien­ce, 40(4), 440–465.
Hou­se, E. R. (1978). As­sump­tions un­der­ly­ing eva­lu­a­tion mo­dels. Edu­ca­tio­nal Re­se­ar­cher, 7(3), 4–12.
Law, J. (2004). Af­ter met­hod. Mess in so­cial scien­ce. Lon­don: Rout­led­ge.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Co­ming Out in the Age of the In­ter­net: Iden­ti­ty ”De­mar­gi­
na­li­za­tion” Through Vir­tu­al Group Par­ti­ci­pa­tion. Jour­nal of Per­so­na­li­ty and So­cial Psy­cho­lo­gy, 75(3),
681–694.
Po­stmes, T., Ba­ray, G., Has­lam, S. A., Mor­ton, T., & Swa­ab, R. (2006). The dy­na­mics of per­so­nal and
so­cial iden­ti­ty for­ma­tion. In T. Po­stmes & J. Jet­ten (Eds.), In­di­vi­du­a­li­ty and the group: Ad­van­ces in so­
cial iden­ti­ty (pp. 215–236). Lon­don: Sa­ge.
Po­stmes, T., Has­lam, S. A., & Swa­ab, R. I. (2005). So­cial in­flu­en­ce in small groups: An in­te­ra­cit­ve mo­
del of so­cial iden­ti­ty for­ma­tion. Eu­ro­pe­an Re­view of So­cial Psy­cho­lo­gy, 16(1), 1–42.
Ren, Y., Kraut, R., & Kies­ler, S. (2007). Ap­ply­ing Com­mon Iden­ti­ty and Bond The­o­ry to De­sign of On­
li­ne Com­mu­ni­ties. Or­ga­ni­za­tion Stu­dies, 28(3), 377–408.
Albert ZIEGLER, Diana SCHIMKE, Heidrun STOEGER, Peter MERROTSY. Standards for Field Evaluations of Modi-
fications to Educational Settings PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Ros­si, P. H., Lip­sey, M. W., & Fre­e­man, H. E. (2004). Eva­lu­a­tion: A sys­te­ma­tic ap­pro­ach (Vol. 7). 169
Thou­sand Oaks, CA: Sa­ge.
Schim­ke, D. (2010, fort­hco­ming). Kon­zep­tion, Im­ple­men­tie­rung und Eva­lu­a­tion ei­nes Vi­su­a­li­sie­rungs­to­
ols für den Ein­satz in On­li­ne-Com­mu­ni­ties [De­sign, Im­ple­men­ta­tion, and Eva­lu­a­tion of a So­cial Vi­su­a­li­
za­tion To­ol for On­li­ne Com­mu­ni­ties]. Un­pub­lis­hed Dis­ser­ta­tion, Ulm Uni­ver­si­ty, Ulm.
Schim­ke, D., Sto­e­ger, H., & Zieg­ler, A. (2009a). Fos­te­ring Girls‘ Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion with STEM by Of­fe­ring
an On­li­ne Com­mu­ni­ty. Pa­per pre­sen­ted at the 5th Eu­ro­pe­an Sym­po­sium on Gen­der & ICT. Bre­men,
Ger­ma­ny.
Schim­ke, D., Sto­e­ger, H., & Zieg­ler, A. (2009b). Prädik­to­ren ei­ner lang­fris­ti­gen Teil­nah­me an ei­nem
E-Men­to­ring-Pro­gramm. In H. Sto­e­ger, A. Zieg­ler & D. Schim­ke (Eds.), Men­to­ring: The­o­re­tis­che Hin­
tergründe, em­pi­ris­che Be­fun­de und prak­tis­che An­wen­dun­gen. Len­ge­rich, Ger­ma­ny: Pabst.
Sha­dish, W. R., Co­ok, T. D., & Camp­bell, D. T. (2002). Ex­pe­ri­men­tal and qu­a­si-ex­pe­ri­men­tal de­signs
for ge­ne­ra­li­zed cau­sal in­fe­ren­ce. Bos­ton: Hough­ton Mif­flin.
Sun, L., & Vas­si­le­va, J. (2006). So­cial Vi­su­a­li­za­tion En­cou­ra­ging Par­ti­ci­pa­tion in On­li­ne Com­mu­ni­ties.
Pa­per pre­sen­ted at the CRIWG 2006, Me­di­na del Cam­po, Spain.
Tro­chim, W. (1986). Ad­van­ces in qu­a­si-ex­pe­ri­men­tal de­sign and ana­ly­sis. San Fran­cis­co: Jos­sey-Bass.
Zieg­ler, A., Dre­sel, M., & Scho­ber, B. (1998). Mes­sung mo­ti­va­tions­be­zo­ge­ner Schüler(in­nen)mer­kma­
le [Me­a­su­re­ment of stu­dents mo­ti­va­tion.]. Un­pub­lis­hed ma­nusc­ript, Lud­wig-Ma­xi­mi­lians-Uni­ver­sität,
Mu­nich.
Zieg­ler, A., & Sto­e­ger, H. (2008). Ef­fect of ro­le mo­dels from films on short-term ra­tings of in­tent, in­te­
rest, and self-as­ses­sment of abi­li­ty by high scho­ol youth: A stu­dy of gen­der-ste­re­o­ty­ped aca­de­mic sub­
jects. Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal Re­ports, 102(2), 509–531.

Ad­vi­ced by Vin­cen­tas La­ma­naus­kas, Uni­ver­si­ty of Šiau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia

Al­bert Zieg­ler Full Pro­fes­sor, Ulm Uni­ver­si­ty, Al­bert-Eins­tein-Al­lee 47, 89069 Ger­ma­ny.
E-mail: al­bert.zieg­ler@uni-ulm.de
Web­si­te: http://www.uni-ulm.de/

Dia­na Schim­ke Chair for Scho­ol Edu­ca­tion, Uni­ver­si­ty of Re­gens­burg, Uni­ver­si­ta­etsstr. 31, 93053 Re­
gens­burg, Ger­ma­ny.
E-mail: dia­na.schim­ke@pa­e­da­go­gik.uni­re­gens­burg.de
Web­si­te: http://www.uni-re­gens­burg.de/Uni­ver­si­ta­et/wel­co­me2.html

Heid­run Sto­e­ger Chair for Scho­ol Edu­ca­tion, Uni­ver­si­ty of Re­gens­burg, Uni­ver­si­ta­etsstr. 31, 93053 Re­
gens­burg, Ger­ma­ny.
E-mail: heid­run.sto­e­ger@pa­e­da­go­gik.uni-re­gens­burg.de
Web­si­te: http://www.uni-re­gens­burg.de/Uni­ver­si­ta­et/wel­co­me2.html

Pe­ter Mer­rot­sy Se­nior Lec­tu­rer in Gif­ted and Ta­len­ted Edu­ca­tion, Fa­cul­ty of The Pro­fes­sions, Scho­ol
of Edu­ca­tion, Uni­ver­si­ty of New En­gland, Aust­ra­lia
E-mail: pmer­rots@une.edu.au
Web­si­te: http://www.une.edu.au/staff/pmer­rots.php
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

170

Общее понятие и законы


формирования социального
заказа в области образования

Тамара А. Арташкина
Дальневосточный государственный университет, Владивосток, Россия
E-mail: tam.artand@gmail.com

Абстракт

Автор исходит из предположения, что существует определенный социальный механизм,


позволяющий транслировать требования общества в содержание образования. В основе такого
механизма лежит специальная инфраструктура, к элементам которой относятся социальный
заказ на специалиста; социальный заказ на институт образования; государственный заказ
в области высшего образования. В настоящее время термин «социальный заказ» обозначает
общественную потребность, актуальную для общества в целом или его части. При этом нельзя
смешивать социальный и государственный заказы в области образования.
Основными методами исследования являются диалектический метод, а также такие методы
теоретического познания, как историко-генетический, сравнительно-исторический и гипотетико-
дедуктивный, что позволило автору установить, сформулировать и проанализировать три
закона формирования социального заказа в сфере высшего образования. Легко обнаруживается
корреляционная зависимость между государственным и социальным заказами в области высшего
образования, проявляющаяся в наибольшей степени между государственным заказом и законами
смены содержания и смены границ социального заказа.
Ключевые слова: проблема целеполагания, социальный заказ, государственный заказ, способ
задания социального заказа, законы формирования социального заказа.

Введение

Проблема целеполагания в системе деятельности высшей школы не ставилась в явном


виде ни в философии, ни в педагогике вплоть до конца XVIII в. И даже если эта проблема все же
каким-то образом возникала, ее постановка носила латентный характер и служила средством
решения других задач, среди которых были и политические. С выделением социологии в
самостоятельную отрасль знания в середине XIX столетия проблема целеполагания в области
образования оформляется в виде функциональной модели образования.
Первая половина XIX в. может быть охарактеризована как время формирования в России
системы университетского образования. В середине XIX века, наряду с ростом потребности
в высшем образовании, в российском обществе формируется критическое к нему отношение,
Тамара А. АРТАШКИНА. Общее понятие и законы формирования социального заказа в области образования
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
и поэтому проблема целеполагания выдвигается на первый план. В XX в. данная проблема 171
выделилась в качестве самостоятельной проблемы в конце 1960–1970-х гг. Уже в наше время
отдельные аспекты целепостановки становятся предметом философского осмысления и
изучения.
При решении проблемы целеполагания в системе деятельности высшей школы мы исходим
из предположения, что существует определенный социальный механизм, обеспечивающий
целепостановку, «смягчающий» давление соответствующих вызовов времени на образование
и позволяющий транслировать их требования в содержание образования. В основе такого
механизма лежит специальная инфраструктура высшего образования, предшествующая
образовательному процессу и отвечающая за решение проблемы. К элементам такой
инфраструктуры относятся социальный заказ на специалиста; социальный заказ на институт
образования; государственный заказ в области высшего образования.
Сущность социального заказа современной высшей школе сводится к следующему:
формирование инициативной, предприимчивой, самостоятельной личности, обладающей
общекультурной компетентностью, ответственной за общезначимые ценности, открытой
для постоянного самообразования, готовой к новациям и изменениям, способной свободно
самоопределяться в культурном пространстве ценностей. Исходя из этого, и необходимо
осуществлять поиск новых форм организации научного знания, создавать новые концепции
образования и программы их практической реализации. Все это детерминирует актуальность
проведенного нами исследования.
Таким образом, объектом исследования является специальная инфраструктура высшего
образования, предшествующая образовательному процессу и отвечающая за решение
проблемы целеполагания. Предметом исследования стал один из элементов данной
инфраструктуры, каковым является социальный заказ в области образования.
Основными методами исследования служат:
• диалектический метод, обеспечивающий восхождение от конкретного к абстрактному
и позволяющий реализовать принцип историзма и диалектический принцип проти­
воречия. Именно данный метод позволил нам обнаружить инвариантные эле­менты
структуры социального заказа и проследить их генезис в историческом контексте;
• методы теоретического познания, такие, как историко-генетический, сравнительно-
исторический и гипотетико-дедуктивный. С помощью указанных методов нам удалось
установить и сформулировать законы формирования социального заказа в области
высшего образования.

Генезис понятия «социальный заказ» в отечественном


социогуманитарном познании

Термин «социальный заказ» появился в советской научной и педагогической литературе


в 70-е гг. XX в. Одной из первых его ввела в научный оборот и широко использовала Н.Ф.
Талызина. Четкого определения данное понятие тогда не имело и первоначально обозначало
некоторый класс общественных явлений, оказывающих непосредственное влияние на
организацию учебного процесса и определяющих проблематику научных исследований в
области образования. Предполагалось, что социальный заказ задает цели обучения. Именно
поэтому в 1980-е гг., особенно со второй половины этого периода, понятие «социальный
заказ» стало отождествляться с понятием «цели обучения» («цели образования»). На самом
деле цели обучения (образования) являются производными от социального заказа.
Отождествление понятий «социальный заказ» и «цели обучения» во второй половине
1980-х гг. произошло в силу принятой тогда трактовки понятия «социальный заказ».
Так, в области высшего образования социальный заказ – это определенные требования
(система требований), выдвигаемые обществом, к личности выпускников высшей школы, к
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

172
содержанию и качеству их подготовки, к самой высшей школе как социальному институту,
обеспечивающему качественную подготовку своих выпускников. Однако в этом случае
приходится разводить два понятия: социальный заказ как систему требований общества
к выпускнику учебного заведения и социальный заказ на школу (высшую или среднюю),
являющуюся социальным институтом. В соответствии с этим и в зависимости от способа
формулирования (задания) социального заказа и целей обучения либо содержание социального
заказа и целей обучения может совпадать, либо цели обучения будут являться следствием
социального заказа. В настоящее время в теоретических исследованиях и практической
деятельности в сфере образования достаточно часто наблюдаются оба варианта.
На переломе эпох, на рубеже 1980-х и 1990-х гг., в обществе родилось резко негативное
отношение непосредственно к самому термину «социальный заказ», т.к. в его имени
усматривался непосредственный носитель советской идеологии. Однако в дальнейшем
это понятие стало снова широко использоваться, и теперь уже не только в педагогических
исследованиях. А понимание того, что понятия «социальный заказ» и «цели обучения
(образования)», хоть и являются взаимосвязанными, но не являются тождественными,
и поэтому при теоретическом анализе и практической реализации требуют логического
разведения, пришло только во второй половине 1990-х гг.
Фиксация понятия в виде научного термина требует повышения степени его обобщения.
Этот процесс осуществляется за счет перехода к новой системе признаков. И таким
обобщающим признаком для понятия «социальный заказ» становится «потребность», т.е.
нужда в чем-либо необходимом для поддержания жизнедеятельности и развития человеческой
личности, социальной группы, общества в целом, являющаяся внутренним побудителем
активности. Потребности, преломляясь через социальные интересы как всего общества в
целом, так и отдельных его групп, приобретают форму социальных заказов.
Итак, социальный заказ – это общественная потребность, актуальная для общества в
целом или его части. Именно такой подход лежит в основе всех случаев и форм современного
словоупотребления указанного понятия.

Основные отличия социального заказа от государственного заказа в


области образования

Анализ всех случаев и форм современного употребления понятия «социальный заказ»


позволяет выявить две основные тенденции его репрезентации в социально-культурной
сфере.
В первом случае в некоторых нормативных документах даются дефиниции понятий
«муниципальный государственный заказ» и «государственный социальный заказ». Однако во
всех документах подобного типа эксплицируется не понятие «социальный заказ», а способы
его реализации. При этом молчаливо предполагается, что непосредственно сам социальный
заказ как общественная потребность уже сформулирован за рамками нормативного доку­
мента. Государственный социальный заказ выступает в двух основных формах: либо это
экономико-правовая форма реализации приоритетных целевых социальных программ, либо
форма государственного регулирования благотворительной деятельности. Другими словами,
государственный социальный заказ – это намерение государства финансировать из своего
бюджета социально-ориентированную деятельность организаций гражданского общества. С
этой точки зрения программы целевого бюджетного финансирования системы образования,
программы реформирования и модернизации образования, осуществляемые государством,
следует отнести к государственному социальному заказу.
Во втором случае наблюдаются ситуации, когда смешиваются два термина: «социальный
заказ» и «государственный заказ». В основе разделения этих понятий очень часто лежат
интересы общественных объединений (организаций, отдельных групп, всего общества)
Тамара А. АРТАШКИНА. Общее понятие и законы формирования социального заказа в области образования
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
и государственные интересы. Такие интересы не всегда совпадают. Поэтому в некоторых 173
случаях социальный заказ в сфере общественных отношений рассматривается как
альтернатива государственному заказу.
Что касается непосредственно самого определения понятия «государственный заказ»,
то такие дефиниции давно носят устоявшуюся форму и даже вошли в энциклопедические
издания. Анализ этих определений показывает, что все они распадаются на две
самостоятельные группы:
• определение государственного заказа как потребности государства, нужды органов
государственного управления на поставку товаров, работ или услуг;
• определение способа реализации государственного заказа, выраженное в виде
некоторых нормативных документов.
Аналогичная ситуация наблюдается и в сфере образования: существует государственный
заказ как потребность государства в некоторых образовательных услугах, производимых с
вполне определенными качественными показателями, и существуют нормативные документы,
в которых зафиксирован этот государственный заказ и определены способы его реализации.
Социальный и государственный заказы нельзя смешивать. Особенно это касается сферы
образования.
Вместе с тем все изложенное означает, во-первых, что возможна ситуация, когда
социальный и государственный заказы могут совпадать (частично или полностью); во-
вторых, формировать и формулировать требования общества в области образования
(социальный заказ) могут как отдельные личности, так и группы людей, социальные
прослойки, классы, все сообщество. История учит, что практически всегда, во все времена
прогрессивные идеи в области образования формулировались раньше государственного
заказа, опережали его, вступали с ним на определенном этапе своего развития в противоречие.
Если в формулировании социального заказа участвует все сообщество, то степень решения
проблемы и ее оптимальность непосредственно зависят от степени развития демократических
основ этого общества.
Основное отличие государственного заказа в сфере образования от социального
заключается в следующем:
• (а) государственный заказ всегда реализуется в виде нормативных документов, а
потому обязателен для исполнения;
• (б) на определенном историческом этапе своего развития государственный заказ
начинает противоречить социальному заказу;
• (в) в конечном итоге государственный заказ становится конфликтогенным.
В качестве примера, иллюстрирующего указанные особенности государственного
заказа в области образования, можно вспомнить регламентацию деятельности высших
учебных заведений в годы советской власти. Тогда требования государственного заказа были
реализованы в таких нормативных документах, как планы приема абитуриентов и выпуска
специалистов. И те, и другие планы были обязательны для исполнения.
Следует отметить еще одну особенность взаимодействия государственного и социального
заказов в сфере образования того исторического периода. Так, в конце 1980-х гг. возникла
ситуация, когда недовольство качеством высшего образования исходило из самой системы
высшего образования. В данном случае мы имеем дело отнюдь не с государственным, а с
социальным заказом в этой области. Парадокс заключается в том, что социальный заказ
выдвигался и формулировался внутри системы, качество результатов функционирования
которой следовало контролировать. При таком механизме «зарождения» и развития
социального заказа отсутствует механизм внешнего контроля не только за результатами
деятельности системы, реализующей социальный заказ, но и за содержанием такого заказа.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

174 Основные способы задания социального заказа в области высшего


образования

Для дальнейшего обсуждения следует развести социальный заказ на специалистов


и социальный заказ на школу (среднюю или высшую) как социокультурный институт,
осуществляющий их подготовку. При этом следует отделить процесс обучения специалистов
от сферы их профессиональной деятельности. Тогда структура социального заказа, независимо
от области его действия, будет определяться адекватностью средств его описания.
Если отвлечься от терминологических разночтений при анализе публикаций, выполненных
в 1960-1970-е гг. и посвященных поиску ответа на вопрос «Для чего (зачем) учить в вузе?»,
то можно усмотреть, что, в основном, обсуждались два блока проблем: профессионально-
производственные аспекты деятельности специалистов и способы описания их личности. Эти
блоки чаще всего не разграничивались, что приводило к дополнительным сложностям, когда
профессиональные и личностные качества специалистов рассматривались рядоположенно, а
потому переставали поддаваться систематизации.
Поэтому первым способом задания (структурирования) социального заказа или
вытекающих из него целей обучения следует считать предложенную Н.Ф. Талызиной в рамках
деятельностного подхода систему видов деятельности, которые должен выполнять молодой
специалист после окончания обучения в высшем учебном заведении (Талызина, 1973). Следует
специально подчеркнуть, что в данной концепции речь идет именно о социальном заказе на
специалиста. В данном контексте Н.Ф. Талызина не разводила понятия «социальный заказ» и
«модель специалиста». Как известно, «модель специалиста» является следствием социального
заказа на подготавливаемого в вузе специалиста, получается в результате теоретических
исследований, и поэтому служит одним из способов целепостановки. Принятая в концепции
Н.Ф. Талызиной структура социального заказа переносилась и на систему целей обучения
(образования).
В соответствии со своей концепцией, Н. Ф. Талызина утверждала, что при разра­
ботке модели специалиста необходимо учитывать три иерархически связанных вида
деятельности:
• виды деятельности, обусловленные научно-техническим прогрессом;
• виды деятельности, обусловленные особенностями общественно-политического строя
нашей страны;
• виды деятельности, определяемые требованиями соответствующей профессии,
специальности.
Позднее она же предложила, как она считала, более адекватный язык описания этих
видов деятельности – язык профессиональных задач (см.: Талызина и др., 1987, с. 9). Тогда,
в соответствии с описанной концепцией, такие задачи распределяются следующим образом
по трем иерархическим уровням:
• I – задачи, обусловленные особенностями научно-технического прогресса;
• II – задачи, обусловленные особенностями общественного строя страны;
• III – чисто профессиональные задачи.
В конце 1980-х гг. появился второй, способ задания (структурирования) социального
заказа. 18 февраля 1988 г. завершил свою работу Пленум Центрального Комитета КПСС, на
котором были сформулированы две концепции: непрерывного образования и социальный
заказ на подготавливаемого специалиста (Материалы Пленума, 1988). В формулировке
социального заказа, предложенного Пленумом, наличествовали три равнозначных
составляющих: сочетание высокого профессионализма с классовым и общечеловеческим
началами. В свою очередь, классовое требование к школе, в том числе и высшей, опиралось
на два параметра: идейно-нравственное и политическое воспитание. Третья составляющая
означала повышение требований к общей культуре выпускников учебных заведений. В такой
редакции социальный заказ формулировался впервые. Его отличительной особенностью
Тамара А. АРТАШКИНА. Общее понятие и законы формирования социального заказа в области образования
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
является то, что в материалах Пленума нет разграничения на высшую и среднюю школы, 175
место и задачи которых в структуре общественных отношений различны. В данном случае
речь действительно идет о социальном заказе, а не государственном (и тем более – не
«партийном»!). До февральского 1988 г. Пленума ЦК КПСС в партийных документах
формулировался не социальный, а государственный заказ в области образования, поскольку
постановления Пленумов служили нормативными документами и были обязательны для
исполнения.
Данный способ структурирования социального заказа оказался в дальнейшем
теоретически не проработанным и из-за развала Советского Союза и стремительного
перехода страны к новым социально-политическим условиям, и из-за резкого понижения в
обществе авторитета Коммунистической партии.
Повышение требований к уровню общекультурной подготовки выпускников учебных
заведений, широкое обсуждение экологических проблем привели, в конечном итоге, к
необходимости введения оценочного компонента в структуру социального заказа на личность
выпускника учебного заведения. Так появляется третий способ задания (структурирования)
социального заказа.
В первой половине 1990-х гг. становится ясно, что социальный заказ в области
образования должен включать три компонента:
• познавательно-интеллектуальный,
• действенно-практический,
• оценочный.
Структура оценочного компонента достаточно сложна:
• профессионально-оценочная часть осуществляет выбор средств деятельности и их
оценку, экстраполирует в будущее последствия этой деятельности;
• нравственно-оценочная часть оценивает последствия практической деятельности
людей и меру их ответственности за себя перед другими.
Нравственная оценка осуществляется во всех сферах жизнедеятельности человека.
Легко видеть, что все три способа структурирования социального заказа на специалиста
выполнены по разным основаниям. Однако в их формулировке легко отделяется
профессионально-обучаемая часть социального заказа на специалиста от «образовательной»,
личностно-значимой. Другими словами, в социальный заказ входят требования общества
и к профессиональным качествам специалиста, и требования к его личности. Причем в
разных способах задания социального заказа такие требования, во-первых, соотносимы
с определенным временным интервалом, во-вторых, являются различными не только
содержание требований общества, но и степень их важности для самого общества в
конкретный исторический момент.
В начале 1990-х гг. в качестве средств, считавшихся адекватными социальному заказу
на школу или, шире, на образование в целом, рассматривалась концепция образования.
Необходимость ее разработки научная и педагогическая общественность страны в те
годы в первую очередь связывала с кардинальным пересмотром точки зрения на роль
и место образования в общей системе социальных и культурных институтов. Однако так
ожидаемая в начале 1990-х гг. концепция образования появилась лишь спустя десять лет
в виде «Национальной доктрины образования в Российской Федерации» (доступно из
URL: http://www.uroki.ru/met_rus/k_upravobraz/k_normdok/doktrina.htm). Проект Доктрины
был в основном одобрен Правительством России 17 февраля 2000 г., но затем подвергся
качественной переработке по ряду основных параметров на основе правительственной
программы реформирования образования. Все это говорит о том, что так долго ожидаемая
Доктрина образования в Российской Федерации из социального заказа превратилась в форму
реализации государственного заказа.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

176 Особенности оценочного компонента в структуре социального заказа в


области образования в современную эпоху

Достижения современной цивилизации создают огромные возможности для развития


человечества. Но они же могут вызвать и кризисные последствия, как в глобальном,
так и в локальном масштабах. Изменение социальной роли науки, соединение науки с
производством, превращение науки в производительную силу общества, его технизация,
соединение науки с властью с необходимостью детерминируют усиление юридической,
социальной, профессиональной и моральной ответственности, связанной с различными
областями общественной деятельности. Различные аспекты произошедших изменений
нашли свое отражение в таких областях, как правовая ответственность, социальное сознание
ученых, профессиональная этика инженеров.
В 1980-е гг. в отечественной публицистике и научных публикациях по социальным
проблемам получил распространение термин «человеческий фактор», имеющий значение,
аналогичное или очень близкое к значению понятия «ответственность». Однако проблема
ответственности должна выйти за пределы только естественнонаучной отрасли знания или
инженерной деятельности и должна охватывать всю сферу человеческой деятельности,
включая гуманитарную область, сферу культуры в традиционном ее понимании и обыденное
сознание. В современном обществе любые действия людей должны сопровождаться оценкой
последствий принимаемых решений с последующей корректировкой этих действий.
Требования современного общества к профессиональной деятельности необходимых
ему специалистов не сводятся к простому набору операций, обеспечивающих ее выполнение.
Такие требования – это, прежде всего, требования к профессиональному мировоззрению,
формируемому не только в процессе обучения. В свою очередь, процесс формирования
мировоззрения крайне сложен. Он прохо­дит под воздействием множества факторов. Это и
семья, и обычаи, и общение с разными людьми, и соприкосновение с природой и с искусст­
вом. Именно данный процесс формирует систему отношений человека, учит человека жить
в мире людей.
Демифологизация понятия свободы, неизбежно выводящая на передний план понятие
ответственности, соединяется с требованием открытого изложения всех видимых ограничений
и сфер неопределенности при принятии существенных решений. Это требование отражается
и на структуре социального заказа в области образования.

Факторы, детерминирующие действие законов формирования


социального заказа в области высшего образования

Будучи общественной потребностью, социальный заказ в области образования


выдвигается с целью объяснения определенных социальных процессов, непосредственно
связанных с развитием образования, или для прогнозирования направлений развития системы
образования. Поэтому предсказательная и объяснительная сила социального заказа должна
быть выражена в законах его формирования. До тех пор, пока они останутся неизвестными, в
какой бы форме ни формулировался социальный заказ, он всегда будет содержать значительные
условия неопределенности, приводящие, в конечном счете, к быстрой его сменяемости.
Проследим всю историческую цепочку, позволившую сформировать основные
представления о способах структурирования социального заказа в области образования.
Тогда обнаруживается следующее:
• первоначально в советской педагогике высшей школы шло обсуждение профе­
ссионально-производственных аспектов деятельности специалистов и способов
описания их личности (конец 1960-х – начало 1970-х гг.);
• затем формируется понимание необходимости создания «модели деятельности
Тамара А. АРТАШКИНА. Общее понятие и законы формирования социального заказа в области образования
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
специалиста», включающей систему профессиональных задач и систему требований 177
к психологическим и психофизиологическим качествам специалистов (1970-е – 1980-
е гг.);
• в конце 1980-х гг. стремительно набирают силу тенденции, выдвигающие на первое
место нравственно-оценочные показатели социального заказа на подготавливаемых в
вузе специалистов;
• начиная со второй половины 1990-х гг. вновь обсуждаются профессиональные качества
специалистов, делаются попытки выделения таких их качеств, которые бы наиболее
адекватно удовлетворяли современным социально-политическим и социально-
экономическим условиям развития страны.
Другими словами, проделанный анализ показывает:
1. В различные отрезки времени, которые могут и сокращаться, и увеличиваться,
общество, социум предъявляют определенные требования и к личности, и к
профессиональным качествам специалистов. Однако, как можно заметить, усиление
таких требований (центр тяжести) периодически смещается от повышения требований
к личности специалистов к повышению требований к их профессиональным качествам,
и наоборот.
2. Процесс выдвижения этих требований динамичен, сложен, зависит от многих
факторов, среди которых не последнее место занимают социально-политические. Это
означает, что такой процесс требует самостоятельного изучения.
3. Обнаруженная тенденция четко укладывается в рамки диалектического закона
отрицания отрицания.
4. Если расширить временные рамки до границ первой половины XX века, то эта
тенденция начинает приобретать признаки закономерной зависимости.
В простейших случаях закон представляет обобщение эмпирически наблюдаемых
фактов, и поэтому может быть получен индуктивным путем. В более сложных случаях
теоретические законы возникают, как правило, из гипотез. При сопоставлении законов
с фактами первой особенностью законов, чаще всего бросающейся в глаза, является их
общность, или универсальность, в каком-либо отношении. В то время как факты являются
единичными утверждениями об отдельных вещах и их свойствах, законы характеризуют
устойчивые, повторяющиеся, общие отношения между вещами и их свойствами.

Законы формирования социального заказа в области высшего


образования

Описанная тенденция обладает всеми признаками закона. Она является существенной


и необходимой, в ее проявлении наблюдаются повторяемость и устойчивость. Таким
образом, мы имеем дело с законом, который назовем законом перемены центра тяжести
в структуре социального заказа. Этот закон гласит: в определенные интервалы времени
общество предъявляет повышенные требования либо к профессиональной подготовке
специалистов, либо к их личности.
Данный закон позволяет обнаружить некий социальный механизм, обладающий
следующими характеристиками:
• данный закон дает лишь некоторое представление о механизме формирования
социального заказа в сфере образования;
• закон реализует функцию понимания в научном познании;
• закон не позволяет ответить на вопрос, почему происходит описанная в нем смена
требований общества к выпускаемому вузами специалисту и от чего она зависит;
• закон не содержит сведений о причинно-следственной зависимости явлений.
Выбор временного промежутка для анализа данного закона обусловлен не только тем,
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

178
что именно тогда был непосредственно введен в научный оборот термин «социальный заказ»,
но также и тем, что в обществе начали действовать те социокультурных явления, которые
затем приняли глобальный характер и изменили социальную роль науки. Эти же тенденции
стали оказывать непосредственное влияние на систему образования в целом. Таким образом,
действие данного закона является объективно обусловленным.
Но вместе с тем наличие закона перемены центра тяжести в структуре социального
заказа порождает новые вопросы, связанные с действием самого социального заказа:
• с какого момента в обществе начинает действовать новый социальный заказ?
• как социальный заказ действует дальше?
• когда и чем заканчивается его действие?
Как гласит сформулированный закон, в социуме постоянно присутствует потребность
в специалистах, обладающих не только профессиональной квалификацией определенного
уровня, но и определенными личностными характеристиками.
Проблема формирования личности – одна из самых сложных в современном социально-
гуманитарном познании. Постоянно возникающие дискуссии по данной проблеме лишний раз
подтверждают это. При формулировке законов формирования социального заказа в области
образования приходится учитывать категориальную принадлежность понятия «личность»,
и в этой связи ставить определенные ограничения на систему значений, принимаемых этим
понятием. Поэтому в дальнейшем будем различать термин «личность», употребляемый в
широком или узком значении. В широком значении «личность» – это сам человек, включенный
в социальные связи. При этом любой человек как социальное существо обладает личностными
характеристиками («личность» в узком значении) и профессиональными качествами. В
формулируемых нами законах формирования социального заказа речь идет именно о таких
личностных характеристиках (которые в литературе часто называются словом «личность») и
профессиональных качествах выпускников вузов.
Проблема формирования личности служит своего рода «программой», позволяющей
социуму перейти к новому его состоянию.
Проследим, каким образом этапы исторического пути советского государства во второй
половине XX столетия связаны с формированием социального заказа в области высшего
образования. Так, в 1960-е – начале 1970-х гг. XX столетия в стране наблюдается либерализация
духовной жизни, и примерно в эти же годы в педагогической литературе впервые появляется
термин «социальный заказ» и начинают активно обсуждаться требования общества,
предъявляемые к выпускаемым вузами специалистам. Именно в эти годы основной акцент
делается на структуре личности специалистов. В 1970-1980-е гг. происходит свертывание
экономических реформ. И в это же время у педагогической общественности формируется
понимание необходимости создания «модели деятельности специалиста», включающей
систему профессиональных задач и позволяющей усилить профессиональную подготовку
специалистов. Вторая половина 1980-х – начало 1990-х гг. – годы «перестройки». Начался
процесс социальных изменений. И в это же время стремительно набирают силу тенденции,
выдвигающие на первое место нравственно-оценочные показатели социального заказа на
подготавливаемых в вузах специалистов. 1990-е гг. – становление нового общественно-
политического и социально-экономического строя. И примерно с начала третьей четверти 1990-
х гг. (1997-1998 гг.) усиливаются тенденции, приводящие к необходимости выделения таких
профессиональных качеств специалистов, которые бы наиболее адекватно удовлетворяли
современным социально-политическим и социально-экономическим условиям развития
страны Если рецензент настаивает, то здесь необходима не ссылка на литературу, а подробный
анализ социально-экономического положения в стране и подробный анализ педагогической
литературы. Это мною также выполнялось и в указанной монографии, и в многочисленных
статьях. Поэтому сформулировала вывод, обоснованный мною в других моих работах.
Кроме совпадения во времени, при таком сравнении социального заказа в сфере
образования и исторических этапов развития государства обнаруживается еще одна
Тамара А. АРТАШКИНА. Общее понятие и законы формирования социального заказа в области образования
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
особенность. Эта особенность заключается в том, что повышение требований общества к 179
личности специалистов совпадает с теми историческими промежутками, когда в обществе
наблюдается либо либерализация духовной жизни, либо усиливаются социальные конфликты,
наступают определенные социальные изменения (не обязательно заканчивающиеся
революционными потрясениями).
Например, новые социально-политические и социально-экономические условия 1990-
х гг. порождают потребность в новом «массовом человеке», что находит свое выражение в
социальном заказе в сфере образования. Обществу понадобился «хозяйствующий человек»,
а не «человек экономический». Принципиальная разница между ними определяется
ценностными приоритетами, на которые они ориентируются. «Экономический человек»
по своей сути прагматичен и эгоистичен, его целью является рентабельное дело, поэтому
все, что выходит за рамки рыночных отношений, он выводит за пределы своих базовых
поведенческих ориентаций (см.: Зарубина, 2004, с. 173), а потому его должен сменить
«человек хозяйствующий»
Таким образом, имеет место еще один закон формирования социального заказа,
который назовем законом смены содержания социального заказа: в периоды социальных
конфликтов или социальных изменений (бифуркаций) в обществе повышаются
требования к личности, в периоды поступательного развития общества повышаются
требования к профессиональной подготовке специалистов.
Термин «бифуркация» в данном случае употребляется для обозначения ситуаций,
связанных с появлением кризиса в социальной системе, после которого возможно ее
развитие в различ­ных направлениях. Становится понятным, почему повышение требований
общества к личности специалистов совпадает с теми историческими промежутками, когда
в самом обществе наступают определенные социальные изменения. Появление процессов
либерализации или социальной напряженности любой степени интенсивности приводят к
появлению возможности вариативности в социальном развитии, что является признаком
бифуркации. Такие изменения социума не могут не отразиться на содержании социального
заказа. Все это позволяет обнаружить новый закон, который назовем законом смены
границ социального заказа: границы смены центра тяжести в структуре социального
заказа, как правило, совпадают с границами социальных конфликтов (не обязательно
заканчивающихся революцией) или социальных изменений в обществе (границами
бифуркаций).

Заключение

И.Р. Пригожин, лауреат Нобелевской премии (1977), следующим образом комментирует


феномен бифуркации: «Литературное произведение, как правило, начинается с описания
исходной ситуации с помощью конечного числа слов, причем в этой своей части повествование
еще открыто для многочисленных различных линий развития сюжета. Эта особенность
литературного произведения как раз и придает чтению занимательность – всегда интересно,
какой из возможных вариантов развития исходной ситуации будет реализован. Так же
и в музыке – в фугах Баха, например, заданная тема всегда допускает великое множество
продолжений, из которых гениальный композитор выбирал на его взгляд необходимое. Такой
универсум художественного творчества весьма отличен от классического образа мира, но он
легко соотносим с современной физикой и космологией» (доступно из URL: http://vivovoco.
nns.ru/VV/PAPERS/NATURE/NONSTAB.HTM).

Все это позволяют понять, почему невозможно заранее спрогнозировать, в каком


направлении будут изменяться требования общества к личности.
С другой стороны, аналогичные тенденции позволяют обнаружить закономерные
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

180
особенности в государственной политике России в области образования на протяжении
всего исторического периода ее становления и развития, от петровских реформ до наших
дней. Государственная политика России в области образования подчиняется цикличному
закону перемены центра тяжести, который, однако, имеет иной, чем в законах социального
заказа, механизм проявления (Арташкина, 2006, 2008). Цикличность государственной
политики в области образования наблюдается в последовательном переходе от одного этапа
к другому в следующей последовательности: либерализация в духовной сфере – поворот к
реакции на спаде либерального или демократического движения в стране – реализация
в периоды поступательного развития общества его потребности в качественной
профессиональной подготовке необходимых ему специалистов.
Кроме того, эти же тенденции позволяют обнаружить корреляционную зависимость
между государственным и социальным заказами, проявляющуюся в наибольшей степени
между государственным заказом и законами «смены содержания социального заказа» и
«смены границ социального заказа»:
• государственный и социальный заказы в области образования, как правило, макси­
мально совпадают в периоды поступательного развития общества, когда реализуется
потребность и самого общества, и государства в качественной профессиональной
подготовке необходимых им кадров, и в период начальной фазы либерализации
духовной сферы и либерально-демократического движения (в период начала
бифуркации);
• государственный и социальный заказы в области образования, как правило,
максимально не совпадают, начинают противоречить друг другу на спаде либерально-
демократического движения в стране (в период завершения бифуркации).

Литература
Арташкина, Т. А. (2006). Генезис и структура целеполагания в системе деятельности высшей
школы. Владивосток: Изд-во Дальневост. ун-та.

Арташкина, Т. А. (2008). Социокультурные аспекты Болонского процесса. Problems of Education


in the 21st Century: Policy of Education in the Modern World, 8, 162–172.

Зарубина, Н. Н. (2004). «Экономический человек» в глобальном мире: энергия экспансии и


толерантность Москва. 11, 172–185.

Материалы Пленума Центрального Комитета КПСС, 17–18 февраля 1988 г. (1988). Москва:
Политиздат.

Национальная доктрина образования в Российской Федерации. Доступно из URL: http://www.


uroki.ru/met_rus/k_upravobraz/k_normdok/doktrina.htm [Дата обращения: 24 октября 2004 г.] –
Образовательный портал ucheba.ru.

Пригожин, И. (1991). Философия нестабильности. Вопросы философии. 6. URL: http://vivovoco.


nns.ru/VV/PAPERS/NATURE/NONSTAB.HTM [Дата обращения: 5 мая 2005 г.]

Талызина, Н. Ф. (1973). Совершенствование обучения в высшей школе. Советская педагогика.


7, 71–82.

Талызина, Н. Ф., Печенюк, Н. Г., Хихловский, Л. Б. (1987). Пути разработки профиля специалиста.
Саратов: Издательство Саратовского университета.
Тамара А. АРТАШКИНА. Общее понятие и законы формирования социального заказа в области образования
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Sum­ma­ry 181

Ge­ne­ral Con­cept and Ba­sic Laws of So­cial Pro­cu­re­ment in the Field


of Edu­ca­tion

Ta­ma­ra A. Ar­tas­hki­na
Far Eastern Na­tio­nal Uni­ver­si­ty, Vla­di­vos­tok, Rus­sia

Hand­ling the pro­blem of the de­fi­ni­tion of ob­jec­ti­ves in the sys­tem of ter­tia­ry scho­ol prac­ti­ce, we
pro­ce­ed from the as­sump­tion of the exis­ten­ce of an ex­pli­cit so­cial me­cha­nism al­lo­wing tran­smit­tan­ce of
so­cial de­mands in­to the con­tent of edu­ca­tion. The fra­me­work of this me­cha­nism is ba­sed on the spe­ci­fic
in­fra­struc­tu­re that inc­lu­des so­cial pro­cu­re­ment for a spe­cia­list, so­cial pro­cu­re­ment for edu­ca­tio­nal ins­
ti­tu­tion, and sta­te or­der in the field of hig­her edu­ca­tion.
The term “so­cial pro­cu­re­ment” emer­ged in the so­viet scien­ti­fic and pe­da­go­gic li­te­ra­tu­re in the 70’s
of the XX th cen­tu­ry. At pre­sent ti­me this term sig­ni­fies a to­pi­cal so­cial ne­ed for the so­cie­ty on the who­le
or in part. So­cial pro­cu­re­ment and sta­te or­der in the field of edu­ca­tion are not to be con­foun­ded. At all
ti­mes the ad­van­ced ide­as in the field of edu­ca­tion we­re for­mu­la­ted prior to sta­te or­der, out­pa­ced it, and
at a cer­tain sta­ge of de­ve­lop­ment ca­me in­to an­ta­go­nism with it.
The main met­hods of our re­se­arch are con­si­de­red to be the dia­lec­tic met­hod along­si­de with such
met­hods as his­to­ric-ge­ne­tic, com­pa­ra­ti­ve and hy­pot­he­ti­cal de­duc­ti­ve ones. The­re­of, three laws of for­
ming so­cial pro­cu­re­ment in the field of edu­ca­tion we­re ob­ser­ved and for­mu­la­ted.
The first law is iden­ti­fied as “cen­ter of ba­lan­ce shif­ting in the struc­tu­re of the so­cial pro­cu­re­ment”.
It sta­tes that in cer­tain ti­me in­ter­vals so­cie­ty rai­ses de­mands eit­her to pro­fes­sio­nal trai­ning of spe­cia­lists
or to their per­so­na­li­ty (shifts the cen­ter of ba­lan­ce). The se­cond law ma­ni­fests “the law of re­pla­ce­ment
of con­tent of so­cial pro­cu­re­ment”. In the pe­riods of so­cial con­flicts or so­cial chan­ges (bi­fur­ca­tion) the
so­cie­ty rai­ses de­mands to per­so­na­li­ty; in the pe­riods of ste­a­dy pro­gres­si­ve de­ve­lop­ment the so­cie­ty
rai­ses de­mands to pro­fes­sio­nal trai­ning. The third law is “the law of dis­pla­ce­ment of li­mits in so­cial
pro­cu­re­ment”, i.e. li­mits of dis­pla­ce­ment of shif­ting the ba­lan­ce point, as a ru­le, coin­ci­de with the mar­
gins of so­cial con­flicts (non­bin­ding re­vo­lu­tion out­co­me) or so­cial chan­ges in the so­cie­ty (non­bin­ding
bi­fur­ca­tions).
Cor­re­la­ti­ve de­pen­den­ce is with lit­tle ef­fort disc­lo­sed bet­we­en sta­te or­ders and so­cial pro­cu­re­ment
in the field of hig­her edu­ca­tion, it ul­ti­ma­te ma­ni­fes­ta­tion is ob­ser­ved most­ly in sta­te or­der and laws of
con­tent re­pla­ce­ment and dis­pla­ce­ment of so­cial pro­cu­re­ment li­mits.
Key words: pro­blem of de­fi­ni­tion of ob­jec­ti­ves, so­cial pro­cu­re­ment in the field of edu­ca­tion, sta­te
or­der in the field of edu­ca­tion, the met­hod of pla­ce­ment of so­cial pro­cu­re­ment or­der, laws for­ming so­cial
pro­cu­re­ment.

Ad­vi­ced by Ele­o­no­ra V.Er­ma­ko­va (Ермакова Э.В.), Far Eastern Na­tio­nal Uni­ver­si­ty,


Vla­di­vos­tok, Rus­sia

Ta­ma­ra A. Ar­tas­hki­na As­so­tia­ted pro­fes­sor at Far Eastern Na­tio­nal Uni­ver­si­ty, Vla­di­vos­tok, Rus­sia.
Ave­nue of Sto­le­tya of Vla­di­vos­tok, 51-25, Vla­di­vos­tok, Rus­sia.
Pho­ne: + 89146971703.
E-mail: tam.ar­tand@gmail.com
Web­si­te: http://www.dvgu.ru/
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

182

Особенности инклюзивного
дополнительного образования
детей с ограниченными
возможностями развития

Надя Бизова
Трнавский университет, Словакия
Э-почта: na­da.lo­hy­no­va@tru­ni.sk

Абстракт

В статье рассматривается актуальная проблема инклюзивного подхода к обучению детей с


ограниченными возможностями развития в системе дополнительного образования. Инклюзия
представляет собой новую образовательную парадигму, которая обусловливает изменения в
традиционной системе образования. Как указывает Kонвенция ЮНЕСКО (2006) необходимо
создание инклюзивной образовательной среды, в которой все дети имеют возможность
активно участвовать в образовательном процессе, получать качественное образование
и успешно интегрироваться в общество. В статье анализируются функции и принципы
инклюзивного дополнительного образования детей с ограниченными возможностями развития,
раскрываются некоторые особенности инклюзивного обучения детей в отдельных учреждениях
дополнительного образования. На основе анализа инклюзивного образования в Европе в статье
указаны актуальные проблемы и перспективы.
Ключевые слова: инклюзия, дополнительное образование, дети с ограниченными возможностями
развития.

Введение

Инклюзия в образовании представляет собой актуальную проблему к решению которой


по разному приступают в разных странах. В некоторых, как например США опыт большой,
в иных значительный, но неширокомасштабный, а в других только экспериментальный.
Инклюзия – это противоположная парадигма сегрегации, которая реализировалась в
специальных коррекционных учреждениях на протяжении 200 лет (Кудлачова 2008, Лехта
2009). Инклюзию нельзя заменять с интеграцией, хотя в многих учебных заведениях
осуществляется инклюзия под названием интеграция. Согласно Ланг и Бербериховой (1998)
основное задание инклюзии это создание общества, среды, в которой все дети, включая
детей с ограничениями, равноценны. Инклюзия в сравнении с интеграцией представляет
высший уровень, кде не ребенок, а учебное учреждение приспособляется потребностям
каждого учащегося. Как указывает Пожар (1996) достичь инклюзию нельза лишь в рамках
посещения школы, нужно также изменить мышление общества. 14 лет спустя мы можем
Надя БИЗОВА. Особенности инклюзивного дополнительного образования детей с ограниченными возмож–
ностями развития PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
только констатировать, что мышление общества в этом направлении к примеру в странах 183
средней Европы все еще значительно не изменилось.
В дискуссиях академиков а также и учителей решаются вопросы будущего коррекционных
учреждений. Как указывает практика в странах Европы, где инклюзия только развивается,
специальные школы существуют далее, но ежегодно увеличивается процент учеников с
ограниченными возможностями развития, которые обучаются в общих школах. К примеру
в Словакии в 2009 году в специальных школах обучалось около 23 тысяч учеников с
ограниченными возможностями развития и приб­лизительно такое же количество в общих
школах. Кроме того более 10 тыс. учеников обучалось в специальных классах общих
школ, причем статистики Министерства образования СР подтверждают ежегодный рост
индивидуально интегрированных учеников.
В связи с инклюзией в странах средней Европы нерешенным остается вопрос раннего
обучения детей с ограниченными возможностями развития. Некоторые специа­листы
(Шимко 2010) рекомендуют обучать ребенка сначала в коррекционном учреждении и только
после в общеобразовательной школе. С другой стороны существуют примеры успешного
инклюзивного/интегрированного обучения детей напр. с тяжелым нарушением зрения
(практически полная слепота) при наличии асистента ученика, специальной подготовки
учительницы и кооперации с центром специального педагогического консультирования
(Новакова 2004). Практика указывает также иную сторону интеграции, к примеру в
Баварии существуют случаи, когда дети с ограниченными возможностями слуха уходят с
общеобразовательных школ в стимуляционные центра (Линднер 2009), причем причины для
этого со стороны учителей и детей разные.
Осуществление идей инклюзии в образовании зависит от политических, экономических
и этических факторов. Лехта (2009) рассматривает пять основных компонентов инклю­
зивной педагогики: этический, социологический, профессиональный, политический и
аппликационный. В даной статье рассмотрим аппликационный компонент в дополнительном
образовании.

Ценностный потенциал дополнительного образования

Дополнительное образование имеет несколько основных заданий, но прежде всего


способствует рациональному и полноценному использованию свободного времени
детей и молодежи. В настоящее время согласно социологическим исследованиям дети
рассматривают свободное время как ценность: это возможность самореализации, отдыха,
развлечения. Подобно относятся к свободному времени к примеру дети с ограниченными
физическими возможностями развития (Белкова 2007). Ценностный потенциал допол­ни­
тельного образования указан в документе Совета Европы по вопросам молодежи (CDEJ) О
признании дополнительного образования. Согласно документу дополнительное образование
(non­for­mal edu­ca­tion) намерено на формирование ценностей связанных с развитием
личности (креативность, заинтересованность, критическое мышление), социальным
развитием (коммуникационные способности, ответсвенность, солидарность и социальная
справедливость, решение конфликтов) и всеобщими этическими ценностями (толерантность
и уважение, человеческие права). Развитие указанных ценностей является основой
инклюзивного дополнительного образования.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

184 Функции инклюзивного дополнительного образования

В процессе инклюзивного дополнительного образования можно выделить несколько


основных функций. С точки зрения педагогики важна формативная функция. Дети в
учреждении дополнительного образования не только обучаются и воспитываются, но и
формируются как личности. Отсутствие государственных нормативов для большинства
программ создает возможность более тонкого индивидуального подхода, который особо
важный при образовании детей с ограниченными возможностями развития. Развитие таланта,
способностей, характера является основой формативной функции. При инклюзивном
образовании формативная фунция, кроме выше указанного включает эмоциональную
поддержку, которая как указывает Пожар (2007) очень важна при социа­лизации детей с
ограниченными возможностями развития.
С точки зрения психологии важна психо-гигиеническая функция. Согласно Павковой
(2008) процесс дополнительного образования ведет к чередованию занятий разного характера:
школьного обучения и отдыха, психической и физической активности, организованного и
самопроизвольного действия. Дополнительное образование ведет к разряжению психической
нагрузки.
Социа­лизационная функция связана с процессом социа­лизации. Дети в учреждениях
дополнительного образования имеют возможность социа­лизироваться в новых ситуациях.
Выступая на сцене, играя в группе, разными способами представляя свой талант дети
развивают социальные компетенции. Для детей с ограниченными возможностями развития
в инклюзивной среде функция весьма значительна, поскольку способствует естественной
социа­лизации. Дети могут не только учиться новым социальным навыком, но и вступать в
дружеские отношения. Павкова указывает на социальную функцию (2008) дополнительного
образования, которая предоставляет возможность урегулирования различий между детьми
из разной социальной среды.
Для детей с ограниченными возможностями развития важна функция самореализации.
Согласно Маслова самореализация является одной из высших психических потребностей.
Как указывают психологи (Матейчек 2007, 2008) самореализация особенно важна для детей,
у которых отсутсвуют желаемые результаты в школе. Успешная самореализация в некоторой
области дополнительного образования помогает компенсировать эмоции исходящие с
негативного оценивания в школе. Как писал Матейчек для детей необходимо испитывать
чувство успеха и если его нельза из-за разных причин достичь в школе, нужно искать
его в возможностях дополнительного образования. Успешная самореализация помогает
укреплять самодоверие и самоуважение. У детей с ограниченными возможностями развития
самореализация помогает уменьшать чувство неполноценности на которое указывает Пожар
(2007). Согласно американским исследователям (Шернгоф & Вандел 2008) самореализация
через дополнительное образование положительно влияет на все аспекты личности и
обусловливает изменения в поведении и мотивации. Функция самореализации имеет также
терапевтический эффект.
В последнее время акцентируется превентивная функция дополнительного образования.
Авторы начали осознавать ее важность с ростом социально патологических явлений. Все
учреждения дополнительного образования осуществляют неспецифическую превенцию, то
есть занимаясь в учреждении а также самостоятельно дома дети не выставлены риску влияния
социально патологических явлений. Специфическая превенция намерена на уязвимую
группу детей, которые находятся в риске. К примеру в Словакии, Чехии и других странах
средней и западной Европы для детей из низкой социальной среды существуют особые
учреждения, называемые безбарьерные клубы (англ. low-thres­hold clubs), которые дети
посещают анонимно и нерегулярно. Философия клубов возникла в США и осуществляется
в Европе более 15 лет.
Надя БИЗОВА. Особенности инклюзивного дополнительного образования детей с ограниченными возмож–
ностями развития PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Принципы инклюзивного дополнительного образования 185

Принципы инклюзивного дополнительного образования не отличаются от принципов


общего дополнительного образования. Усиленный акцент педагога на отдельный принцип с
целью упростить процес образования не соответсвует требованиям ребенка с ограничениями.
Дети воспринимают чрезмерную помощь например в связи с принципом индивидуального
подхода как дискриминацию, поскольку действия педагога указывают, что они чем-то
отличаются, нуждаются в сверх помощи, внимании. Гаек (2007) подчеркивает, что к детям
с ограниченными возможностями развития нужно с самого начала приступать также как к
другим, чтобы они не чувствовали себя иными либо неполноценными. С другой стороны
Ланг и Берберихова (1998) указывают, что чрезмерный толеранс может быть проявлением
предрассудка, который ребенку не поможет, но зато будет создавать конфликты между
детьми.
Основным принципом дополнительного образования является свобода выбора или же
добровольность. В инклюзивных условиях дети с ограниченными возможностями выбирают
область дополнительного образования добровольно исходя из своих способностей и
возможностей. Решающим остается выбор кружков и секций. Не рекомендуются кружки
в которых из самого начала ожидаются групповые результаты, напр. выступления. Новая
ситуация может вызывать чрезмерный стресс. С другой стороны между детьми существуют
различия и одаренные дети с ограничениями могут быть успешнее здоровых детей.
Основой в организации дополнительного образования является творческое развитие
интересов детей. Как указывает Кратохвилова (2004) развивать интересы у детей нужно с
самого раннего возраста, особенно в первые школьные годы. Интересы детей с ограничениями
ничем не отличаются от интересов других детей. Отличием может быть способ и мера их
осуществления.
Особым в дополнительном образовании является принцип активности, который
имеет иное значение как в образовании. Принцип значит активное участие детей во всех
фазах образовательного процесса, то есть при планировке, подготовке, осуществлении и
оценке. Принцип ведет детей к самостоятельности и творчеству. Правильное употребление
принципа помогает детям с ограниченными возможностями чувствовать себя полноценными
участниками группы, формировать социальные навыки, выра­жать мнения, принимать
критику и оценку. Для этого необходимо, чтобы педагог создавал возможность произносить
предложения и призывал детей к участию.
Принцип самореализации требует от педагога организацию занятий, в которых
может сполна реализоваться каждый участник. Самореализация возможна при занятиях
активного характера и ограничена при рецептивных, пассивных, хотя нельзя говорить
о полной пассивности. По мнению Л. Кениг (2002) автора американской воспитательной
концепции Smart dis­cip­li­ne, у каждого есть талант, который можно развить за рамки нормы.
Хотя это суждение в научной литературе опровергнуто, мы считаем, что в дополнительном
образовании дети могут свой талант (особое увлечение) раскрыть. Самореализация в этом
значении должна помочь детям раскрыть свою одаренность.
Принцип разнообразия относится к выбору форм, методов и направления дополнительного
образования. Педагог должен содержание занятий регулярно модулировать, не допускать
стереотипов. Элементы новости будут гарантией привлекательности занятий.
Павкова (2008) считает, что в дополнительном образовании должен применяться
принцип чувствительности и эмоциональности. Чувствительность относится к организации
и мотивации детей а эмоциональность означает эмоциональный размер воспитания. Педагог
должен создавать ситуации для выражения эмоций и переживания приятных чувств у детей.
В инклюзивной среде принцип имеет особую важность, поскольку позволяет ребенку выра­
жать свои эмоции, отвечать на эмоции других, то есть эмоционально развиваться. Ланг и
Берберихова (1998) указывают, что для детей с ограничениями большое значение имеет
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

186
физический контакт, который является весьма дискутабельным в настоящее время. Согласно
авторов многие дети с ограничениями считают, что остальные сторонятся физического
контакта с ними. Авторы того мнения, с чем согласны и мы, что объятие, рукопожатие или
же иной традиционный контакт является свидетельством искренней оценки, выражением
успеха или же утехи ребенка. В связи с чувствами важно, чтобы педагог не жалел ребенка на
основе его ограничений. Как указывает немецкий педагог и психолог Ян-Уве-Рожже (2007),
детей нельзя жалеть, можно с ними сочувствовать.

Особенности инклюзивного дополнительного образования

Педагог который будет работать с детьми с ограниченными возможностями развития


нужен прежде всего владеть знаниями о психических и физических особенностях развития
этих детей а также соответсвующей методикой воспитательной и образовательной работы с
ними. Перед тем как ребенок начнет посещать занятия дополнительного образования педагог
должен консультироваться со специальным педагогом. К примеру в Словакии согласно
действующего законодательства специальный (коррекционный) педагог может работать в
общей школе. В случае группы продленного дня, которая в Словакии и Чехии относится
к учреждениям дополнительного образования важна кооперация воспитателя и педагога.
Педагог может методически помочь воспитателю при планировке и реализации отдельных
занятий связанных прежде всего с подготовкой к обучению, исполнением домашних заданий.
Во всех учреждениях дополнительного образования важно сотрудничество с родителями
ребенка. Родители могут ознакомить педагога с интересами ребенка, его достижениями,
успехами, специфическими выражениями, но и конкретными ограничениями, переходными
или постоянными лимитами. Педагог кроме иного должен быть хорошо информирован о
состоянии здоровья ребенка, возможных диетических навычках, медикаментозном лечении
итп. Если ребенок с ограничениями не посещает занятия с самого начала, нужно подготовить
соответсвующую группу детей к инклюзивному образованию. С детьми к примеру можно
регулярно вести разговоры на тему отличий, чтобы дети научились принимать отличие как
нормальный образ жизни. Важно, чтобы ребенок с ограничениями чувствовал себя в группе
детей полноценным. Инспиративный пример указывает Новакова (2004), кде директор школы
вместе с педагогом при интеграции ребенка с остатками зрения от первого класса провела
в начале школьного года с детьми день в природе, кде дети через разные ситуации могли
почувствовать как воспринимает мир невидящий, как ему в случае надобности помочь и
прочее. Пожар (2007) указывает, что дети с ограничениями более чем их сверстники зависят
от эмоциональных отношений при социа­лизации в школе или иной среде. Возможностям
детей с ограничениями должны быть приспособлены все происходящие занятия. Педагог
должен планировать занятия так, чтобы заранее не исключал ребенка с ограничениями. Это
не означает, что педагог должен сокращать содержание занятий на ущерб остальных детей.
Педагог может модифицировать условия, содержание. При аппликации образцов педагог
должен заранее подготовить для ребенка в зависимости от ограничения дидактический или же
иной коррекционный материал. К примеру при инклюзивном образовании детей с нарушеним
зрения нужно подготовить тексты или образцы в увеличеном формате или же азбуке Брайля,
надо соблюдать правила гигиены зрения, как указывает Лудикова (2003) интенсивная
нагрузка зрения у отдельной группы детей не должна длиться более 15 минут и прочее. При
планировке содержания отдельных занятий важно, чтобы педагог задавал такие задания, в
которых ребенок с ограничениями может показать хорошие результаты, что положительно
отразится на его социа­лизации. Самореализация на занятиях будет уменьшать чувство
неполноценности, на которое указывает Пожар (2007). При дополнительном образовании
родители могут помочь ребенку с ограничениями, если к примеру заранее дома пройдут с
ребенком отдельные задания или же их части. Если ребенок будет заранее подготовлен, то
Надя БИЗОВА. Особенности инклюзивного дополнительного образования детей с ограниченными возмож–
ностями развития PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
сумеет исполнить занятие в группе быстрее, более ловко и с уверенностью. При сравнении 187
всех учреждений дополнительного образования, группа продленного дня создает для детей с
ограничениями оптимальные условия для инклюзии с точки зрения времени, которое может
ребенок провести со своими сверстниками. На много меньше времени проводит ребенок
на занятиях во всех остальных учреждениях дополнительного образования. Тем не менее
инклюзивные занятия в этих учреждениях имеют для детей большое значение, поскольку
дети социа­лизируются в новой среде, имеют возможности вступать в дружеские отношения
с детьми из других школ, получают опыт, который не могут получить в школе.

Актуальные проблемы и перспективы

Актуальной проблемой инклюзивного образования как общего так и дополнительного


является уровень подготовленности педагогов к осуществлению принципов инклюзии.
Эта проблема особо актуальна а странах средней Европы, кде интегрированное, еще не
инклюзивное, образование быстро развивается. Согласно законодательства Словакии в
классе можно интегрировать трех детей с ограниченными возможностями здоровья, причем
за каждого ребенка нормативное количество детей уменьшается, при дополнительном
обра­зовании – двох детей с ограничениями. Для сравнения в Чехии в классе/группе
можно интегрировать пятеро детей, причем нормативное количество не уменьшается. Для
преподавателей в практике, которые не подготовлены к инклюзивному образованию, нужно
осуществлять разные формы дополнительного инклюзивного образования. Паралельно
нужно усилить подготовку студентов к инклюзивному образованию. Хотя некоторые вузы
имеют в образовательных программах отдельные курсы из области специальной педагогики,
мы считаем, что именно для будущих преподавателей исходя из требований практики, это
недостаточно.
Не решенным в некоторых странах, к примеру Чехия, остается наличие коррекционного
педагога в образовательном учреждении. Даже при самой лучшей подготовке к инклюзивному
образованию педагог не будет владеть практическими знаниями для решения конкретных
ситуаций. Мы считаем, что кооперация с центром коррекционного консультирования не
соответсвует требованиям инклюзивного образования.
Не менее важным является обеспечение материальных и технических условий
инклюзивного образования. Большинство образовательных учреждений в странах средней
Европы еще не имеет технических условий для инклюзивного образования детей с
ограниченными возможностями развития.
Проблемой также остается отношение общества большинства к людям/детям с
ограниченными возможностями развития. Мы считаем, что представление успехов, значимых
и обыкновенных достижений детей с ограничениями в дополнительном образовании является
одним из путей акцептации принципов инклюзии.
В инклюзивном образовании существуют значительные проблемы психологической
совместимости детей между собой. Это обусловлено прежде всего отсутствием длительного
опыта совместного образования. Согласно исследованиям Пожара (2007) ученики общих школ
приемлемо относятся к совместному образованию детей с нарушением речи и физическими
нарушениями и менее приемлемо к совместному образованию при нарушении слуха,
зрения и интеллекта. Отличие детей с ограничением представляет проблему в совместных
отношениях детей в группе. Как указывают Р.А. Вил­ла а Ж.С. Таусенд (2005) дети которые
отличаются часто выставлены речевой или физической агрессии со стороны остальных
детей. При некоторых нарушениях к примеру аутизм, в общей школе сложно создать для
детей с этой точки зрения приемлемую среду. При инклюзивном образовании поэтому
необходима систематическая воспитательная работа с коллективом. Проблемы в отношении
ученик-учитель могут возникать при чрезмерных дидактических требованиях учителя или
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

188
же ученика. В дополнительном образовании возможно счасти избежать этих проблем, если
ребенок перед записью в секцию примет участие в одном или несколько занятиях секции.
Некоторые проблемы могут возникнуть в отношении родителей и учителей. В инклюзивном
образовании заинтересованы прежде всего родители, у которых могут быть чрезмерные
требования на создавание оптимальных условий для образования детей. Помочь при этом
может социальный педагог или социальный работник, который работает в общей школе.
Указанные проблемы являются с нашей точки зрения самыми важными, кроме этих
проблем в настоящее время важны дидактические вопросы инклюзивного образования.

Возможности исследования

В странах средней Европы в настоящее время осуществляются первые исследования


инклюзивного образования. В 90-тые года проводились исследования интеграции детей,
но как было указано философия интеграции отличается от философии инклюзии. Область
инклюзивного дополнительного образования в странах средней Европы пока что исследована
небы­ла, существуют только исследования дополнительного образования в коррекционных
школах. Мы считаем, что в настоящее время области исследования нужно направить на
адаптацию детей в условиях инклюзивного дополнительного образования, на причины
успешной и неуспешной адаптации. Согласно исследованиям Линднер (2009) и других в
отношении к детям с ограниченными возможностями развития со стороны однокласников
часто фигурирует верб­альная и физическая агрессивность, насмешки. Исходя из этих
фактов нужно исследовать которые причины в дополнительном образовании ведут детей к
агрессивности. Осознавая лимиты инклюзивного дополнительного образования (даже при
самых лучших намерениях не все дети будут способны к инклюзивному образованию) нужно
исследовать которые формы и области дополнительного образования являются в настоящее
время оптимальными для детей с ограниченными возможностями развития. Результаты
указанных исследований, могут помочь более успешно осуществлять идеи инклюзии в
дополнительном образовании.

Заключение

Инклюзивное дополнительное образование в странах средней Европы только развивается.


Уровень его осуществления зависит от многих факторов, которые нужно научно исследовать.
Анализ проблем инклюзивного образования указывает на недостаточную подготовку
педагогов и условий для его осуществления. Поскольку дополнительное образование
представляет cобой большой потенциал для развития личности, необходимо создавать
равные возможности его осуществления для всех детей, включая детей с ограничениями,
что и является основным заданием инклюзивного дополнительного образования.

Литература

Bel­ko­vá, V. (2007). Pre­fe­ren­cie hodnôt te­les­ne po­stih­nutých žia­kov stred­nej od­bor­nej ško­ly. [Выбор
ценностей у школьников средней школы с ограниченными возможностями здоровя.] In: Šimoník,
O., Hor­ká, A., Stř­e­lec, S. (eds): Hod­no­ty a výcho­va. [Ценности и воспитание.] MU, Brno, s. 130–135.

Con­ven­tion the Rights of Per­sons with Di­sa­bi­li­ties (Pro­mo­tion and pro­tec­tion of hu­man rights: hu­man
rights qu­es­tions, inc­lu­ding al­ter­na­ti­ve ap­pro­a­ches for im­pro­ving the ef­fec­ti­ve en­jo­y­ment of hu­man rights
and fun­da­men­tal fre­e­doms.) Uni­ted Na­tions: 2006.
Надя БИЗОВА. Особенности инклюзивного дополнительного образования детей с ограниченными возмож–
ностями развития PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Há­jek, B., Hof­bau­er, B., Páv­ko­vá, J. (2008). Pe­da­go­gické ov­livňování volného ča­su. [Педагогическое 189
влияние в свободное время.] Por­tál, Pra­ha.

Ko­e­nig, L. (2004). Chyt­rá výcho­va (Smart dis­cip­li­ne). Por­tál, Pra­ha.

Kra­tochvílo­vá, E. (2004). Pe­da­go­gi­ka voľného ča­su. Výcho­va mi­mo vy­u­čo­va­nia v teórii a pra­xi.
[Педагогика свободного времени. Дополнительное образование в теории и практике.] UK, Bra­
tis­la­va.

Kud­la­čo­vá, B. (2008). From Rep­res­sion to Inc­lu­sion – His­to­ri­cal Mo­dels and Ap­pro­a­ches to Di­sab­led
Pe­op­le in the Eu­ro­pe­an Con­text. Pro­blems of Edu­ca­tion in the 21st Cen­tu­ry (Po­li­cy of Edu­ca­tion in the
Mo­dern World), Vol.8, pp 68–78.

Lang, G., Ber­be­ri­cho­vá, Ch. (1998). Každé dítě po­tř­e­bu­je spe­ciální přístup. [Каждому ребенку нужен
особый подход.] Por­tál, Pra­ha.

Lech­ta, V. (2009). Výcho­dis­ká a per­spektívy in­kluzívnej pe­da­go­gi­ky. [Исходы и перспективы


инклюзивной педагогики.] Os­ve­ta, Mar­tin.

Lind­ner, B. (2009). In­teg­rá­cia detí so slu­chovým po­stih­nutím v Ba­vors­ku. [Интеграция детей с


нарушением слуха в Баварии.] In Efe­ta č.3.

Ludíko­vá, L. (2003). In­teg­ra­ce žáků se zra­kovým pos­tižením. [Интеграция школьников с нарушением


зрения.] In: Va­len­ta, M. a kol.: Př­eh­led spe­ciální pe­da­go­gi­ky a škols­ká in­teg­ra­ce. [Основы корекционной
педагогики и школьная интеграция.] UP, Olo­mouc s.179–206.

Matějček, Z. (2007). Co, kdy a jak ve výchově dětí. [Что, когда и как в воспитании детей.] Por­tál,
Pra­ha.

Matějček, Z. (2008). Co děti nejvíc po­tř­e­bují. [ Что детям наиболее нужно.] Por­tál, Pra­ha.

No­vá­ko­vá, Z. (2004). Edu­ka­ce žáků se zra­kovým pos­tižením. [Образование детей с нарушением


зрения..] In Vítko­vá, M. (ed.): In­teg­ra­tivní školní (spe­ciální) pe­da­go­gi­ka. [Интегративная школьная
(корекционная) педагогика.] MU, Brno, s. 59–73.

Požár, L. (2007). Zák­la­dy psy­chológie ľudí s po­stih­nutím. [Основы психологии людей с ограниченными
возможностями здоровя.] Ty­pi Uni­ver­si­ta­tis Tyr­na­vien­sis, Trna­va.

Пожар, Л. (1996). Психология аномальных детей и подпостков – патопсихология. Академия


педагогических и социальных наук, Мовковский психолого-социальный институт, Москва –
Воронеж.

Rog­ge Uwe J. (2007). Děti po­tř­e­bují hra­ni­ce. [Детям нужны ограничения.] Por­tál, Pra­ha.

Shern­hoff, D., Van­dell, D. L. (2008). Youth En­ga­ge­ment and Qu­a­li­ty of Ex­pe­rien­ce in Af­ters­cho­ol Pro­
grams. In: Af­ters­cho­ol Mat­ters. Oc­ca­sio­nal Pa­per Se­ries, roč. 8, , č. 9, pp. 1–11.

Šim­ko, J., Šim­ko, M. (2010). Zra­kové pos­tižení [Нарушение зрения.] In: Lech­ta a kol. Zák­la­dy in­
klu­zivní pe­da­go­gi­ky. Dítě s pos­tižením, na­rušením a oh­rožením ve ško­le. [Основы инклюзивной
педагогики. Ребенок с ограниченными возможностями здоровья, нарушением, в риске в школе.]
Por­tál, Pra­ha.

Vil­la, R. A., Thou­sand J. S. (2005). Cre­a­ting an Inc­lu­si­ve Scho­ol. ASCD, Vir­gi­nia USA.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

190
Sum­ma­ry

PECULIARITIES of inc­lu­si­ve edu­ca­tion in chil­dren’s lei­su­re ti­me with


spe­cial edu­ca­tio­nal ne­eds

Na­da Bi­zo­va
Trna­va Uni­ver­si­ty, Slo­va­kia

The re­port shows on cur­rent pro­blem of inc­lu­si­ve ap­pro­ach to lei­su­re ti­me edu­ca­tion of chil­dren with
spe­cial edu­ca­tio­nal ne­eds. The inc­lu­sion rep­re­sents edu­ca­tio­nal pa­ra­digm, which cau­sed chan­ges in
tra­di­tio­nal edu­ca­tio­nal sys­tem. As it is sig­ned in UNESCO 2006, it is ine­vi­tab­le to cre­a­te inc­lu­si­ve en­vi­
ron­ment, in or­der to bring op­por­tu­ni­ties for ac­ti­ve con­nec­tion in­to edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess for all chil­dren,
gain edu­ca­tion with ap­prop­ria­te qu­a­li­ty le­vel and suc­ces­sful in­teg­ra­tion in so­cie­ty. In re­port, we ana­ly­
zed func­tions and prin­cip­les of inc­lu­si­ve edu­ca­tion in lei­su­re ti­me and so­me par­ti­cu­la­ri­ties of inc­lu­si­ve
edu­ca­tion in cho­sen or­ga­ni­za­tions. The­re are al­so po­in­ted out cur­rent pro­blems and per­spec­ti­ves, ba­sed
on inc­lu­si­ve edu­ca­tion ana­ly­sis in Eu­ro­pe.
Key words: in­teg­ra­tion in so­cie­ty, lei­su­re ti­me edu­ca­tion, inc­lu­sion.

Ad­vi­ced by Ele­o­no­ra Mel­nik, Ka­re­lian Sta­te Pe­da­go­gi­cal Aca­de­my, Rus­sia

Na­da Bi­zo­va PhD, PaedDr., As­sis­tent, Trna­va Uni­ver­si­ty, Fa­cul­ty of Edu­ca­tion, De­part­ment of Edu­ca­
tio­nal Stu­dies, Prie­my­sel­ná 4, P.O.Box 9, 918 43, Trna­va, Slo­va­kia.
E-mail: na­da.lo­hy­no­va@tru­ni.sk
Web­si­te: http://www.tru­ni.sk/
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

191

Герменевтический подход
к проектированию
образовательного процесса
в системе высшего
профессионального образования
Ирина М. Бродская
Санкт-Петербургский государственный политехнический университет,
Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Э-почта: iri­na_brod­ska­ya@mail.ru

Наталья О. Верещагина
Российский государственный педагогический университет
им. А. И. Герцена, Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Э-почта: na­ta­lia.ve­res­hcha­gi­na@gmail.com

Абстракт

Данная статья основывается на методологических принципах философской герменевтики


(Фр. Бласс, Г. Брандес, Г. Шпет). Применение герменевтического подхода к проектированию
содержания высшего профессионального образования позволяет включать в образовательный
процесс ситуации, которые осознаны профессиональным сообществом как значимые и
повторяющиеся, но применительно к которым не выработаны оптимальные модели поведения
и разделяемая подавляющим большинством оценка. Тем самым, создаются предпосылки для
формирования способности к выбору, социальной ответственности будущих профессионалов.
Реализация герменевтического подхода к проектированию содержания образования позволяет
достигнуть такого его качества как гуманитарность. Исходя из идей М. Бубера, М. М. Бахтина,
Г. С. Батищева, о природе гуманитарности, приходим к выводу, что гуманитарность
порождается особым типом отношения человека к миру, отношением «Я – Ты».
Тогда, носители содержания образования, прежде всего, учебные пособия, учебники, должны
обладать особой структурно-логической организацией. Анализ работ М. М. Бахтина,
Г. С. Батищева, Ю. М. Лотана, посвященных проблеме гуманитарности, позволяют выделить
три характеристики гуманитарной структурно-логической организации текста: качество
описания объекта, учитывая характеристики читателя, диалогическая коммуникативная
программа. Исходя из идей М. М. Бахтина, М. Бубера, Ю. М. Лотмана, М. С. Кагана,
М. К. Мамардашвили, о природе диалога выделяются его необходимые и достаточные условия.
Анализ работ М. М. Бахтина позволяет выявить диалогическую коммуникативную программу.
Однако, реализация диалогической коммуникативной программы в учебном тексте на практике
крайне сложна.
Кроме того, в образовательном процессе доминирует особый вид технологий – гуманитарные
технологии. Под социальной технологией в работе понимается рациональное, устойчивое,
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

192
повторяющиеся взаимодействие субъектов, учитывающих цели, ценности, ожидания друг друга,
направленное на достижение значимого для участников и социально одобряемого результата.
Достижимость результата, оптимальность средств, воспроизводимость социальной
технологии определяется тем, что деятельность участников базируется на социальных нормах
или конвенциональных основаниях. Гуманитарная социальная технология является средством
взаимодействия участников образовательного процесса, создающие условия для формирования
опыта деятельности и опыта ценностного отношения к нетипичным, новым ситуациям
профессиональной деятельности.
Одним из условий, подлежащих учёту при проектировании образовательного процесса с
позиций герменевтического подхода, является наличие гуманитарной ценностно-смысловой
направленности отношений преподавателя и студента.
Ключевые слова: герменевтический подход, высшее профессиональное образование,
проектирование образовательного процесса, образовательная программа.

Введение

Усложнение профессиональной деятельности специа­листа, нарастание риска наступления


социально неблагоприятных последствий неверных решений определяет необходимость
поиска и реализации в системе высшего профессионального образования подходов,
адекватных новым условиям. В данной статье предпринята попытка определить принципы и
пути реализации герменевтического подхода к проектированию образовательного процесса
в системе высшего профессионального образования.
Обращение к идеям герменевтики определяется, прежде всего, потребностью системы
высшего образования создавать условия, обеспечивающие студентам возможность развития
определенной восприимчивости и способности к восприятию ситуации и поведения внутри
нее, для которой у нас нет знаний, исходящих из общих принципов. Представляется, что
именно идеи педагогической герменевтики адекватны тем вызовам, которые стоят перед
системой высшего профессионального образования.
В период, когда многими профессионалами образование трактуется, прежде всего,
как сфера оказания услуг, особую актуальность приобретает понимание образования как
результата процесса становления человека, не сводимого «к культивированию задатков». В
процессе образования, напротив, то, на чем и благодаря чему некто получает образование,
должно быть усвоено целиком и полностью. В этом отношении в образование входит все,
к чему оно прикасается, но все это входит не как средство, утрачивающее свои функции.
Напротив, в получаемом образовании ничто не исчезает, но все сохраняется. Образование
– подлинно историческое понятие, и именно об этом историческом характере «сохранения»
следует вести речь для того, чтобы понять суть гуманитарных наук». (Гадамер, 1988).
Вероятно, именно реализация герменевтического подхода позволит достигнуть такого
труднодостижимого качества образовательного процесса как гуманитарность. Исходя
из идей Г. С. Батищева (Батищев, 1997) М. М. Бахтина (Бахтин, 1986), М. Бубера (Бубер,
1999) о природе гуманитарности, мы приходим к выводу, что гуманитарность порождается
особым типом отношения человека к миру, отношением «Я – Ты». Тогда основная проблема
реализации герменевтического подхода к проектированию образовательного процесса
в системе высшего профессионального образования заключается, вероятно, именно в
необходимости учета ценностных основ профессиональной деятельности специа­листа.
Ирина М. БРОДСКАЯ, Наталья О. ВЕРЕЩАГИНА. Герменевтический подход к проектированию
образовательного процесса в системе высшего профессионального образования PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Дискуссия 193

Можно предположить, что основным результатом реализации герменевтического подхода


в сфере высшего профессионального образования будет являться создание психолого-
педагогических и организационных условий, содействующих проявлению студентом смысла
изучаемого объекта.
Категория смысла по-разному раскрывается в работах исследователей. Согласно
В. Франклу (Франкл, 1990) смыслы есть то, что мы понимаем под ценностями. В работах
М. М. Бахтина (Бахтин, 1979, 1986) подчеркивается, что смысл всегда отвечает на какие-то
вопросы, то, что ни на что не отвечает, представляется нам бессмысленным, изъятым из диалога.
Смысл потенциально бесконечен, но актуализироваться он может лишь соприкоснувшись с
другим (чужим) смыслом, хотя бы с вопросом внутренней речи воспринимающего» (Бахтин,
1979, 1986). В понимании А. Н. Леонтьева (Леонтьев, 1975) личностный смысл раскрывается
через отношение мотива к цели в условиях данной ситуации. В трактовке А. Р. Лурия (Лурия,
1979) смысл представляет собой индивидуальное значение слова, привнесение субъективных
аспектов значения соответственно данному моменту ситуации.
Обобщение идей М. М. Бахтина (Франкл, 1990), А. Н. Леонтьева (Леонтьев, 1975),
А. Р. Лурия (Лурияб 1979), В. С. Соловьева (Соловьев, 1990), Е. Н. Трубецкого (Тубецкой,
1994), В. Франкла (Франкл, 1990) позволяет сформулировать следующие выводы:
• смысл постигается всегда из опыта, через проживание, прохождение через
определенные ситуации, «... с которыми сталкивается все общество или даже все
человечество»;
• нахождение смысла всегда «запускает» эмоциональные процессы;
• необходимым условием нахождения смысла является осознание причин, породивших
эмоциональные процессы, и сопоставление своего опыта с более широким контекстом,
чем событие его вызвавшее;
• смысл связан с неким символом, словом, способным его актуализировать.
Чрезвычайно значимым аспектом процесса смыслопорождения является то, что смысл
раскрывается лишь в диалоге, обеспечивая тем самым психологическое воздействие.
Психологическое воздействие имеет своей целью провоцирование или предотвращение
некоторых изменений на стороне субъекта, на которого оно направлено. Эти изменения
могут быть направлены на базовый уровень личности; знания, умения, навыки, опыт; на
морально-этическую и эстетическую сферу; установки; отношение к миру, другим людям
и к себе; на стиль общения, способы деятельности. Г. А. Ба­лл и М. С. Бургин выявили в
современной педагогической реальности два типа стратегии психологического воздействия:
монологический и диалогический (Ба­лл, Бургин, 1994).
Ключевой характеристикой монологической стратегии психологического воздействия
является отношение к другому человеку как к средству достижения цели. Цель воздействия
устанавливает его организатор (учет особенностей реципиента осуществляется только
для увеличения вероятности достижения этой цели). Организатор воздействия ведет себя,
таким образом, как если бы только он был полноправным субъектом и носителем истины.
Это не исключает возможность его стремления к благу реципиента так, как он его понимает
(Ба­лл, Бургин, 1994). Монологический тип стратегии психологического воздействия
ведет к отчуждению обучающегося от содержания процесса обучения. Данное явление
описано исследователями, работающими в логике личностно-ориентированного подхода к
образованию (Сериков, 1994).
При определении психолого-педагогических условий раскрытия смысла изучаемого
объекта мы опира­лись на сущностную специфику его раскрытия. Смысл может быть раскрыт
только в диалоге. Тогда возникает задача выявления необходимых и достаточных условий
диалога. Исходя из идей М. М. Бахтина (Бахтин, 1979, 1986), В. С. Библера (Библер, 1991),
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

194
М. С. Кагана (Каган, 1988), Ю. М. Лотмана (Лотман, 1992) о природе диалога приходим к
выводу о том, что необходимыми и достаточными условиями диалога являются:
• наличие единого и значимого для обеих сторон предмета диалога;
• изначальная выраженность и различность точек зрения на предмет диалога;
• доверие к партнеру по диалогу, уверенность в том, что он готов воспринять иную
точку зрения на предмет диалога;
• обладание субъектами диалога некоторым общим объемом информации, описывающим
проблемное поле;
• единой системой критериев для оценки истинности высказываний друг друга.
Для процесса диалога характерно предчувствие, предположение с очень большой долей
вероятности ответа партнера на обращенный к нему вопрос. Возникновение вопроса, хотя
бы во внутренней речи воспринимающего, уже свидетельствует о возникновении диалога.
Однако состоялся диалог или нет, можно судить только по его результату. Результатом
диалога может являться: обретение целостности видения предмета диалога и восполнение
видения субъектами диалога своего «Я» (Бахтин, 1986). Изначально здесь закладывается
противоречие: «Когда мы глядим друг на друга, два разных мира отра­ж­аются в зрачках
наших глаз» – и имеет своим следствием то, что каждый «другой» по отношению к «Я» и
«Я» по отношению к каждому другому обладают избытком видения, что обусловлено «...
единственностью и незаменимостью моего места в мире» (Бахтин, 1979). Именно избыток
видения дает возможность предугадать ответ партнера по диалогу. Но избыток видения
другого «уравновешивается» неполнотой видения собственного «Я», восполняемого только
в диалоге (Бахтин, 1986).
Для определения педагогического диапазона диалога ключевым является тот факт, что
избыток видения определяет сферу «исключительной активности, то есть совокупность
таких внутренних и внешних действий, которые только я могу совершить по отношению к
другому, ему же самому, со своего места – вне меня, совершенно не доступных, действий,
восполняющих другого именно в тех моментах, где сам он выполнить не может» (Бахтин,
1979). Именно поэтому данный тип диалога – «не средство раскрытия, обнаружения как
бы уже готового характера человека, нет, здесь человек не только проявляет себя во вне, а
впервые становится тем, что он есть ... не только для других, но и для себя самого» (Бахтин,
1979).
В плане педагогического рассмотрения чрезвычайно важным является то, что в диалоге
человек «...как бы непосредственно ощущает себя в мире как целом, без всяких промежуточных
инстанций, помимо всякого социального коллектива, к которому он принадлежал бы» (Бахтин,
1979). Существенное отличие в понимании диалога М. М. Бахтиным и Ю. М. Лотманом
состоит в том, что, по М. М. Бахтину, в диалоге всегда транслируется избыток моего видения
«Другого»; по Ю. М. Лотману, природа объекта диалога может быть любой (Лотман, 11, 12,
13).
Но общим и для них является то, что диалог дает возможность переживания информации
как события и как следствия привнесения нового качества в нашу целостность. Таким
образом, в результате диалога происходит восполнение целостности видения субъектов
диалога собственного «Я» и предмета диалога, а значит, нахождение его смысла.
Установление организационных условий определяется необходимостью выбора
педагогической технологии, в основе которой лежат отношения «Я – Ты». Это возможно
благодаря, во-первых, доминированию в образовательном процессе особого вида
педагогических технологий – гуманитарной технологии. Гуманитарная технология
как область знания является системой знаний о личностном и профессиональном
самоопределении и саморазвитии. Как вид деятельности – представляет собой деятельность,
направленную на создание условий для формирования опыта деятельности и опыта
ценностного отношения участников образовательной деятельности к новым явлениям в
Ирина М. БРОДСКАЯ, Наталья О. ВЕРЕЩАГИНА. Герменевтический подход к проектированию
образовательного процесса в системе высшего профессионального образования PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
сфере профессиональной деятельности. Как принадлежащая области управления – является 195
средством взаимодействия участников образовательного процесса, создающим условия для
формирования опыта деятельности и опыта ценностного отношения к нетипичным, новым
ситуациям профессиональной деятельности. Как социальное отношение – это рациональные,
устойчивые, повторяющиеся взаимодействия субъектов, учитывающие особенности адресата
как субъекта научной или иной творческой деятельности.
Принципиальным отличием гуманитарной технологии является и то, что адресат
никогда не выступает как средство достижения какой-либо цели субъекта, реализующего эту
технологию. Это является одной из предпосылок возможности творчества в образовательном
процессе.
Объектом гуманитарной технологии являются условия формирования опыта
деятельности и ценностного отношения в нетипичных или новых условиях профессиональной
деятельности. Критерии достижения цели: эффективная деятельность в типично-ролевых
ситуациях профессиональной деятельности, удовлетворенность условиями образовательного
процесса, способность действовать в ситуациях, не имеющих аналога в предшествующем
профессиональном опыте; высокая мотивация к научной, исследовательской деятельности.
Гуманитарная технология направлена на профессиональное развитие субъектов
технологии, формирование опыта деятельности в новых условиях профессиональной
деятельности обеспечивает конкурентные преимущества сотрудников и студентов
образовательного учреждения, повышает адаптационный потенциал вуза. Она будет
обеспечивать достижение поставленной цели при следующих условиях:
• определенная восприимчивость и способность к восприятию ситуации и поведения
внутри нее, для которой у субъекта нет знаний, исходящих из общих принципов »
(Гадамер, 1988);
• соответствие ценностно-смысловой направленности технологии образовательной
среде;
• наличие ресурсного обеспечения, административных ресурсов, квалифицированных
кадров, обеспечивающих разработку и внедрение данного вида технологий.
Примерами такой технологии являются технология организации педагогического
общения, технология проектирования диалогической формы организации учебного занятия,
коммуникативные технологии в учебно-воспитательной деятельности.
Возможные неблагоприятные последствия применения гуманитарных технологий:
трудности в работе с субъектами образовательного процесса (преподавателями и студентами),
не ориентированными на творчество, научную деятельность.
Кроме того, реализация герменевтического подхода определяет необходимость
внедрения в образовательный процесс носителей содержания образования, учебных текстов,
обладающих диалогической коммуникативной программой.
Диалогическая коммуникативная программа может обеспечивать реализацию следующих
функций учебного текста:
• учебный текст позволяет воспринять читателю трактовку изучаемой проблемы в
другой культуре или научной парадигме;
• учебный текст создает условия для формирования информационного запроса читателя,
определения им проблем, значимых для его личностного, профессионального развития,
и подлежащих изучению;
• учебный текст создает предпосылки для формирования личностного смысла
изучаемого объекта, явления.
Вероятно, диалогическая коммуникативная программа отра­жает условия возникновения
диалога, а так же стадии изменения восприятия объекта, предмета диалога. Структурной
единицей коммуникативной программы является текстовая ситуация.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

196
Основываясь на идеях М. М. Бахтина (Бахтин, 1979, 1986), выделим пять основных
блоков текстовых ситуаций, составляющих диалогическую коммуникативную программу.
Необходимо подчеркнуть, что диалогическая коммуникативная программа учебного
текста является не линейным, а разветвленным алгоритмом. В данном случае можно
рассматривать именно блоки текстовых ситуаций, поскольку содержание каждого из блоков
определяется ситуацией профессионального развития читателей.

Выводы

Итак, анализ реализации герменевтического подхода к проектированию образовательного


процесса в системе высшего профессионального образования позволил нам выделить
ключевые психолого-педагогические и организационные условия.
Психолого-педагогические условия опираются на сущностную специфику раскрытия
смысла изучаемого объекта на основе диалога. В результате диалога происходит восполнение
целостности видения субъектов диалога собственного «Я» и предмета диалога, а значит
нахождение его смысла.
Установление организационных условий определяется выбором педагогической
технологии, в основе которой лежат отношения «Я – Ты». Это возможно благодаря, во-первых,
доминированию в образовательном процессе особого вида педагогических технологий –
гуманитарной технологии. Во-вторых, за счет включения в образовательный процесс ситуаций,
которые осознаны профессиональным сообществом как значимые и повторяющиеся, но
применительно к которым не выработаны оптимальные модели поведения и разделяемая
подавляющим большинством оценка. Тем самым, создаются предпосылки для формирования
способности к выбору, социальной ответственности будущих профессионалов. В-третьих, за
счет внедрения в образовательный процесс новых носителей содержания образования. Это,
прежде всего, учебные пособия, учебники и другие пособия, обладающие диалогической
коммуникативной структурой организации.

Литература

Ба­лл Г. А., Бургин Н. С. (1994). Анализ психологического воздействия и его педагогическое
значение. Вопросы психологии, № 4.

Батищев Г. С. (1997). Введение в диалектику творчества. Санкт-Петербург.

Бахтин М. М. (1986). Эстетика словесного творчества. Москва.

Бахтин М. М. (1979). Проблемы поэтики Достоевского. Изд. 4-е. Москва.

Библер В. С. (1991). От наукоучения – к логике культуры: два философских введения в двадцать
первый век. Москва.

Бубер М. (1999). Два образа веры. Классическая философская мысль. Москва.

Гадамер Х.Г. (1988). Истина и метод: Основы филос. Герменевтики. Москва.

Каган М. С. (1988). Мир общения: проблемы межсубъектных отношений. Москва.

Леонтьев А. Н. (1975). Деятельность. Сознание. Личность. Москва.

Лотман Ю. М. (1992). К структуре диалогического текста в поэмах Пушкина (проблема авторских
примечаний к тексту). В кн.: Ю. М. Лотман, Избранные статьи в трех томах. / Т.2. Избранные
статьи по семиотике и типологии культуры. Таллинн: Александрия.
Ирина М. БРОДСКАЯ, Наталья О. ВЕРЕЩАГИНА. Герменевтический подход к проектированию
образовательного процесса в системе высшего профессионального образования PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Лотман Ю. М. (1992). О двух моделях коммуникации в системе культуры. В кн.: Ю. М. Лотман, 197
Избранные статьи в трех томах, Т. 1. Избранные статьи по семиотике и типологии культуры.
Таллинн: Александрия.

Лотман Ю. М. (1992). Асимметрия и диалог. В кн.: Ю. М.Лотман, Избранные статьи в трех
томах, Т. 1. Избранные статьи по семиотике и типологии культуры. Таллинн: Александрия.

Лурия А. Р. (1979). Язык и сознание. Москва.

Пригожин И., Стенгерс И. (1986). Порядок из хаоса: Новый диалог человека с природой.
Москва.

Сагатовский В. Н. (1995). Антропологическая целостность: статус и структура. Санкт-


Петербург.

Сериков В. В. (1994). Личностный подход в образовании: концепция и технология. Волгоград.

Соловьев В. С. (1990). Оправдание добра. Нравственная философии. Москва.

Трубецкой Е. Н. (1994). Смысл жизни. Москва.

Франкл В. (1990). Человек в поисках смысла. Москва.

Sum­ma­ry

A Her­me­neu­tic Ap­pro­ach to­wards an Edu­ca­tio­nal Pro­cess


Pro­jec­ting in the Sys­tem of the High Scho­ol

Iri­na M. Brod­ska­ya
St. Pe­ters­burg Sta­te Po­ly­tech­nic Uni­ver­si­ty, Rus­sia

Na­ta­lya O. Ve­res­cha­gi­na
Her­zen Sta­te Pe­da­go­gi­cal Uni­ver­si­ty of Rus­sia, Rus­sia

The pre­sent pa­per is ba­sed upon so­me met­ho­do­lo­gi­cal prin­cip­les of the pe­da­go­gi­cal her­me­neu­tics.
It fo­cu­ses on a qu­es­tion of re­a­li­zing a her­me­neu­tic ap­pro­ach to an edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess pro­jec­ting in the
sys­tem of the high scho­ol.
Ha­ving ana­ly­zed phi­lo­sop­hic, psy­cho­lo­gi­cal, as well as pe­da­go­gi­cal re­se­ar­ches, we ca­me to a conc­
lu­sion that in or­der to pro­ject an edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess it is ne­ces­sa­ry to re­ve­al spe­ci­fic psy­cho-pe­da­go­gi­
cal and or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal con­di­tions of the cog­ni­tion of a stu­died mat­ter.
A hu­ma­ni­ta­rian va­lue orien­ta­tion in a stu­dent – pro­fes­sor in­te­rac­tion is con­si­de­red to be a cons­ti­tu­
ti­ve con­di­tion of the edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess pro­jec­ting. Hu­ma­ni­ta­rian com­po­nent is a prin­ci­pal qu­a­li­ta­ti­ve
cha­rac­te­ris­tic of the edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess. Ac­cor­ding to ide­as con­cer­ning the na­tu­re of hu­ma­ni­ta­rian
com­po­nent by M. Bu­ber, M. Bakh­tin, G. Ba­tis­chev, it is pos­sib­le to say that it is en­gen­de­red by a spe­ci­fic
ty­pe of a hu­man at­ti­tu­de to­wards the world, a “Me – You” re­la­tions.
De­ter­mi­ning psy­cho-pe­da­go­gi­cal con­di­tions of the cog­ni­tion of a stu­died mat­ter, we are foun­ded on
an es­sen­tial spe­ci­fi­ci­ty of the cog­ni­tion. A sen­se is on­ly un­ders­to­od with the help of a dia­lo­gue, “by ad­joi­
ning anot­her (so­me­bo­dy el­se’s) sen­se”. As a re­sult of a dia­lo­gue an in­teg­ri­ty of dia­lo­gue par­ti­ci­pants’
self-view and the sub­ject of the dia­lo­gue is re­const­ruc­ted which me­ans re­ve­a­ling its in­ner sen­se.
Or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal con­di­tions are de­ter­mi­ned by the ne­ces­si­ty of cho­o­sing a pe­da­go­gi­cal tech­no­lo­gy
at the he­art of which the­re are “Me – You” re­la­tions. This is pos­sib­le thanks to, first of all, the fact of do­
mi­na­ting in the edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess such a spe­ci­fic ty­pe of pe­da­go­gi­cal tech­no­lo­gies as a hu­ma­ni­ta­rian
one. The hu­ma­ni­ta­rian tech­no­lo­gy is that me­ans of in­te­rac­tion of which cre­a­tes con­di­tions for for­ming
an ex­pe­rien­ce of the ac­ti­vi­ty and an ex­pe­rien­ce of the va­lue at­ti­tu­de to­wards non-ty­pi­cal, new si­tu­a­tions
in the pro­fes­sio­nal ac­ti­vi­ty. A tech­no­lo­gy of or­ga­ni­zing the pe­da­go­gi­cal com­mu­ni­ca­tion, a tech­no­lo­gy
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

198
of pro­jec­ting the dia­lo­gic form of stu­dies, com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ve tech­no­lo­gies in edu­ca­tio­nal ac­ti­vi­ty can be
exam­ples of this ty­pe of tech­no­lo­gies.
In the se­cond pla­ce, or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal con­di­tions are es­tab­lis­hed due to inc­lu­ding to the edu­ca­tio­nal
pro­cess si­tu­a­tions that are re­cog­ni­zed by the pro­fes­sio­nal com­mu­ni­ty as sig­ni­fi­cant and re­pe­a­tab­le but
not gi­ven op­ti­mal be­ha­vior mo­dels and com­mon es­ti­ma­tion. Thus, pre­con­di­tions of for­ming the ca­pa­ci­ty
of cho­o­sing, so­cial res­pon­si­bi­li­ty of fu­tu­re spe­cia­lists are cre­a­ted.
At last, the­se or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal con­di­tions are es­tab­lis­hed owing to inc­lu­ding new be­arers of an edu­
ca­tio­nal con­tent. The­se are, abo­ve all, scho­ol­bo­oks, tex­tbo­oks and ot­her stu­dy aids or­ga­ni­zed ac­cor­ding
to a dia­lo­gic in­te­rac­tion.
Key words: her­me­neu­tic ap­pro­ach, high scho­ol, edu­ca­tio­nal pro­cess pro­jec­ting, edu­ca­tio­nal pro­
gram.

Ad­vi­ced by E.M. Ne­ste­rov, Her­zen Sta­te Pe­da­go­gi­cal Uni­ver­si­ty of Rus­sia, Rus­sia

Iri­na M. Brod­ska­ya PhD, Ass. Prof. of the So­cio­lo­gy and Ju­risp­ru­den­ce Chair of the St. Pe­ters­burg Sta­te
Po­ly­tech­nic Uni­ver­si­ty, Os­vo­boz­hde­ni­ya Stre­et 36-21, Saint-Pe­ters­burg, 198320 Rus­
sian Fe­de­ra­tion.
E-mail: iri­na_brod­ska­ya@mail.ru
Web­si­te: http://www.spbstu.ru/

Na­ta­lya O. Ve­res­cha­gi­na PhD, Ass. Prof. of the Ge­o­lo­gy and Geo-eco­lo­gy Chair of the Her­zen Sta­te Pe­da­go­gi­
cal Uni­ver­si­ty of Rus­sia, Mors­koy Pe­ho­ty Stre­et 10-1-323, Saint-Pe­ters­burg, 198302
Rus­sian Fe­de­ra­tion.
E-mail: na­ta­lia.ve­res­hcha­gi­na@gmail.com
Web­si­te: http://www.her­zen.spb.ru/
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

199

Модель-конструкт
интерактивного модульного
учебника (направление
подготовки «реклама и связи с
общественностью»)

Ольга Н. Кравченко
Дальневосточный федеральный университет, Владивосток, Россия
Э-почта: krav­chen­ko199@yandex.ru

Абстракт

Компетентностный подход к подготовке специа­листов в условиях информационного общества


требует пересмотра традиционной модели средств обучения. Оптимизация средств обучения
идет в направлении совершенствования не только содержания, но и формы. В настоящее
время активно разра­батываются так называемые модульные учебники и программы. При
этом под модульностью понимают: 1) отбор содержания в соответствии с кредитно-
модульной системой обучения; 2) нелинейность в организации и подаче материа­ла с целью
активизации мыслительной активности учащихся. Предполагается, что принцип нелинейности
(модульности) наиболее оптимально может быть реализован в учебнике мультимедийного
формата. Считаем, что использование принципа модульности позволяет оптимизировать и
традиционный учебник на бумажном носителе, который продолжает оставаться наиболее
доступным средством обучения. Использование принципа модульности в вузовском учебнике на
бумажном носителе по социогуманитарным дисциплинам: 1) повышает его интерактивный
потенциал; 2) предоставляет студентам свободу выбора (реализация индивидуального подхода к
обучению); 3) значительно продлевает актуальность содержательной части учебника в условиях
информационной динамики сверхкоммуникативного общества. В качестве примера реализации
принципа модульности в учебнике интегрированного формата предлагаем модель авторского
учебника-практикума для бакалавров по направлению «Реклама и связи с общественностью».
Ключевые слова: компетентностный подход, традиционный учебник, оптимизация средств
обучения.

Введение

В условиях реализации компетентностного подхода к профессиональному образованию


актуализированы задачи повышения эффективности вузовского учебника, уточнения
характеристик, определяющих качество учебной книги (Антонова, 2004; Канке, 2007;
Смирнова, Федотова, 2004; и др.). Объектом настоящего исследования являются учебники,
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

200
формирующие профиль бакалавра по направлению подготовки «реклама и связи с
общественностью». В качестве предмета исследования выбраны принципы и методы
организации учебного содержания, повышающие эффективность взаимодействия студентов
с учебной литературой.
Цель исследования – подготовить комплексное описание модели-схемы интерактивного
профильного учебника по социогуманитарным дисциплинам. В рамках предпринятого
исследования разграничиваем модели-схемы, отра­ж­ающие релевантные характеристики
реального объекта, и модели-конструкты, базовая функция которых – «конструирование
нового объекта по заданным параметрам» (Мухаммад, 2003). Решаемые задачи: 1) определение
релевантных параметров (характеристик/критериев и принципов разработки) метамодели
интер­активного учебника; 2) разработка модели-конструкта учебника для подготовки
к проектной деятельности будущих специа­листов по рекламе; 3) экспериментальная
реализация модели-конструкта в формате тренингового учебника для заданного контингента.
Цель статьи – на примере модели-конструкта раскрыть потенциал принципа модульности
в организации содержания интерактивного учебника комплексного формата (Кравченко,
2009).
С позиций системного подхода основные направления исследования учебника как
идеального объекта соответствуют ведущим подсистемам учебника и включают: 1) содержание
образования; 2) образовательные процессы; 3) дидактические инструментальные средства
(Околелов, 2003). Многоаспектность анализа обусловлена функциональной сложностью
объекта, непосредственно вовлекаемого в организацию процесса обучения, воспитания
и развития студентов, стимулирования осознанного усвоения знаний и формирования
опыта эмоционально-ценностных отношений к миру, выбранной сфере профессиональной
деятельности и к самим себе.
При определении релевантных параметров метамодели современного вузовского
учебника в качестве ориентира выбраны общие принципы компетентностного подхода
к эффективной организации образовательного процесса, специальные дидактические
методы и средства оптимизации учебной книги (Антонова, 2004; Буга, 1987; Канке, 2007;
и др.). Критерии оценки эффективности учебника постоянно уточняются в соответствии
с результатами «мониторинга» развивающейся системы учебных изданий. К актуальным
недостаткам этой системы относят рассогласованность подсистем образования; невысокий
дидактический уровень учебных книг, издаваемых вузами; перегруженность информацией
и неоправданную сложность изложения материа­ла; погрешности в оформлении (Буга, 1987;
Зеленецкая, 2005; Мухина, 2007; Смирнова, Федотова, 2001; и др.).
Принципы разработки метамодели современного учебника, позволяющие уточнить
критерии его оценки, определены в результате комплексного анализа моделей-схем учебников
социогуманитарного и профессионального цикла подготовки специа­листов по рекламе. К
основным критериям интерактивного учебника и коррелированным с ними принципам его
разработки относим следующие:
• соответствие новым реалиям общества и учебного процесса; мировоззренческая
информативность – принципы современности; преемственности и новизны;
ориентации на профессиональную компетентность как результат образования;
развития индивидуальности, адаптивности и мобильности;
• комфортная информационная образовательная среда, формирующая опыт
самостоятельной познавательной и рефлексивной деятельности («ментальный
опыт» – по М.А. Холодной) (Мухина, 2007; Назарова, Господарик, 2005) – принципы
учета многообразия идей; проблемности; интерактивности; концентрического
структурирования учебного материа­ла; сочетания поступательности и линейности,
нелинейности и модульности в организации учебного содержания; опциональности;
• совершенный методический и справочно-ориентировочный аппарат; четкое
оформление цитирования, ссылок на источники, биб­лиографического списка и
Ольга Н. КРАВЧЕНКО. Модель-конструкт интерактивного модульного учебника (направление подготовки
«реклама и связи с общественностью») PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
указателей (именного, предметного и тематического) (Мухина, 2007) – принципы 201
доступности; системности; наглядности; интерактивности; свободы выбора;
учета индивидуальных когнитивных стилей;
• четкая адресность издания, соответствующая форма, язык и стиль изложения
(Назарова, Господарик, 2005) – принципы доступности; коммуникативности;
• обучающий потенциал – нацеленность на развитие профессионального мышления
и нравственной личности, способной к свободному сознательному выбору и к
самостоянию («футурологический тип личности») (Мухина, 2007) – принципы
проблемности; свободы выбора; развития индивидуальных когнитивных способностей
обучаемых, способностей саморегулирования и самооценивания результатов
профессиональной деятельности и себя в деятельности.
С учетом общих тенденций к совершенствованию средств обучения для высшей школы
выделяем основную функцию современного вузовского учебника – стимулирование будущего
специа­листа к интеллектуальной/познавательной, личностной и социальной активности,
развитие его общей мобильности и адаптивности.

Теоретические основания исследования

В качестве методологической базы при разработке модели-конструкта использованы


рекомендации по оптимизации учебника как носителя информации, развивающего
«мыследеятельность» студента, профессиональные и общекультурные компетенции,
мотивацию, личностную деятельность и коммуникативную рефлексию (Антонова, Тюрина,
2001; Буга, 1987; Канке, 2007; Мухина, 2007; Назарова, Господарик, 2005).

Гипотеза и способы проверки

По мнению Т.С. Назаровой и Ю.П. Господарик (2005), в информационном обществе


актуализированы такие характеристики источника информации, как насыщенность
(плотность), мобильность и визуальная привлекательность. В основу разработки модели-
конструкта учебника по рекламе положена гипотеза о возможности совершенствования
учебника как источника профессионально значимой информации на основе принципа
модульности в организации обучающего содержания. К критериям истинности гипотезы
относим: 1) возможность реализации модели-конструкта в формате тренингового учебника; 2)
апробацию модульного учебника, подтверждающую эффективность использования данного
средства обучения для стимулирования познавательной, интеллектуальной и творческой
активности студентов; формирования профессиональной идентичности; развития общей
мобильности и адаптивности.

Методы исследования

Основными методами, использованными при разработке модели-конструкта тренингового


учебника, являются моделирование, наблюдение, анализ и эксперимент.

Результаты

Модель-схема интерактивного профильного учебника разра­батывается на основе


апробации различных вар­иантов модели-конструкта (Кравченко, 2004; Кравченко, 2006;
Кравченко, Новикова, 2008). Предлагаем к обсуждению наиболее удачный вар­иант реализации
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

202
принципа модульности – модель-конструкт учебника «Рекламный продукт: проектирование –
моделирование – оценка». Основные характеристики: 1) по предназначенности: учебник
для преподавателя и студентов первого образовательного уровня (задания практикума
с пометой «дополнительно» могут быть использованы на втором уровне); 2) по виду:
тренинговый учебник, или учебник-практикум; 3) по методу обучения: комбинированный
(коммуникативный, активный, репродуктивно-креативный); 4) по принципу организации
содержания: комплексный – линейная, нелинейная (модульная) и концентрическая
подача учебного материа­ла; 5) по принципу взаимодействия «студент – учебник – автор»:
интерактивный, опциональный.
В современных условиях функция автора учебника по профильным дисциплинам
состоит в создании динамичной системы овладения общекультурными и профессиональными
компетенциями. Функция пользователя учебника – выбрать именно те фрагменты системы,
которые оказались в данный момент существенными для решения профессиональных задач.
Следовательно, в интерактивном учебнике должны дидактически оправданно сочетаться
системность и фрагментарность, экстенсивность (широта охвата темы) и интенсивность
(глубина ее изучения).
Профессиональное мышление формируется соответствующей организацией структуры
и логики обучающего текста (Мухина, 2007). В этой связи представляет интерес изучение
преимуществ гипертекстовой технологии с целью модернизации дидактической системы
учебника традиционного формата (Кравченко, 2009; Околелов, 2003). Поскольку в условиях
информационного бума на первое место выходят задачи отбора и упрощения информации,
предлагаем в интерактивном учебнике информацию фрагментировать, дифференцировать по
базовым «смыслам» и упорядочить в виде системы относительно автономных смысловых
блоков-модулей.
Использование системы модулей позволяет компактно представить широкий спектр
разноуровневой учебной информации. Выделяем четыре уровня обучающей информации:
два структурно-ориентировочных (1, 2); собственно информирующий (3) и справочно-
ориентировочный (4). Подобная иерархичность в представлении содержания соответствует
современному опциональному восприятию реальности.
Первый уровень формируют средства навигации в структуре учебника – элементы
содержания и структурирования мега-модулей (разделов) и модулей (параграфов), т.е.
оглавление, заголовки и подзаголовки. Второй уровень представлен системой базовых
операторов, расположенных в определенной последовательности и выполняющих ориенти­
рующую функцию в содержании каждого модуля: уточним понятия; стимул к размышлению,
авторитетное мнение, вопрос-ответ, исследования, интересные факты, тенденции,
дискуссия, мастер-класс, креатив, материал для наблюдения и т.д. Каждый оператор
вводит определенный мини-модуль – собственно учебную информацию (третий уровень).
При выделении базовых операторов мы ориентировались: 1) на структуру человеческого
сознания, где в качестве модуля выступает «слот» (позиция) для хранения информации; 2)
на особенности восприятия печатного текста: просмотровое, беглое вертикальное чтение
vs. изучающее – горизонтальное (от общего – к частному). Функция четвертого уровня
обучающей информации – отсылка к источникам для дальнейшей самостоятельной работы
(ссылки, указатели, биб­лиографический список).
Свобода выбора является необходимым условием развития информационной мобильности
и адаптивности. При взаимодействии с модульным учебником пользователь получает
возможность выбирать информацию, соответствующую его знаниям, опыту и текущему
состоянию сознания; экстенсивный или интенсивный способ освоения содержания. Как
показывает практика, организация обучающего содержания на основе принципа модульности
способствует активизации деятельности (познавательной, оценочной и т. п.) студентов,
развитию их творческого мышления. Использование принципа модульности в организации
содержания профильного учебника: 1) развивает потребностно-мотивационный компонент
Ольга Н. КРАВЧЕНКО. Модель-конструкт интерактивного модульного учебника (направление подготовки
«реклама и связи с общественностью») PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
деятельности, стимулируя самостоятельную работу, поиск и освоение необходимой 203
информации; 2) формирует и развивает позитивную самооценку, уверенность в собственных
силах, стремление к успеху; 3) поддерживает актуальность содержательной части учебника
в условиях нарастающей информационной динамики.

Обсуждение результатов

В качестве оптимальной модели учебника нового поколения для общеобразовательной


школы выбран модульный учебник. При этом основное внимание уделяется принципам
наглядности и фиксированности формата. В данной статье идея модульности получила
дальнейшее развитие в аспекте оптимизации содержания вузовского интерактивного
учебника. Считаем, что комплексное использование принципа модульности позволяет снять
следующие противоречия в организации обучающего содержания учебника:
• расширение предметной области: регламентированная программой учебная
информация (закрытая статичная система) vs. «информационная среда профессии»
(открытая подвижная система) (Антонова, 2004; Канке, 2007);
• преобразование структуры: логика развития предметной области vs. логика
профессиональной деятельности;
• углубление функциональной области: информирующая функция vs. обучающая,
ориентирующая и стимулирующая поиск и эмоционально-оценочное освоение
информации (Антонова, 2004; Канке, 2007).
Важным направлением оптимизации вузовского учебника, наряду с организацией
содержания и активной самостоятельности студента, является разработка современных
форм контроля (Антонова, Тюрина, 2001; Канке, 2007; Смирнова, Федотова, 2001). Считаем
перспективным совершенствование контролирующего блока тренингового учебника на
основе модульного принципа. Возможные операторы мини-модулей: стимул к поиску/к
размышлению, альтернативное суждение, решение проблемы, и т.д.

Выводы

Основными преимуществами обсуждаемой модели-конструкта интерактивного


модульного учебника считаем системность, четкую структурированность и компактность
обучающего материа­ла, комплексное использование внешних информационных ресурсов,
опциональность, возможность развития индивидуального когнитивного стиля учащихся.
Модульная организация учебного содержания создает условия для формирования и развития
таких востребованных качеств будущего специа­листа, как: маневренность, быстродействие,
саморегулирование, ориентация в многообразии идей, стремление и способность к научному
познанию и пониманию (Мухина, 2007); способность «быстро и экономно адаптироваться
к непрерывно меняющимся условиям» и к информационному потоку; «способность
распознавать модели будущих событий»; «предугадывать направление и скорость перемен»;
«регулярно делать <…> долгосрочные прогнозы» (Тоффлер, 2002).

Литература

Антонова, С. Г. (2004). Издания для вузов по гуманитарным и социально-экономическим


дисциплинам: некоторые направления повышения качества. Университетская книга. 10. с. 24–27.

Антонова, С. Г., Тюрина, Л. Г. (2001). Современная учебная книга. Сервис, Москва. Россия.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

204
Буга, П. Г. (1987). Вузовский учебник: создание, выпуск, распространение. Книга, Москва.
Россия.

Зеленецкая, Т. (2005). О формировании компетентностей (Размышления над книгой). Высшее


образование сегодня. 6/05. С. 108–111.

Канке В. А. (2007). Философия учебника. Университетская книга. 2. с. 56–58.

Кравченко, О. Н. (2004). Разработка и технологии производства рекламного продукта. Россия,


Владивосток, Дальневосточный государственный университет.

Кравченко, О. Н. (2006). Моделирование рекламного продукта. Россия, Владивосток,


Дальневосточный государственный университет.

Кравченко, О. Н. (2009). Содержательные и формальные основания для модернизации вузовского


учебника по прикладным гуманитарным дисциплинам. Сибирский педагогический журнал. 1. с.
67–77.
Кравченко, О. Н., Новикова, О. И. (2008). Политическая реклама. Россия, Владивосток,
Дальневосточный государственный университет.

Мухаммад, Л. П. (2003). Языковая личность иностранного студента-нефилолога начального и


среднего этапов обучения (медицинский профиль). Россия, Москва, Государственный институт
русского языка им. А. С. Пушкина.

Мухина, В. (2007). Учебник нового поколения и футурологический тип личности. Развитие


личности. 3. с. 12–14.

Назарова, Т. С., Господарик, Ю. П. (2005). Стратегия развития учебной книги. Педагогика. 3,


с. 10–19.

Околелов, О. П. (2003). Дидактическая специфика современного вузовского учебника. Педагогика.


10, с. 20–25.

Смирнова, Е. В., Федотова, З. Н. (2001). Издательская деятельность в современном вузе. Логос,


Москва. Россия.

Тоффлер, Э. (2002). Шок будущего. ООО «Издательство ACT», Москва. Россия.

Sum­ma­ry

The Mo­del-Const­ruct of an In­te­rac­ti­ve Mo­du­lar Tex­tbo­ok


(Trai­ning Pro­fi­le “Ad­ver­ti­sing and Pub­lic Re­la­tions”)

Ol­ga Krav­chen­ko
Far Eastern Na­tio­nal Uni­ver­si­ty, Vla­di­vos­tok, Rus­sia

The ob­ject of this stu­dy is edu­ca­tio­nal li­te­ra­tu­re, which forms the pro­fi­le of a gra­du­a­te (ba­che­lors
pro­gram fo­cu­sing on the “Ad­ver­ti­sing and PR”). The sub­ject are the prin­cip­les and met­hods of or­ga­ni­za­
tion of edu­ca­tio­nal con­tent, that inc­re­a­se the ef­fi­cien­cy of in­te­rac­tion of stu­dents with edu­ca­tio­nal li­te­ra­
tu­re. The aim of the re­se­arch – to pre­pa­re a com­pre­hen­si­ve desc­rip­tion of the mo­del-sche­me pro­fi­le of
a tex­tbo­ok on so­cio-hu­ma­ni­ta­rian dis­cip­li­nes. Pro­blems that are sol­ved: 1) iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the re­le­vant
pa­ra­me­ters of the met­ha­mo­del of a mo­dern ac­ti­ve high scho­ol tex­tbo­ok, 2) de­ve­lop­ment of a mo­del-
const­ruct of the tex­tbo­ok, pre­pa­ring fu­tu­re ad­ver­ti­sing spe­cia­lists for pro­ject work, and 3) an ex­pe­ri­men­
tal re­a­li­za­tion of the mo­del-const­ruct in the for­mat of the trai­ning ma­nu­al for a spe­ci­fic con­tin­gent. The
pur­po­se of the ar­tic­le – for the mo­del const­ructs to re­ve­al the po­ten­tial of mo­du­la­ri­ty in the or­ga­ni­za­tion
of con­tent in an in­te­rac­ti­ve tra­di­tio­nal for­mat tex­tbo­ok. We be­lie­ve that the de­ve­lo­ped mo­del-sche­me of
a mo­du­lar tex­tbo­ok will al­low using its in­for­ma­tio­nal and di­dac­tic com­po­nents op­ti­mal­ly.
Ольга Н. КРАВЧЕНКО. Модель-конструкт интерактивного модульного учебника (направление подготовки
«реклама и связи с общественностью») PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Met­ho­do­lo­gy of the Re­se­arch. As a met­ho­do­lo­gi­cal fra­me­work for the cre­a­tion of the mo­del-const­ 205
ruc­tion we used the re­com­men­da­tions in op­ti­mi­za­tion of tex­tbo­ok as a car­rier of in­for­ma­tion, de­ve­lo­ping
“men­tal ac­ti­vi­ty” of stu­dent, his pro­fes­sio­nal and per­so­nal com­pe­ten­ce, mo­ti­va­tion, per­so­nal ac­ti­vi­ties
and com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ve re­flec­tion (An­to­no­va, 2004; Bu­ga, 1987; Kan­ke 2007; and ot­hers).
Re­sults of the Re­se­arch. The mo­del of the tex­tbo­ok is de­ve­lo­ped on the ba­sis of an ap­pro­ved mo­du­
lar trai­ning ma­nu­al on the wor­king-out of an ad­ver­ti­sing pro­duct (Krav­chen­ko 2004, 2006; Krav­chen­ko,
No­vi­ko­va 2008). The use of mo­du­les al­lows pro­vi­ding a wi­de ran­ge of mul­ti-le­vel trai­ning in­for­ma­tion.
We high­light four con­tent le­vels: two struc­tu­ral­ly in­di­ca­ti­ve (1, 2), in­for­ma­ti­ve (3) and re­fe­ren­tial (4).
The first le­vel de­als with the me­ans of na­vi­ga­tion in the struc­tu­re of the tex­tbo­ok – he­a­dings and su­bhe­a­
dings. The se­cond le­vel is rep­re­sen­ted by ope­ra­tors – the sys­tem of “ke­y­words”, which fol­low in a par­ti­
cu­lar or­der and ha­ve the orien­ting func­tion: cla­ri­fy the con­cept, aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve opi­nion, re­se­arch, in­te­res­
ting facts, trends, dis­cus­sion, mas­ter-class etc. A cer­tain mi­ni-mo­du­le stands be­hind each ope­ra­tor – the
ac­tu­al in­for­ma­tion (the third le­vel). The func­tion of the fourth le­vel is re­fe­ren­ces to va­rio­us sour­ces for
furt­her in­de­pen­dent work (re­fe­ren­tial part of the tex­tbo­ok).
Dis­cus­sion. A mo­du­lar tex­tbo­ok is cho­sen as an op­ti­mal mo­del of a new-ge­ne­ra­tion se­con­da­ry scho­
ol tex­tbo­ok. The main at­ten­tion is fo­cu­sed on the prin­cip­les of cla­ri­ty and fi­xed for­mat. In this ar­tic­le the
idea of mo­du­la­ri­ty has be­en de­ve­lo­ped furt­her in the as­pect of op­ti­mi­za­tion of the con­tent of the high
scho­ol in­te­rac­ti­ve tex­tbo­ok.
Conc­lu­sions. The main ad­van­ta­ges of the de­ve­lo­ped mo­del-const­ruc­tor of a mo­du­lar tex­tbo­ok are:
com­pac­tness, op­tio­na­li­ty, in­te­rac­ti­ve­ness, re­gu­la­ted ac­cess to in­for­ma­tio­nal re­sour­ces, and a pos­si­bi­li­ty
of de­ve­lo­ping an in­di­vi­du­al cog­ni­ti­ve sty­le, stu­dent’s mo­bi­li­ty and adap­ta­bi­li­ty.
Key words: high scho­ol tex­tbo­ok, or­ga­ni­za­tion of the tex­tbo­ok’s con­tent, the prin­cip­le of mo­du­la­
ri­ty, op­tio­na­li­ty, in­te­rac­ti­vi­ty, mo­bi­li­ty, adap­ta­bi­li­ty.

Ad­vi­ced by M.A. Nev­zo­ro­va, Far Eastern Na­tio­nal Uni­ver­si­ty, Rus­sia

Ol­ga Krav­chen­ko As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor; Ap­pli­cant for Ph.D (Dr.Sc.) in Pe­da­go­gy (The­o­ry and Met­ho­do­lo­
gy of Pro­fes­sio­nal Edu­ca­tion), Far Eastern Na­tio­nal Uni­ver­si­ty, Sta­ny­u­ko­vi­cha Stre­et
No. 10–19, Vla­di­vos­tok, 690003 Rus­sia.
E-mail: krav­chen­ko199@yandex.ru
Web­si­te: http://www.fe­nu.ru/
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

206

Внедрение ИКТ в практику


управления образовательным
учреждением

Наталья Вронская
Латвийский Сельскохозяйственный университет, Латвия
Э-почта: as­ha­tan_m@mail.ru

Абстракт

В качестве примера внедрения ИКТ в систему управления образовательных учреждений в Латвии


можно привести единую информативную систему латвийских вузов (LAIS), в которой происходит
обобщенный регистр студентов, учебных программ и курсов, позволяющий организовать
внутренний документооборот в сети, а также вести мониторинг по успеваемости студентов
и посещаемости занятий.
Информационная система “e-stu­di­ju sistēma” бы­ла создана для улучшения эффективности и
увеличения эластичности учебного процесса. К этой системе можно подключиться не только
из любого места Латвии, но и за ее пределами.
Также поощряется и популяризируется доступность электронных материалов лекций и
практических работ, а также осуществление прямой связи студентов с преподавателем для
получения консультаций по вопросу при помощи электронной почты.
Еще одним примером внедрения ИКТ в систему управления образовательного учреждения
является информационная система (IS), с помощью которой студент любой программы может
следить за своим учебным процессом, т.е. существует возможность видеть выбранные учебные
предметы и полученную оценку за этот предмет.
Ключевые слова: информационная система, управление вузом.

Введение

Информатизация системы образования имеет два направления – внедрение


ИКТ непосредственно в процесс обучения и информатизация системы управления
образовательными учреждениями. Внедрение ИКТ, крайне необходимо, в систему управления
образовательными учреждениями, так как это позволяет ускорить обмен информацией,
упростить работу администратора и позволяет ему принимать наиболее эффективные
управленческие решения.
Необходимость выполнения данного исследования заключается в том, что в настоящее
время: 1) без средств информатизации невозможно проанализировать огромное количество
информации, которое концентрируется у педагогов и администрации образовательного
Наталья ВРОНСКАЯ. Внедрение ИКТ в практику управления образовательным учреждением
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
учреждения при решении вопросов управления учреждением, и адекватно отреагировать на 207
неё; 2) современного студента образовательное учреждение должно подготовить к жизни
в условиях глобальной информатизации общества, т.е. снабдить навыками пользователя
современных ИКТ.
Объектом исследования является ментальная готовность студентов к внедрению ИКТ.
Целью исследования, результаты которого представлены в данной статье, являлось изучение
и анализ внедрения ИКТ в практику управления образовательным учреждением.
Одна из главных проблем внедрения ИКТ в систему управления образовательного
учреждения заключается в том, что крайне существенным фактором является ментальная
готовность студентов и педагогов к постоянному использованию информационных систем,
студенческого кода пользователя и электронного почтового ящика. К тому же, кроме наличия
ментальной готовности, все участники образовательного процесса должны иметь доступ к
Интернету. Таким образом у автора появились новые вопросы, требующие осмысления и
углубленного анализа: какие могут быть преимущества и риски внедрения ИКТ в систему
управления образовательного учреждения? Какие еще могут быть новые подходы к
информационным системам?

Методология исследования

Эмпирическую базу исследования составили данные, проведенного под руководством


автора в 2009 учебном году, опроса 600 свободно выбранных респондентов первого и третьего
курсов шести факультетов Латвийского Сельскохозяйственного университета (ЛСУ).
Для проведения эмпирического исследования, с последующим анализом информации,
бы­ли использованы следущие статистичекие методы:
1) Тест Колмогорова-Смирнова – для выяснения, являются ли наблюдаемые данные
выборок равномерно распределёнными.
2) Тест по критерию хи-квадрата – для проверки наблюдаемых данных каждой выборки,
на подчинение теоретическому закону распределения.

Анализ информатизации системы образования

В качестве примера внедрения информационных технологий в систему управления


образовательных учреждений в Латвии можно привести единую информативную систему
латвийских вузов – LAIS (Niedrīte&Niedrītis, 2000), в которую входят 13 вузов, расположенных
по всей территории Латвии, и где происходит обобщенный регистр студентов и сотрудников,
учебных программ и курсов, позволяющий организовать внутренний документооборот в
сети, а также вести мониторинг по успеваемости студентов и посещаемости занятий.
На факультете информационных технологий при помощи преподавателей (Ka­zai­nis, 2006)
и студентов в 2004 году бы­ла разработана и проверена, на базе факультета информационных
технологий, информационная система e-stu­di­ju sistēma для улучшения эффективности и
увеличения эластичности учебного процесса.
В 2008 году информационная система e-stu­di­ju sistēma бы­ла усовершенствована и
преобразована в информационную систему e-stu­di­ju vi­de�.
Сущность этой системы состоит в том, что: 1) любой студент, находящийся на территории
Латвии или за ее пределами, может воспользоваться электронными материа­лами лекций,
содержанием самостоятельных домашних работ и упражнений, которые преподаватель
постоянно обновляет и публикует в данной системе; 2) у преподавателя имеется возможность
проверить знания студентов при помощи теста с автоматическим подсчетом результатов, а у

Ret­rie­ved Feb­ru­a­ry 15, 2010, from http://es­tu­di­jas.itf.llu.lv/de­fault.aspx.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

208
студентов имеется возможность электронной консультации с преподавателем, либо дебатов
с другими студентами.
Аналогичное мнение высказала педагог Туранова Л. о том, что информационная среда
позволяет не только осуществлять обучение и воспитание студентов, мотивирующие их
к самостоятельному обучению с использованием ИКТ, но и является удобным средством
хранения учебно-методических материалов (Туранова, 2004).
Еще одним примером внедрения информационных технологий в систему управления
образовательного учреждения является информационная система (IS), с помощью которой
студент любой программы может следить за своим учебным процессом, т.е. существует
возможность видеть выбранные им учебные предметы и полученную оценку за этот предмет,
поэтому с этого учебного года первокурсникам не бы­ли выданы зачетные книжки. Они следят
за своим учебным процессом с помощью информационной системы, где каждому студенту
присваивается свой код пользователя и соответственно свой личный доступ к нему.
Одним из нововведений в информационных технологиях, служит идея выдвинутая
студентами – создание общего для всего курса электронного почтового ящика, адрес которого
находится также и у преподавателя.

Результаты исследования

После диагностического анализа ИКТ, используемых в системе образования ЛСУ,


повышенное внимание автора было привлечено к таким двух новшествам: как, студенческий
код пользователя и использование электронного почтового ящика.
В 2009–2010 учебном году ЛСУ первокурсникам не выдали зачетные книжки, так как
перешли на электронный код пользователя. В этой связи, бы­ли опрошены студенты первого
курса, имеющие только код пользователя, и третьего курса, имеющие зачетные книжки. На
проверку утверждения об необходимости пользования зачетной книжкой бы­ла выдвинута
статистическая гипотеза о том, что в заданном вопросе нет расхождения мнений между
студентами первого и третьего курсов. Для проверки гипотезы был использован тест
Колмогорова-Смирнова для сравнения двух независимых выборок (первый и третий курс).
Результаты теста приведены в расположенной ниже таблице 1:

Таблица 1. Результаты теста.

N
Ab­so­lu­te (абсолютно) 0.691
Most Ex­tre­me Dif­fe­ren­ces
Po­si­ti­ve (положительно) 0.691
(Самые экстремальные разности)
Ne­ga­ti­ve (отрицательно) -0.309
Kol­mo­go­rov-Smir­nov Z (Z-Колмогорова-Смирнова) 8.400
Asymp. Sig. (2-tai­led) (Статистическая значимость (2-сторонняя) 0.000

Полученные в таблице 1 результаты подтвердили выявление существенного различия


выборок, так как уровень значимости р = 0.000 < 0.05. Из этого следует, что с вероятностью
95% мнения респондентов первого и третьего курсов об необходимости пользования зачетной
книжкой статистически существенно отличаются друг от друга.
Дальнейшая статистическая обработка выборок бы­ла проведена с использованием теста
по критерию хи-квадрата, для проверки, насколько значительно отличаются друг от друга
ответы респондентов каждой из выборок. Результаты теста приведены в расположенных
ниже таблицах 2 и 3:
Наталья ВРОНСКАЯ. Внедрение ИКТ в практику управления образовательным учреждением
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Таблица 2. Результаты выборки 1 курса. 209

Asymp. Sig. (Статистическая значимость) 0.000

Re­si­du­als (остатки)
нужна 45.3
не нужна -18.7
не знаю -26.7

Таблица 3. Результаты выборки 3 курса.

Asymp. Sig. (Статистическая значимость) 0.000

Re­si­du­als (остатки)
нужна 94.7
не нужна -11.3
не знаю -83.3

По результатам теста у обеих курсов получилось очень значимое значение критерия хи-
квадрат (р = 0,000). Из этого следует, что с вероятностью в 95% ответы респондентов обеих
выборок по группам не разделяются равномерно.
При помощи полученных остатков (таблица 2 и 3), бы­ли определены те категории, где
наблюдалось значительное отклонение, т.е. в выборке первого курса наблюдалось очень
значимое превышение выбора ответа нужна и равномерное занижение ответа не нужна и не
знаю, из чего следует, что часть первокурсников сомневается в выборе ответа. А в выборке
третьего курса наблюдалось очень значимое превышение выбора ответа нужна и очень,
очень значимое занижение выбора ответа не знаю, из чего следует, что третий курс уверен в
необходимости зачетной книжки.
В значительной степени отличаются комментарии первого и третьего курсов, первый
курс пишет, что ликвидация зачетной книжки “ничего не значит, ведь никогда не было”
или „не с чем сравнивать”, в свою очередь большинство студентов третьего курса не
хочет ликвидации зачетной книжки. Аналогичные мнения можно обнаружить в форуме
Латвийского университета (ЛУ). В 2005 году студенты ЛУ выра­ж­ают схожие мнения и
сомнения, что и ЛСУ студенты в 2009 году: „отсутствие зачетной книжки создает
ненужный хаос, особенно потому, что контрольные листы публично недоступны, а оценки
в информационной системе появляются после сессии, когда что-либо исправить уже
нельзя...”, „зачетная книжка – это стильно!”, „сколько раз было, что в зачетке оценка уже
давно выставлена, а в информационной системе все еще нет.”
Другая возможность использования ИКТ, которой сейчас студенты часто пользуются –
это создание и использование общего для всего курса электронного почтового ящика. Но так,
как в данный момент существуют и другие альтернативы получения необходимого учебного
материа­ла, то студенты выбира­ли более приемлимый для себя вар­иант (э-ящик, веб-сайт
преподавателя или распечатанный материал). Поэтому на проверку использования общего
электронного ящика бы­ла выдвинута статистическая гипотеза о том, что в заданном вопросе
нет расхождения мнений между первым и третьим курсами (тест Колмогорова-Смирнова).
Результаты теста приведены в расположенной ниже таблице 4:


Ret­rie­ved Feb­ru­a­ry 20, 2010, from http://www.lu.lv/fo­rums/...

Ret­rie­ved Feb­ru­a­ry 20, 2010, from http://fiz­ma­ti.lv/fo­rums/thre­ad-2722.html
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

210 Таблица 4. Результаты теста.

N
Most Ex­tre­me Dif­fe­ren­ces Ab­so­lu­te (абсолютно) 0.651
(Самые экстремальные разности) Po­si­ti­ve (положительно) 0.070
Ne­ga­ti­ve (отрицательно) -0.651
Kol­mo­go­rov-Smir­nov Z (Z-Колмогорова-Смирнова) 7.916
Asymp. Sig. (2-tai­led) (Статистическая значимость (2-сторонняя) 0.000

Полученные в таблице 4 результаты подтвердили выявление существенного различия


выборок (р = 0.000), из этого следует, что с вероятностью 95% мнения респондентов первого
и третьего курсов об использовании общего электронного ящика статистически существенно
отличаются друг от друга.
Далее, аналогично (хи-квадрат), было проверено насколько значительно отличаются
друг от друга ответы респондентов каждой из выборок. Результаты теста приведены в
расположенных ниже таблицах 5 и 6:

Таблица 5. Результаты выборки 1 курса.

Asymp. Sig. (Статистическая значимость) 0.000

Re­si­du­als (остатки)
э-ящик 106.3
веб-сайт -27.7
распечатанный -78.7

Таблица 6. Результаты выборки 3 курса.

Asymp. Sig. (Статистическая значимость) 0.000

Re­si­du­als (остатки)
э-ящик 102.7
веб-сайт -30.3
распечатанный -72.3

По результатам теста у обеих курсов получилось очень значимое значение критерия хи-
квадрат (р = 0,000). Из этого следует, что с вероятностью в 95% ответы респондентов обеих
выборок по группам не разделяются равномерно. В выборках обеих курсов наблюдалось
очень значимое превышение выбора ответа ż-˙łčź и очень, очень значимое занижение выбора
ответа šąńļå÷ąņąķķūé материал, из чего следует, что студентами все же было высказано
желание иметь распечатанный материал, а не электронный.

Дискуссия

По мнению ученых Гудкова П. и Хожаевой Т., внедрение ИКТ в работу образовательных


учреждений позволит создать квалифицированный административный и управленческий
аппарат (Гудков&Хожаева, 2007).
Нельзя также не согласиться с мнением ученого Майдурова С., что основой современного
этапа информатизации образования является использование ИКТ, а они, в свою очередь,
позволяют перевести организационный потенциал на совершенно новый уровень, то
применение их в настоящий момент в образовательных учреждениях становится уже
необходимостью (Майдуров, 2004).
Наталья ВРОНСКАЯ. Внедрение ИКТ в практику управления образовательным учреждением
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Применяя ИКТ можно значительно продвинуться в устранении противоречий в работе 211
администратора, препятствующих нахождению оптимальных решений. Это противоречия
между:
• необходимостью принятия многочисленных оперативных решений и медленным
сбором и обработкой информации по решаемой проблеме,
• необходимой компетентностью управленческой деятельности и большой динамикой
информационно - правового обеспечения,
• большим объемом вычислительной работы для обработки статистической
административной информации и отсутствием ее автоматизации.
Таким образом, по мнению заместителя директора Югорского муниципального
бюджетного учреждения “Городской методический центр”, Толстовой М., информатизация
тесно вплелась в образовательный процесс и закономерным является вопрос о ее влиянии на
качество образования (Толстова, 2008).
В ходе обсуждения информатизированного подхода управления образовательным
учреждением в современных условиях часто возникает вопрос: “Каких результатов
следует ждать данному учреждению от внедрения ИКТ в управление образовательным
процессом?”. Этот вопрос отра­жает закономерное желание администрации образовательных
учреждений, принимающих решение о внедрении ИКТ, знать, какие конкретные выгоды даст
использование ИКТ в организации учебного процесса образовательного учреждения и каким
образом окупятся затраты на их внедрение.
Ответом на этот вопрос, по мнению Майдурова С., могут служить следующие
предполагаемые выгоды, изображенные на рисунке 3:

Рис. 1. Предполагаемые выгоды от внедрения ИКТ в


образовательный процесс.

По мнению педагога Деменко И. из департамента образования администрации


г. Южно − Сахалинска, в информационную среду необходимо внедряться через деятельность –
учить практическому использованию ИКТ педагогов и студентов. Причем использовать
ИКТ необходимо, прежде всего, там, где видны очевидные преимущества их применения
по сравнению с традиционными методами. Осознав это преимущество, педагог или студент
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

212
будет пользоваться полученными навыками независимо от наличия или отсутствия внешней
мотивации (Деменко, 2008).

Выводы

• Внедрение ИКТ в систему управления образовательным учреждением необходимо,


т.к. это позволяет ускорить обмен информацией, упростить работу администратора и
увеличить эффективность и производительность управления в образовании.
• Информационные системы обучают систематической и самостоятельной учебе, а также
позволяют студенту учиться в удобное для него время и место.
• В первую очередь, внедрение ИКТ в систему управления образовательным процессом
должно стать постоянной потребностью администрации учреждения, и тогда, педа­
гоги и студенты тоже начнут мыслить аналогично администрации и проникнутся
необходимостью постоянного использования информационных систем в своем
образовательном процессе.

Литература

Ar­hi­po­va, I., Bāliņa, S. (2003). Sta­tis­ti­ka eko­no­mikā. Rīga: Da­tor­zinību centrs.


Lat­vi­jas Augst­sko­lu In­for­matīvā Sistēma (2010). Ret­rie­ved Feb­ru­a­ry 02, 2010, from http://www.lais.lv/.
Lat­vi­jas Lauk­saim­niecības uni­ver­sitātes e-stu­di­ju vi­de (2010) Ret­rie­ved Feb­ru­a­ry 15, 2010, from
http://es­tu­di­jas.itf.llu.lv/de­fault.aspx.
Lat­vi­jas Lauk­saim­niecības uni­ver­sitātes kur­su reģistrs (2010). Ret­rie­ved Feb­ru­a­ry 02, 2010, from
https://ir­ma.cs.llu.lv/pls/llus/kur­si.star­tup?l=1.
Lat­vi­jas Uni­ver­sitātes fizmātu fo­rums (2008). Ziņojums #13-17. Ret­rie­ved Feb­ru­a­ry 20, 2010, from
http://fiz­ma­ti.lv/fo­rums/thre­ad-2722.html.
Lat­vi­jas Uni­ver­sitātes fo­rums (2005). Stu­di­ju grāma­tiņu grib lik­vidēt. Ret­rie­ved Feb­ru­a­ry 20,
2010, from http://www.lu.lv/fo­rums/nc/?tx_mmfo­rum_pi1%5Bac­tion%5D=list_post&tx_mmfo­rum_
pi1%5Btid%5D=1334&tx_mmfo­rum_pi1%5Bpa­ge%5D=1.
Ka­zai­nis, Ģ. (2006). LLU In­formāci­jas teh­no­loģiju fa­kultātes E-stu­di­ju sistēmas iz­vei­de. Maģist­ra darbs.
Jel­ga­va.
Niedrīte, L., Niedrītis, A. (2000). Lat­vi­jas Augst­sko­lu In­for­matīvās sistēmas ie­vie­ša­nas re­zultāti. Starp­
tau­tis­ka kon­fe­ren­ce un sten­du pre­zentāci­jas LATSTE. Au­ce: Au­ces vi­dus­sko­la.
Pau­ra, L., Ar­hi­po­va, I. (2002). Ne­pa­ra­met­ris­kas me­to­des. Jel­ga­va: LLKC.
Гудков, П. Г., Хожаева, Т. С. (2007). Технологии информатизации организационно-управленчекой
деятельности школы. ИТО-2007. Москва.
Деменко, И. Н. (2008). Информационная ситема общеобразовательного учреждения как
возможность эффективности развития информатизации образовательного процессаю ИТО-2008.
Москва.
Майдуров, С. А. (2004). ИКТ в управление образовательным учреждением. ИТО-2004. Москва.
Толстова, М. В. (2008). Использование ИКТ в образовательном процессе как условие повышения
качества образовательных услуг. Ret­rie­ved Mart 10, 2010, from http://ugorsk.ru/raz­del/so­cial_sf/edu/
mmc/
Туранова, Л. М. (2004). Информационная среда как необходимый инструмент современного
педагога. ИТО-2004. Москва.
Наталья ВРОНСКАЯ. Внедрение ИКТ в практику управления образовательным учреждением
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010
Sum­ma­ry 213

In­tro­duc­tion of ICT in prac­ti­ce ma­na­ge­ment of


edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tion

Na­ta­lie Vrons­ka­ya
Lat­via Uni­ver­si­ty of Ag­ri­cul­tu­re, Jel­ga­va, Lat­via

Pur­po­se of the re­se­arch: a stu­dy and ana­ly­sis of in­tro­duc­tion of in­for­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gy in ma­na­ge­ment
of edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tion.
For exam­ple when men­tio­ning the in­tro­duc­tion of in­for­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gies in the ma­na­ge­ment sys­tems
of edu­ca­tio­nal ins­ti­tu­tions in Lat­via, it is pos­sib­le to men­tion the uni­fied in­for­ma­tion sys­tem of the Lat­
vian In­for­ma­ti­sa­tion Sys­tem for Uni­ver­si­ties (LAIS). This sys­tem is com­po­sed of a stu­dent re­gis­ter, cur­
ri­cu­lum re­gis­ter and cour­ses re­gis­ter which or­ga­ni­ze the in-hou­se tur­no­ver of do­cu­ments in the lo­cal
net­work, to­get­her with mo­ni­to­ring of vi­si­ting les­sons and stu­dent pro­gress.
Our uni­ver­si­ty has po­pu­la­ri­zed the ac­ces­si­bi­li­ty of elec­tro­nic lec­tu­re ma­te­rials and work as­sign­ments,
al­so con­nec­tion stu­dents with a te­acher for con­sul­ta­tion by e-mail.
Ot­her in­for­ma­tion sys­tem (IS) is pro­vi­ded for stu­dent LUA, which can fol­low to own edu­ca­tio­nal pro­
cess, i.e. see the cho­sen sub­jects and got mark for this sub­ject.
Conc­lu­sion: The in­for­ma­tion sys­tems te­ach you the sys­te­ma­tic and in­de­pen­dent stu­dies, and it is al­so
pos­sib­le to stu­dy whe­ne­ver ti­me and pla­ce.
Key words: in­for­ma­tion sys­tem, ins­ti­tu­tion ma­na­ge­ment.

Ad­vi­ced by Lu­dis Peks, Lat­via Uni­ver­si­ty of Ag­ri­cul­tu­re, Lat­via


PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

214 International Scientific Conference


„Information & communication technology in
natural science education – 2010“
11-14 November 2010, Siauliai, Lithuania

Dear Colleagues,

We invite you to take part in the international scientific conference “Information &
Communication Technology in Natural Science Education - 2010”, which will take place
11–14 November 2010 in the Conference centre of Siauliai University in Siauliai.

Organizer of the Conference

Siauliai University, Faculty of Education, Natural Science Education Research Centre,


Lithuania, http://www.gutc.su.lt/

Ways of Participation

• Paper Presentation
• Oral Presentation
• Interactive Poster Presentation
• Workshop
• Listener

Important Dates

Early-Bird Registration Deadline 30 June 2010


Late Registration Deadline 20 September 2010
Final Submitting of Manuscripts 30 September 2010
Reviewing Manuscripts and Contacting Authors 10 October 2010
From 01 June 2010 to
Transfering Conference Fee
October 31 2010
Final Confirmation of Participation 02 November 2010
Announcement of the Final Conference Program 05 November 2010
Conference Dates 11 – 14 November 2010

* It is desirable to present the manuscripts as early as possible.

Conference Website: http://www.gutc.su.lt/informacija_en.htm


E-mail: ict2010lithuania@inbox.lt
Phone: +370 41 595736; Fax: +370 41 595710
© NSERC, Siauliai University, 2010
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21st CENTURY
Volume 20, 2010

215

ISSN 1648-3898
In­for­ma­tion about
Jour­nal of Bal­tic Scien­ce Edu­ca­tion
(pub­li­ca­tion pri­ces and ot­her im­por­tant in­for­ma­tion for 2010)

1. Or­de­ring in­for­ma­tion
• We will in­voi­ce eve­ry­o­ne for ma­te­rial or­de­red;
• Or­ders ha­ve to be re­ne­wed an­nu­al­ly not la­ter than till De­cem­ber, 15th of cur­rent year;
• It is pos­sib­le to or­der for the two years pe­riod. In that ca­se the dis­count is not sti­pu­la­ted.
• Can­cel­la­tions are not ac­cep­ted;
• The fre­qu­en­cy is: 3 ti­mes a year – March, Au­gust, No­vem­ber;
• In 2010 we plan to pub­lish : Vol. 9, is­sue 1, is­sue 2, is­sue 3;

2. Pri­ce in­for­ma­tion
• Fo­reign re­gu­lar pri­ce is 30 EUR (ex­clu­ding po­sta­ge) for one co­py of jour­nal;
• Do­mes­tic re­gu­lar pri­ce is 30 LTL (ex­clu­ding po­sta­ge) for one co­py of jour­nal;
• To con­ti­nu­al cus­to­mers (not in­di­vi­du­al) the dis­count at a ra­te of 5 per­cent is ap­plied.
• To in­di­vi­du­al cus­to­mers the dis­count at a ra­te of 10 per­cent from the re­gu­lar pri­ces is ap­
plied;
• Co­pies of JBSE 2007-2008: 10 EUR for one co­py.
• Met­hods of pa­y­ment: pa­y­ment has be­en ma­de di­rect by bank trans­fer (set­tle the ac­count)
/but not by che­que/.

3. Con­tact de­tails
• Te­lep­ho­ne num­ber is: +370 687 95668.
• E-mail ad­dress is: mail.jbse@gmail.com
• Ho­me pa­ge is: http://www.jbse.we­bin­fo.lt
• The pos­tal ad­dress is: SMC „Scien­tia Edu­co­lo­gi­ca“
Do­ne­lai­cio Stre­et 29
LT-78115 Siau­liai, Lit­hu­a­nia
• Edi­tor-in-Chief of JBSE is prof.dr. Vin­cen­tas La­ma­naus­kas, Lit­hu­a­nia.

4. Ot­her im­por­tant in­for­ma­tion


The ar­tic­les ap­pe­a­ring in this jour­nal are in­de­xed and abst­rac­ted in:
• Bri­tish Edu­ca­tion In­dex, Co­per­ni­cus In­dex and EBSCO: Aca­de­mic Se­arch Com­ple­te;
• So­cial Sci­se­arch (Thom­son Reu­ters) - http://scien­ce.thom­son­reu­ters.com/in­dex.html (from
Vol. 7, 2008);
• Jour­nal Ci­ta­tion Re­ports / So­cial Scien­ces Edi­tion (Thom­son Reu­ters) – http://thom­son­reu­
ters.com/pro­ducts_ser­vi­ces/scien­ti­fic/Jour­nal_Ci­ta­tion_Re­ports (from Vol. 7, 2008);
• The Asian Edu­ca­tion In­dex - http://www.asian-edu­ca­tion-in­dex.com/scien­ces_in­dex.php

5. Last, but not le­ast

Edi­to­rial Bo­ard of JBSE ex­pres­ses gra­ti­tu­de to all who is in­te­res­ted in our re­mar­kab­le aca­de­mic
jour­nal.
Problems of Education in the 21st Century, ISSN 1822-7864

Volume 20, 2010

Compiler Vincentas Lamanauskas (E-mail: v.lamanauskas@ef.su.lt)


Designer Jurgina Jankauskienė, Lina Banuškevičienė
Paste-up artist Indrė Linkutė
Contact person Laima Railienė (E-mail: laimarailiene@yahoo.com)

15-04-2010. Publishing in Quires 11,25. Edition 200

Publisher SMC „Scientia Educologica“,


Donelaicio Street 29, Siauliai, Lithuania
E-mail: gu@projektas.lt
Phone: +370 687 95668
http://www.jbse.webinfo.lt/centras.htm
Contact person: Laima Railienė (E-mail: laimarailiene@yahoo.com)

Printing K. J. Vasiliauskas`s enterprise Lucilijus,


5 stoties Street, apt. 6, LT-77156 Šiauliai, Lithuania
E-mail: info@lucilijus.lt, phone/fax +370 41 421 857.
http://www.lucilijus.lt
Contact person: Danguolė Vasiliauskienė (info@lucilijus.lt)

You might also like