Conference Agenda

Methods for teaching online were developed and gradually implemented in schools over the last two decades, but because of the COVID-19 pandemic that broke at the beginning of 2020, the development and adoption of all educational methods had to be carried much faster than planned (Kaur & Manroshan, 2020). Likewise, whereas educators and scholars continually search for innovative ways to improve inclusion processes, the pandemic added another challenge, since most teachers began teaching online rather than face-to-face in class (Flores & Swennen, 2020; Kaur, 2020). Likewise, educators had to reconsider the inclusion of learners with special needs in online lessons. Generally, teachers’ concerns relate to two main issues: the challenges of conducting online and hybrid teaching while not all learners have proper internet access, and the need to focus on new learning skills more than on the material content of the (Korkmaz & Toraman, 2020). Zhao & Watterston (2021), emphasized the teachers’ need to develop flexible curricula that allow learners with different learning abilities to cope with the materials, but at the same time, to define basic outcomes that all learners must meet. These educational changes and challenges highlight the need to better understand teachers’ perspectives regarding the processes they should conduct when including learners with special needs in online lessons.

Among the variety of learners with special needs that study in inclusive environments, the most common ones are those with Learning Disabilities (LD), given their high frequency in society, estimated as 5%-17% of the population (Grigorenko et. al., 2020). Accordingly, their inclusion takes place in many schools worldwide through the implementation of a variety of teaching strategies (Flavian & Uziely, 2022).

This study was initially developed out of the desire to better understand primary-school teachers’ perspectives, challenges, and advantages of teaching online during the lockdowns to heterogenous groups that included learners with LD, while also aiming to maintain high quality educational processes. There is no doubt that the role of teachers who include learners with LD in their classes is complex and challenging since they must adapt their teaching and learning for all learners. When teaching in person in schools, one can develop learning adjustments for all learners according to the learning environment, get help from other teachers and apply group learning. However, when teaching online via zoom and other similar platforms, this is not the case.

Aiming to contribute to quality online-teaching in inclusive classes with learners with LD, three main questions led this study throughout the interviews and the data analysis:

1. How do including teachers with pupils with LD in their class perceive their role as disciplinary teachers during online teaching?
2. How do including teachers with pupils with LD in their class perceive their role as disciplinary teachers promoting inclusion during online learning?
3. What is the sense of self-efficacy among including teachers working remotely regarding their ability to optimally include pupils with LD?

Communication is a complex, social and never-ending process which takes place in a definite socio-cultural environment. Prior research shows various definitions of communication. It has been defined as a ‘verbal interchange of a thought or idea’ (Hoben, 1954, 77), ‘the transmission of information’ (Berelson, Steiner, 1964, 254), ‘the primary process by which human life is experienced’ (Craig, 1999), ‘a factor that helps develop, maintain, and change cultures’ (Littlejohn, Foss, 2008,4), an everyday ‘information exchange’ (Amaritei, 2013, 279), ‘the way in which people send to each other information and messages, inevitably with different intentions’ (Dragan, 2019, 176), ‘the evolution of physical, biochemical, cellular, community, and technological information exchange’ (Gontier, 2022). Although there are differences in how various scholars define communication, all of them underline that it is an information exchange between people and/or groups of people (Dragan, 2019). Thus, for an efficient communication the relationship between people is significant, including in organisational communication. However, in practice tourism enterprises face communication problems which stem from different cultures, generations, language skills.

Theoretical Framework of the research is formed by the theories of adult learning, generational differences and intergenerational communication specifics.

Nowadays, four different generations as described by Howe and Strass (2000) – Baby Boomers (born in 1943-1960), Generation X (born in 1961-1981), Generation Y (born in 1982-2000), Generation Z (born after 2000) are participating in the labour market. Generational differences are demonstrated in the way how people work, communicate and learn. Baby Boomers are hard-working (de Oliveira Lopes Melo, de Faria, Magri Lopes, 2019), work efficiently, prefer teamworking and in-person communication (Bejtkovsky, 2016). Generation X are autonomous but ‘less patient with activities demanding time’ (de Oliveira Lopes Melo, de Faria, Magri Lopes, 2019), cautious, conservative and value direct and immediate communication (Bejtkovsky, 2016). Generation Y easily accept changes, have good digital skills (Bencsik, Horváth-Csikós, Juhász, 2016), are realistic, confident, multi-tasking and use e-mail and voice-mail in communication (Bejtkovsky, 2016). Generation Z are practical, rather intelligent, brave and like online communication (Bencsik, Horváth-Csikós, Juhász, 2016), their interpersonal communication skills are at a low level (Bejtkovský, 2016).

Generational differences exist not only in communication, but also in their attitude towards learning. In general, adults are characterized by maturity, self-confidence, autonomy, decision-making, purposefulness, but they are less open-minded and receptive to change than children (Pappas, 2013; Kraus, 2016; Luka et.al, 2020). Therefore, specific teaching/learning methods must be applied, and the teaching/learning process has to be implemented in a dialogical manner, considering learners needs and specific requirements, including generational differences.

Baby Boomers highly value traditional education system, base their learning on their vast experience (Bencsik, Machova, 2016; Bencsik, Horváth-Csikós, Juhász, 2016), have a sense of urgency and learning must be meaningful to them (Rothwell, 2008). Generation X give preference to flexibility, short-time trainings, active participation and interactivity (Bencsik, Machova, 2016; Bencsik, Horváth-Csikós, Juhász, 2016), but they are not especially fond of teamworking (Kerry, Myron, 2009), so the learning process must be flexible and active. Generation Y like learning which incorporates IT skills. They have to see immediate result in attaining their learning outcomes (Bencsik, Machova, 2016; Bencsik, Horváth-Csikós, Juhász, 2016). Generation Z are not perfect listeners and lack interpersonal skills (Kirchmayer, Fratricová, 2020), they are always online (Bencsik, Horváth-Csikós, Juhász, 2016) and like to learn individually (Seemiller, Grace, 2016) and apply digital tools.

In ECER2022 the authors presented intergenerational communication problems discovered in tourism enterprises in Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden.

The aim of the research presented in ECER2023: identify generational differences in tourism and hospitality organisations and differences in communication and offer teaching/learning initiatives and methodologies to develop adult learners’ competences to solve intergenerational communication problems.

Diversity represents a major issue in all fields of educational theory and practice (e.g., Conners & Capell, 2021). From a social research perspective, it has been defined as “the distribution of population elements along a continuum of homogeneity to heterogeneity with respect to one or more variables” (Teachman, 1980). In educational intervention research, we have, for example, “interventions for diverse people” (e.g., Tincani et al., 2009), diversity as a “research strategy” (e.g., Bent-Goodley, 2021), or “design specifications” for diversity interventions (Vinkenburg, 2017). Diversity in educational intervention research is related to different facets like a research agenda, an evidence-based orientation, exploration and innovation, expanded effectiveness, interdisciplinary focus, error reduction, or statistical quality. For example, as a general social research strategy on diversity, multiple more or less stable personality characteristics should be measured that correlate with the dependent variables (control variables), that are related to the independent variables (interactions) or that might be related to alternative explanations (validation, exploration). In respect to data analysis and statistics, diversity has to be described, controlled, structured, and tested. Although diversity and related variability as well as variance represent the nucleus of statistical analyses in social research, strategies on how diversity can systematically be integrated into data analysis processes in educational intervention studies are still missing (e.g., Astleitner, 2020). Our goal in this paper is to identify, collect, and evaluate statistical concepts related to diversity which are essential in educational intervention research. Our perspective is one of quantitative social researchers who have comprehensive experience in the field of educational intervention studies. Our theoretical focus is based on the concept of diversity in social research settings (Schuelka et al., 2019) and on (methodological) models of educational intervention research (McBride, 2016).

Red tape may arise at work when an authoritative entity – whether a school leader, a legislator, an inspector or a pedagogical school supporter – installs certain conventions, procedures or types of administration with the clear purpose of improving the quality of the work, yet reaches the opposite result. If the eventual executors of these measures – teachers, school leaders, administrative personnel – fail to perceive the purpose of what they are doing, even the best ideas may soon turn into a perception of red tape and provoke feelings of frustration, stress and tedium.

Red tape is all but unfamiliar in the field of education. Yet, as a topic for scholarly inquiry, it is relatively poorly studied. Nevertheless, the fruits of addressing this topic are quite clear. The less time teachers spend on red tape and the more time they get to spend on meaningful (inter)actions with their students, the more chances these students get to realize their optimal learning potential. Moreover, it has been evidenced that teachers who perceive a high rate of red tape in their job are more likely to quit their profession altogether.

Tackling the dynamics of red tape is not so easy. Its forms and sizes are very diverse. A very fine procedure at one school may turn out to cause a lot of frustration in another school. Red tape thus presents itself as a protean enemy, lurking in several areas of the school organization and constantly threatening to undermine people’s motivation to give it their all in the classroom.

To add to the problem, the origins of red tape are often hard to trace. Some red tape is produced by the interventions of the government, while other instances may be installed by a school leader or a coordinator at school. Some may even stem from the particular IT-tools used by the school to facilitate the work, or by the expectations of the students and their parents. Red tape may thus metaphorically be conceived of as an onion, of which one needs to peel quite a lot of layers before its core shows itself.

The Flemish inspectorate of education is determined to help school fight this common enemy. In a recent survey it held among over 7000 professionals, it was evidenced that while school leaders feel that they address the topic of red tape in several ways, teachers respond that they feel few results of these efforts. What seems to be lacking, thus, is a clear and precise dialogue at schools about where red tape is to be found, what the actual requirements of the government are, and how the school itself may deal with these requirements in a more functional and less patronizing fashion.

The ignite talk for this conference aims to highlight the importance of having a nuanced understanding of red tape. It addresses three essential questions:

• What is red tape precisely?
• What should schools do and avoid in tackling red tape?
• How can an online tool as developed by the Flemish inspectorate improve the quality of dialogue and policy about red tape in Flemish schools? (more on that tool in the section about methodology)

By demonstrating how the tool is conceptualized, this talk aims to inspire researchers and practitioners in education to come up with novel and diverse methods to assist school world-wide in their battle against red tape. I thus hope to make a humble contribution to the overall quality of education and the job satisfaction of teachers, school leaders and other practitioners in the field of education.

In recent times, the study and analysis of schools located in socioeconomically challenging contexts have gained special attention. Improving schools in disadvantaged areas is today one of the most important issues on the agenda of researchers and policymakers, both nationally and internationally (Clarke & O'Donoghue, 2016; Harris & Chapman, 2002a, 2002b; Lupton, 2005; Maden, 2001; Muijs, 2003; Torres, Moncusí and Osvaldo, 2015; Olmo et al., 2021).

Research developed by Maden (2001) in the United Kingdom provided descriptions of good practices in schools with high vulnerability scenarios. With a similar research objective, Harris & Champan (2002a, 2002b) also highlighted the importance of distributed leadership in these contexts. Later, Lupton (2005) investigated the characteristics of these schools and established several characteristic elements. Among them, she highlighted the existence of continuous unpredictability together with the presence of low expectations. In addition, the author revealed that schools in difficult contexts have more problems taking on the same educational challenges than those in more favourable circumstances. On their side, Torres, Moncusí & Osvaldo (2015) showed that living in an unfavourable environment has a direct influence on the lives of the school population. Clarke & O'Donoghue (2016) also delved into the study of vulnerable schools located in the most challenging neighbourhoods.

Although the evidence from research on this subject shows that schools located in vulnerable contexts are characterized by being unstable and having students with low performance, low self-esteem and expectations (Lupton, 2005), there are also studies that reveal the ability of some schools to overcome and cope with adversity (Marujo et al., 2003; Olmo et al., 2021).

The works located within this second approach focus their attention on schools that have led to a transformation towards school improvement. Some of the key issues that have motivated this research field are as follows: how has the change been possible? what/who has brought it about? what does this school improvement materialise? how do they work in these schools? what kind of leadership is needed? How do they overcome adversities? (Day y Gu, 2015; Muijs, 2003; Hargreaves; 2007; Stoll, 2009).

The present study is part of this line of research, which has been developed within the framework of two larger research projects: I+D+i project "Communities of professional practice and learning improvement: intermediate leadership, networks and interrelationships. Schools in complex contexts" (Reference: PID2020-117020GB-I00), funded by the Agencia Estatal de Investigación of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/) and I+D+i Project "Communities of professional practice and learning improvement: intermediate leadership, networks and interrelationships" (Reference: P20_00311), funded by the Andalusian Plan for Research, Development and Innovation of Spain.

The purpose of this study is to know, understand and analyse the factors that have allowed a school, located in Spain, to transform its circumstances in order to achieve educational quality and equity.

Research on school improvement has accumulated an extensive list of factors facilitating the potential to turn around poorly performing schools (Leithwood et al., 2010; Murphy & Meyers, 2007). However, limited attention has been paid to contextual differences across schools, districts, and educational systems with distinct traditions and prerequisites. At the core of the problem lies the ever-present need to make trade-offs. While, in theory, it would be ideal to improve schools on all conditions identified as desirable for turnaround, this may not be feasible due to organisational capacity and resource constraints. Earlier empirical research on school turnaround relies either on qualitative case studies of one or several schools (Duke & Salmonowicz, 2010; Hallinger & Kantamara, 2001), or traditional regression methods (Boyne & Meier, 2009; Heissel & Ladd, 2018). What is missing is a case-oriented approach that addresses the complex causality related to school turnaround (van Der Steen et al., 2013). This study aims to address these contextual and complex causal patterns by making a systematic comparison of schools that do and do not make a turnaround across different school contexts (although generally within a Swedish intitutional context).

For years, educational researchers and policymakers in Germany have strongly supported the idea of transforming schools into all-day schools. The leading argument for the reform is that all-day schools can foster heterogeneous students better than half-day schools. Research from large-scale assessment studies has shown – the latest study provided by Henschel et al. (2022) based on data from the IQB National Assessment Study in Year 4 – that students from families with a migrant background achieve lower proficiency scores than students from non-migrant families. The same results have been shown for students from families with a low socio-economic background (SES; e.g., Sachse et al., 2022). Both findings can be explained by the situation that parents provide different qualitative and quantitative support for their children. In addition, studies have demonstrated that parental homework involvement is significant for learning success (e.g., Dettmers et al., 2019). Thus, there is a higher probability that parents speaking German as their L1 and with a high SES are better suited to provide numerous learning opportunities outside school and help with homework and school preparation than parents with a migrant background and/or with a low SES.

In order to establish more equality, the reform for all-day schools is being pushed forward. The assumption is that all-day schools provide more learning opportunities for all students. Furthermore, instead of the traditional homework format, alternative concepts regularly exist at all-day schools, thus students are supposed to learn primarily in school. In this respect, the reform can contribute to greater educational equity. School development projects such as the transformation to an all-day school require that schools collaborate with multiple stakeholders. In Germany, in addition to principals, school supervisors play an important role in the management of schools. As representatives of the state, they legally have to supervise schools and, secondly, they have an advisory function. They advise principals, for example, on the implementation of reforms and give schools support in carrying out school development projects. Despite an extensive body of research on all-day schools (e.g., their effectiveness, see overview in Fischer & Kuhn, 2022), the role of school supervisors in the all-day school reform has not yet been considered. Since all-day schools are not compulsory in Germany yet (unlike Denmark, e.g., see Holm, 2015), the successful introduction highly depends on the various stakeholders and their beliefs on the innovation. Against this background, this study aims at exploring the beliefs of school supervisors on the implementation of all-day schools as one form of extended education. We focus on the concept of beliefs as they are considered to have a guiding function when it comes to the implementation of “new pedagogical approaches and reforms” (Fives & Buehl, 2012). Following Pajares (1992), we understand beliefs as an “individual’s judgment of the truth or falsity of a proposition” (p. 316). With regard to the reform under study, we ask whether school supervisors share the general positive assumption on the effects of all-day schools. In addition, we are interested in the factors that enable, facilitate or impede implementation of the reform from the perspective of school supervision.

Education Management Information System (EMIS) is a necessary tool for educational policy management, education reform, and monitoring and evaluation in education that enables the creation of valuable inputs for improving the quality of education (Abdul-Hamid, 2014; UNESCO, 2018; Bőjte, 2019). Introduction of an EMIS into a complex world of an educational system is a difficult task. One challenging aspect is defining an EMIS that can fit all scenarios and include all data needs and flows (Tolley & Shulruf, 2009), especially in a country such as Serbia, with over million students, three thousands of educational institutions with over 150 thousand of employees, and a diversity of educational programs held in several languages. Another concern is the social context of EMIS introduction, and how such novelty changes working routines and social relations in educational institutions (Kling, 2000).

Implementation of an information systems (IS) often face obstacles due to a gap between its design and the reality. Heeks (2002; 2006) argue that the size of this gap determines the probability of an IS successful implementation and its acceptance among users. He proposed a model for estimating the extent of this gap on six dimensions. Information dimension refers to a discrepancy between the envisioned set of data to be collected through an IS, and the data that users actually work with. Technology dimension assesses the difference between the required infrastructure for an IS to operate and the infrastructure available to users, in this case – to schools. Processes dimension deals with the difference in the processes envisioned to be automatized and the existing ones. Objectives and values dimension deals with the compatibility of the goals and values that an IS brings and enforces with the goals and values of its users. Staffing and skills accesses the gap between the required staff for operating the IS and their competence level and the available number of people and their actual competence level. Management system and structures is a dimension that is concerned with the discrepancy between the required managerial structure needed to guide the use of an IS and the one available. On the basis on this model, we analyzed the Serbian EMIS and looked into the causes of the gaps, which circled back to more broad and general structures in the decision-making process that pose barriers to other aspects of reform success as well.

After four unsuccessful attempts to build EMIS in Serbia in the last two decades, the Government of the Republic of Serbia started implementing EMIS, which has been developing since 2019. New EMIS includes data on all levels of education and collects data on schools, teachers, classes, and students (Rulebook on EMIS, 2019). However, during the first year of implementation, all groups of EMIS users – from those who collect and enter to those who use data – encountered difficulties. We utilized Heeks’ model as a lens to analyze the development and effectiveness of the implementation of EMIS. However, we discovered that challenges in the implementation of EMIS reflect subtle and wider obstacles to ensuring the quality of education. This study uses the case of EMIS implementation unravel these obstacles and to advocate for deconcentrated (Ivić, 2017) and participatory decision-making processes as an opposite to excessive top-down politics with poor communication of the change introduction in educational policy.

Over the last 20 years systematic quality work has become the main tool for developing Swedish schools (Håkansson & Adolfson, 2022). According to the Education Act (2010:800), quality work – at the local educational authority level as well as in the schools themselves – should be conducted in a systematic and continuous way, with respect to planning, follow-up, analyses, and actions taken to develop education. By continuous assessments and evaluations, the goal of the systematic quality work is to identify and address issues that need improvement for students to achieve the educational goals (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2012^a). A review of the literature reveals the problematic aspects of evaluation practices and quality management, such as the risk to focus on what is measurable rather than what is desirable as well as the diverse definitions of quality (Lundström, 2015). However, what the local quality systems consist of, how they have been designed, and what practices and perceptions of quality they entail is less understood.

Previous research has primarily focused on individual schools’ quality work (Håkansson, 2013; Jarl, et al., 2017) , while less attention has been paid to the way the local educational authorities conduct systematic quality work. Thus, the aim of this study is to fill this knowledge gap by investigating how the ideas of systematic quality work in the Swedish Education Act's requirements are interpreted, translated, and materialized at the local education authority level.

The following research questions will guide our study:

1. How do local educational authorities interpret and translate the systematic quality work regulations and requirements in the Education Act?

2. How do these interpretations och translations materialize in the local quality work practices?

Theoretically we approach the phenomena of systematic quality management within the Swedish school sector from an organizing (Czarniawska, 2014) and practice-oriented perspective (Gherardi, 2019; Nicolini, 2009; 2012). These theoretical perspectives provide us a framework to analyse how the institutionalized ideas (as mental images that are well spread within the society) of systematic quality management - through authorities, policies, regulations, and quality models - are translated and materialized (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996) into the local quality work organization and practices. The latter refers to the practices of doing and saying something related to the ideas of systematic quality management in different social contexts and time (Gherardi, 2019; Nicolini, 2009; 2012). Although the national guidelines involve the entire school system, these are interpreted, translated, and materialized by actors operating in a local context, which means that quality is understood in different ways and that the systematic quality work is conducted in different ways. An organizational perspective also includes aspects related to the tensions that arise when different interests and logics collide (for example between political, administrative, and professional interests and logics; see Czarniawska, 2014).

The Summer School is a two-week program supported by the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF) of the Republic of Austria that seeks to address the immediate educational disadvantages caused by the Covid-19-pandemic (BMBWF, 2022). It aims to promote students’ self-confidence and social skills by establishing opportunities of positive learning experiences. During the Summer School, students predominantly receive individual support and feedback for the subjects “German language”, “mathematics”. Participants of the Summer School are usually students with lacking German language skills and/or who performed poorly in the past school year. The program is conducted by teachers and student teachers. The latter group benefits from the Summer School by experiencing two weeks of “teaching practice” with associated classroom management to prepare them for the teaching profession (BMBWF, 2022).

According to the utilization-of-learning-opportunities model (e.g., Weinert & Helmke, 1997), there are many different variables and their interplay are accountable for learning success. Basically, the model aims to illustrate the multiple, multicausal, or even interdependent relations of variables in regard to learning success. Since learning success is evidently also influenced by affective dispositions of teachers and students, this research area was focused for this study. Student-related affective-motivational characteristics have been proven to influence school learning. Self-efficacy expectations might directly influence student behavior, but also influence goals, affective dispositions or perceptions in the social environment (Bandura, 2006; Bandura, 1997). Consequently, the question arises why some students remain confident and maintain their child-like optimism in coping with performance goals in school, while other students develop an anxious or even helpless attitude (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). At the student level, research has shown that teachers' self-efficacy expectations are positively related to student achievement and motivation. At the teacher level, self-efficacy expectations of teachers have been found to positively influence their own commitment to their work, the goals they set for themselves, and the level of job satisfaction they experience (Pfitzner-Eden, Thiel & Horsley, 2014). International studies have shown that the degree of self-efficacy among teachers varies across countries. Vieluf et al. (2013) were able to illustrate that teachers from Austria are in the upper range (higher values of self-efficacy) in the OECD compared to teachers from Iceland, Denmark, Ireland and Australia. In different studies with Austrian student teachers and teachers, Bach (2022) was able to show the connection between self-efficacy and professional experience. Interestingly, the self-efficacy expectation of student teachers after practical teaching experience is significantly higher than among experienced teachers. It is even higher for so-called teaching assistants, who are used to provide support in regular and extracurricular settings in Austria and make an important contribution to inclusive teaching.

Based on the available study results, the following research questions have emerged that require clarification in regard to the Summer School program.
- FF1: Which general and specific results on self-efficacy and teacher goals characterize Austrian Summer School teachers?

o H1: Professional teachers have higher self-efficacy expectancy scores than student teachers.

o H2: Teachers with ten or more years of professional experience have higher self-efficacy expectations than teachers who have less than ten years of professional experience.

o H3: Primary (elementary) school teachers have significantly higher self-efficacy expectations than teachers in secondary education.

- FF2: Are there discernable clusters of teacher characteristics in the data set?

The concern for youth civic commitment is shown in several recent years phenomena. On the one hand, educational systems of different countries have introduced civic or citizenship education in their official curricula, cross-curricular content and compulsory subjects, with diverse results (Davies and Chong, 2016; Johnson and Morris, 2012; MacLaughlin , 2000; Peterson, 2011). On the other hand, this interest concerns not only basic education, but also higher education, observing a change in the way the university links with the society in which it is located (Farnell, 2020). In this sense, the European Economic and Social Committee (2016) significantly has introduced the term “civic universities”, which goes beyond connections motivated by employment and economic growth, and underlines cultural and civic interconnection. Initiatives such as the TEFCE Project, whose objective is "To develop innovative and feasible policy tools at the university and European level for supporting, monitoring and assessing the community engagement of higher education institutions", the Living Knowledge Network (2023), the Foundation For Women in Science, or Horizon 2020 line 16: Science with and for Society, are some examples of this turn that higher education has been making.

Likewise, this scenario seems like responding to the alarm expressed by different authors, related with the questioning of the democratic system's quality. Jeffrey Stout (2004) warned of a progressive deterioration in the citizens' ethical-political training, which could pose a risk to democracy maintenance. More recently, Shoshana Zuboff (2018) finds in the current social technology a significant decrease in the citizens capacity for action, paradoxically hidden in the rhetoric of empowerment. For his part, Keith E. Whittington (2019) shows concern that the university is losing its status as an open space to dialogue, to exchange ideas and confrontate positions, typical of an academic community in a democratic setting.

In this situation, different initiatives arise from the institutions and university classrooms with pedagogical proposals focused on promoting the students' civic engagement. Service-Learning (S-L) is perhaps one of the most significant methodologies, that allows practical learning in social settings, while promoting the links with the nearby community, through a service that solves a real problem (Annette, 2005; Boston, 1997). Therefore, it represents an improvement both for the individuals themselves and for their social context (Arthur, Harrison and Taylor, 2015).

Such growing activity related to S-L, highlights the need to assess these programs and, specifically, the consequences, benefits and lessons that can be learnt, in order to improve the development of S-L proposals and the strengthening of this practice in education (Fuentes, Sirera and Redondo, 2022). But the adaptable and flexible nature of S-L, as well as its inherent ethical dimension (Alexander, 2016; Wright, Warren and Snow, 2020), gives rise to very heterogeneous proposals and interventions, which complicates the assessment and makes the tests standardization really difficult. Consequently, mixed assessment are needed, taking into account qualitative research that helps us to understand and explain the great diversity of capacities promoted by S-L.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the contributions of S-L methodology to the educator initial training, focusing on its capacity to promote ethical-civic engagement. Other critical aspects will also be analyzed by comparing four groups of different Degrees in Education that carried out projects with different social entities at Complutense University of Madrid, linked to curricular subjects.

Today, expectations from education and teachers have increased. International studies on learner and teacher competencies, emphasize changes in content and pedagogical approaches with the effect of technology (Bachy 2014). A generation ago, the teaching of a fixed curriculum was central to education in most countries, assuming that what teachers teach will last a lifetime; nowadays, in the conditions where the content is easily accessible in search engines and the information is digitized; Teachers need to manage complex ways of thinking, deeply understand students' motivations and emotions (Schleicher, 2012). Educational institutions faced with challenges such as hybrid education, digitalization of education, and the development of techno pedagogical approaches, have difficulties in finding and retaining qualified, committed and motivated teachers who will adapt to these changes. Because these changes can increase teachers' stress, burnout, and intention to quit. A meta-analysis study examining the psychological states of teachers reveals that the prevalence of burnout, stress, anxiety and depression in teachers is in high ranges (Agyapong, Obuobi-Donkor, Burback & Wei, 2022). The differences in the approach to work of Generation Y also make it difficult for their organizational commitment and retention in the organization (Pandita & Ray, 2018).
Organizational commitment is one of the important factors that keep employees in organizations and increase their job motivation. According to Meyer and Allen (1997), organizational commitment is “the employee's feeling of being connected to his organization”. Organizational commitment has three dimensions as "Adaptation", "Identification" and "Internalization" (O'Reilley & Chatman, 1986). Organizational commitment not only helps to keep employees in the organization, but also affects the success of organizations (Balay, 2000; Boylu, Pelit, & Güçer, 2007). Employees with high commitment make extra efforts for their jobs and organizations, play a role in maintaining the competitive advantage of the organization and focus on contributing to high performance (Kim & Brymer, 2011; Pandita & Ray, 2018). According to Khan (1990) ensuring organizational commitment depends on three conditions: the employee's finding their work meaningful, being safe in the organization and having a variety of skills that improve the person at work. Perceived organizational support is “the degree to which employees believe that their organization values their contributions and considers their well-being” (Robbins & Judge, 2013). According to studies, organizational support perceived by teachers affects organizational identification (Demir, 2015). The concept of meaningful work is expressed as a tool of “deep motivation”, “job satisfaction and organizational commitment”. It is the deep satisfaction that a person gets from having done the job and succeeded while doing his job, and the inner, deep motivation to do his job” (Chalofsky & Krishna,2009; Akar,2020).

Researches show that as emotional commitment increases, intention to quit and burnout decreases in teachers. In the competitive conditions where expectations from education increase and the way of doing work changes; Job satisfaction and organizational commitment of qualified teachers, who will adapt to changes and increase the effectiveness of themselves and the school by integrating information technology with pedagogical elements are important. In this study, it is aimed to determine the effect of teachers' perceived organizational support, meaningful work and job satisfaction level on organizational commitment. In the research: a) What are the teachers' levels of meaningful work, perceived organizational support and job satisfaction? b) Do teachers' opinions on meaningful work, organizational support, and job satisfaction levels differ significantly according to generation (X and Y), gender, seniority, school type and school size? c) Is meaningful work level, perception of organizational support and job satisfaction together a significant predictor of organizational commitment ? questions will be answered.

Improving professional identity is crucial for enhancing students' mental health in the health sciences and addressing the scarcity of health professionals (Tang et al., 2022). Internship experiences have been found to be crucial in shaping the vocational identity development of university students (Gao et al., 2022; Jackson, 2017). Vocational identity is defined as an individual's sense of self in relation to their career that having a solid and clear understanding of one's objectives, passions, and skills (Holland et al., 1993). It is a key aspect of career development that can be influenced by various factors (Wong & Kaur, 2018), including the quality of internship experiences (Gamboa et al., 2021; Khampirat, 2020; Porfeli et al., 2011). The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between internship quality and vocational identity status in university students.

Theory:

The Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (Lent et al., 1994) and the Career Construction Theory (CCT) (Savickas, 2005) were applied and integrated in this study.

SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) posits that individuals develop their vocational identity through a process of self-reflection and exploration, in which they consider their interests, abilities, and values, and how these relate to potential career options. This theory suggests that high-quality internship experiences can provide opportunities for students to gain knowledge, skills, and self-awareness that can enhance their vocational identity development (Pan et al., 2018).

CCT (Savickas, 2005) proposes that vocational identity formation is a dynamic, ongoing process that occurs through a series of career-related experiences, including internships. CCT states that internship experiences can provide students with opportunities to explore their interests and values and to develop a sense of self in relation to their careers (Chen et al., 2022).

Empirical evidence supports the relationship between internship quality and vocational identity status in university students. For example, a study by Gamboa et al. (2021) found that VET students who had high-quality internship experiences reported greater vocational identity exploration than those who had lower-quality internships. Another study by Ng et al. (2022) found that students who had high-quality internships were more likely to report a sense of vocational self-efficacy and career decision self-efficacy than those who had lower-quality internships.

In conclusion, this study aims to investigate the relationship between internship quality and vocational identity status in university students, drawing on the theories of SCCT and CCT. The results of this research may provide valuable insights for university educators and career counselors to enhance the quality of internship experiences and facilitate the vocational identity development of university students.

The school benches are crossed by a transposition of new measures of a managerial nature, with a progression of new modes of governance focused on accountability and results evaluation (Maroy & Pons, 2019; Taylor, 2007). Our contribution will highlight how the vocabularies and approach have subtly shifted from "quality control" to an incentive for "quality development" in a logic of collective action (Ozga et al., 2011). Launched in "project mode" and with action principles such as initiative and accountability, quality management systems encourage a logic of enrolment of everyone, at all levels of the organization.
In Switzerland, the institutionalization of quality management systems (QMS) has been brought into the regulatory basis (Vocational Education and Training Law, 2002) and has been integrated into Swiss secondary vocational schools, with certificates recommended at the cantonal level. In a context that has called for reforms and increasing complexity, it can be assumed that the introduction of quality certifications responds to a challenge of valorization and incorporation of quality and excellence standards. In the management of institutions, these systems represent the development of a tool for action and a culture of quality monitoring (quantified, comparative and cyclical information). In this context, these standardization systems are deployed as "soft constraints" and are based on mobilization principles. They are aligned with the rise of so-called "soft" governance and intended to be suggestive (Duru-Bellat, 2019). Self-evaluation and self-regulation (of institutions, actors; etc.) has become unavoidable and is combined with regulatory action through external mechanisms.

In this contribution, we will highlight how the deployment of QMS leads to a shift from endogenous professionalism (from within) to exogenous professionalism (from above), with repercussions on the definition of work and on activity (Boussard et al., 2010; Evetts, 2009). Organizational professionalism is clearly expanding in educational institutions (Tardif, 1999). It introduces forms of regulation, which no longer rely on the basis of "trust" or discretionary power of professionals (Evetts, 2009) and involves increased standardization of work procedures and practices. The use of new types of external experts (auditors who certify SQM) or the internal emergence of new roles within the intermediate professions, such as "delegate" or "quality manager", is part of the workings of these steering and regulation mechanisms.
This leads us to ask several research questions: what are the perceived impacts of these management mechanisms (understanding of meaning and relationship)? How does the deployment of a QMS affect the work and practices of different groups of school actors?

The Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010:800) sets out the right to an equal education, an education that is expected to be compensatory and to offset differences in pupils' different circumstances. Despite the Education Act, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2015) review, Improving Schools in Sweden, showed that differences in equivalence between and within schools in Sweden have increased and that many Swedish schools have failed to systematically address the problem. Furthermore, the OECD (2015) reported that many schools were left alone in their efforts to remedy the problems following the inspections by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate. Based on these findings, the Swedish government commissioned the Swedish National Agency for Education to initiate school improvement work (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2015; 2019). In 2016, the National Agency for Education presented a plan to carry out the assignment and since then, nearly 150 principals and almost 400 schools and preschools have now participated in the improvement work called the Collaboration for the Best School (SBS) (Skolverket, 2022). Thus, SBS is one of the most comprehensive initiatives undertaken in Sweden in recent times.

This paper presents the preliminary results of a study of the work of process facilitators in the Collaboration for Best Schools (SBS). The process facilitators have positions at the National Agency for Education, with an assignment to, in pairs, support school organizers and schools to improve schools. The study aims to develop knowledge about the practical work of process facilitators with school organizers, principals and teachers in order to promote their capacity for improvement. A need of such knowledge is highlighted by for example Blossing (2021). Based on sociocultural theories (Jakobsson; 2012; Säljö, 2005; Wartofsky, 1979)., the following questions were investigated: What tools do process facilitators use? How are these tools used? The research contribution of this paper provides insights in school improvement in the Swedish context, thus contributing to the national and international perspectives.

The study is based on observations of dialogues, so-called process meetings, between process facilitators and representatives of school organizers, principals and teachers respectively, on interviews with process facilitators and on document analysis. The results show that process facilitators use different categories of tools for different purposes such as focusing thoughts, deepening understanding, monitoring systematic quality work, eliciting commitment and promoting improvement capacity and ownership. Furthermore, they show that in the use of the identified tools there are critical incidents or turning points that have both positive and negative impacts on the development of participants' understanding and improvement capacity. These critical incidents relate to ownership, simplification, processing, repeated constructive feedback and model focus. The SBS model for how to conduct baseline analyses and formulate action plans guides the use of tools by process facilitators. It appears that the dominance of the model presents both opportunities and challenges for process facilitators to balance.

The conclusion is that there is potential for process facilitators to develop the use of tools to contribute to the development of understanding and improvement capacity of participants in SBS and that work is needed to support process facilitators in this. The study implies that the critical incidents that have a positive impact on the development of participants' understanding and improvement capacity can be strengthened, while the critical incidents that have a negative impact need to be worked away. Support could be in the form of skills development related to critical incidents in the use of tools by process facilitators.

This study is a quantitative analysis of empirical research on the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and academic performance (AP).

Emotional intelligence, as related with how an individual recognizes and manages his or her emotions, has made tremendous impact in scientific circles since the development of the concept. Countless researches have been done in order to assure its prominent role in an individual’s success in life. With the increasing demand for success in the developing world, the priority of emotional intelligence has also been regarded as an opportunity. Since emotional intelligence has been referred as crucial in many parts of people’s lives, it can be expanded into the world of language learning. In Kazakhstan, most people complain about not being able to master the English language. The problem underlying this may be the effects of emotional intelligence and its subscales on learning. For this reason, this study has been conducted to fill a gap in the literature of education by focusing on the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance.

The literature on emotional intelligence (EI) suggests that individuals with higher cognitive processing abilities tend to perform better on cognitive tasks (Saklofske et al., 2012). In secondary education, interpersonal and intrapersonal skills play a crucial role due to the social, contextual, and personal changes and stresses that occur during this period. Adolescents' emotional development and identity formation are significantly influenced by their peer groups, with the school environment being particularly relevant (Duncan et al., 2006; Eccles and Roeser, 2009; Monreal and Guitart, 2012).

People with higher emotional intelligence tend to be more resilient, adapting well to changes, managing stress effectively, and handling challenges more successfully (Schneider et al., 2013). Moreover, students who have better emotional management skills tend to experience greater happiness and have better social relationships (Eryilmaz, 2011). Improved interpersonal management is associated with larger social networks and higher quality friendships (Brackett et al., 2005). In the classroom setting, a larger social network can foster a conducive social environment for cooperative work, group learning, peer support (Hogan et al., 2010), and positive relationships with teachers (Di Fabio and Kenny, 2015). Both the classroom climate, including interactions with classmates and teachers, and a predisposition for learning-oriented abilities are linked to greater academic performance (Brackett et al., 2011; Johnson, 2016).

In summary, there are various plausible theoretical mechanisms that can explain the relationship between EI as a set of skills and optimal academic functioning in secondary education.

The current study is being conducted at Nazarbayev Intellectual school in Turkistan in 2022-2023 academic year. There are 55 10-graders (24 male and 21 female) participating in the study. The data is being collected using an

Emotional intelligence test by Lyusin that has been designed for the purpose of the study and the reliability value was reported as .84. The pre-test using Emotional intelligence test by Lyusin was conducted to students to measure the level of their Emotional intelligence. The pre-test result showed The data will be analyzed using SPSS 23.

The aim of this study is to show the relationship between Emotional intelligence and academic performance by examine the effectiveness of materials to increase students’ Emotional intelligence. The results will be analyzed according to the presets-posttest scores conducted before and after the treatment. It is predicted that the results will show statistically significant dıfferences between participants pretest and posttest scores, which means that the treatment will be found to be effective in terms of increasing secondary school students’ levels of emotional intelligence.

Understanding predictors of academic achievement has been among the essential research focus of sociologists of education. One of the most influential studies in the field dates to 1960s. James S. Coleman and his colleagues (1966) published their famous report on their scientific attempts to unveil determinants of academic achievement differences of students from different social backgrounds in the US. The results underlined the impact of students’ parental resources and classroom composition based on these resources, more than the impact of schools attended by these students. Despite of providing attention to the impact of individual and cumulative socioeconomic disadvantage of students, the report received critics on the lack of attention to possible school effects. Following the concerning critics, some researchers dedicated their large-scale work more into investigating school effects on academic achievement and ignited an increase in studies for the field of school effectiveness research (Burušić et al., 2016; Scheerens, 2016).

Throughout the years, the field not only yielded a list of significant effects emerging from classroom and school settings, but also highlighted the need for utilizing more precise methodological techniques to account for the nature of nested data while investigating these effects on academic achievement. As an invaluable example, John Hattie (2008)proposed evidences from abundant meta-analyses on how teachers, teaching practices, and schools pose impact on student learning. On the teacher and teaching practices, some of the underlined effects pointed the importance of teaching-occupation-related variables such as expectations from students, teacher training, quality of teaching, and professional development available to teachers, and of strategies related to feedback, learning intentions, and so on (Hattie, 2008). On the school, the importance of school characteristics, school and classroom compositions, school curriculum and classroom effects (Hattie, 2008). While such evidence brought undeniable contributions to the comprehension of multiple interacting effects, Creemers and Kyriakides (2008) introduced a dynamic model of how schools impact academic achievement. Within this model, natural clustering inside formal educational institutions, students within classrooms within schools within educational systems, is illustrated. Due to this natural multilayered structures of schools, the field underlined that data collected from students, classrooms and schools violate the observation independency assumption of traditional analytical techniques (de Leeuw & Meijer, 2008; Hox et al., 2018). Therefore, to model such nested data at multiple levels by controlling for observation dependency, the field recommended the utilization of multilevel modelling as the analytical technique to precisely examine the impacts of these classroom and school factors separately and in combination (Burušić et al., 2016).

Conducting research to probe possible classroom and school effects on academic achievement is especially important in the primary schooling level. The reason behind is ascertain, early in the schooling system, which classroom and school variables significantly explain variations in academic achievement, to be able to diminish the impact of cumulative advantage mechanism, or the Matthew effect (Merton, 1968), resulting in enduring achievement gaps and therefore unequal educational gains and opportunities (Diprete & Eirich, 2006). Besides, results from these scientific attempts potentially aid educational policy makers in developing more effective and efficient approaches to supporting learning, assist school administrations in diagnosing students at risk of lagging behind, and help researchers identify possible research gaps in the field. Consequently, regarding these considerations on the relevance of the classroom and school environment on academic achievement especially in the primary schooling and possible precise contributions from studies utilizing multilevel modelling, the main aim of this systematic review of the existing multilevel modelling studies is to derive and thematize the characteristics of the classroom and school settings impacting academic achievement in primary schooling, by applying strong methodologically-conceptually driven selection criteria.

Kinship foster care is a measure for the protection of children and adolescents in which caregivers are direct relatives of the foster children. At present, it constitutes one of the measures most implemented and promoted by European countries (Lerch & Nordenmark, 2019; Sacur & Diogo, 2021).

Current research on kinship foster care families identify different problems. One of the most common is the intergenerational difference between children and caregivers (Del Valle et al., 2002; Montserrat, 2006), because most of these cases are formalized with grandparents (Molero et al., 2007; Montserrat, 2006; Wellard et al., 2017). This difference sometimes produces misunderstandings in families, which is frequently a source of conflict. Moreover, the age differences suppose a challenge for the physical capacity of the caregivers, which, sometimes, can hinder the correct care of children, considering that require a vitality in caregivers that the process of aging decreases considerably.

Considering academic aspects, it has been found that kinship foster care families obtain worse results than the average of the students (Jiménez & Palacios, 2008; Molero et al., 2007; Palacios & Jiménez, 2007), and that more than half are in courses lower than that which would correspond to them by age (Montserrat et al., 2013).

Difficulties that caregivers face when setting rules and limits for children are also highlighted (Molero et al., 2007; Palacios & Jiménez, 2007). Their style of authority is generally permissive, which is reactively changed to an authoritarian model when children become adolescents, without obtaining positive results. Furthermore, children do not understand this change in attitude in their caregivers, demanding a clear and coherent establishment of educational norms (Mateos et al., 2012).

Conflictive relationships between caregivers and parents are also noted, especially due to difficulties derived from the visits of parents with their children (Chateauneuf et al., 2017; Delgado et al., 2019), as well as health problems of adults belonging to these families (Del Valle et al., 2008; Mateos et al., 2012; Taylor & McQuillan, 2014).

Another significant problem is related to the construction of the identity and the elaboration of life history of children in foster care (García-Bermejo, 2017; Laklija, 2011; Mateos et al., 2012). It points out both difficulties of children to ask about their life trajectory, in many cases motivated by traumatic situations, and by the caregivers to facilitate the necessary transition in vital processes of children.

Along with the common problems of kinship foster care, an aspect linked to the quality of this educational intervention, are the theoretical models that support and give meaning to the used socio-educational methodologies. In this sense, there are currently different models that could answer to the specific structure and social circumstances of these families. Among them, the systemic model has acquired great relevance (Laszloffy, 2004; O´Hanlon & Beadle, 1996; Partridge et al., 2019), as well as others like mixed intervention model, cognitive-behavioral model or multifamily model, whose contributions deserve to be considered (Melendro, 2014).

However, previous research focus on the families, but not on the professionals who work with them, acquiring so a detailed description of its configuration, but without the pertinent perspective of educators. Hence, the research question of this study is: what educators can tell us, taking into account their own professional experience, to improve the quality of intervention with kinship foster care? As a consequence of that, the aim of this paper is to analyze the perceptions that social educators, who work with kinship foster care, have about the main difficulties presented by this kind of families, the most frequent demands, the key factors that promote a quality attention, and the most used theoretical model.

The purpose of the study is to investigate the influence of phenomenally–oriented learning on studying a variety of topics in secondary school students. It was important for us to conduct this study to ensure the reliability of the method used. The question of our research is to what extent phenomenally oriented learning, within the framework of interdisciplinary interaction, influences the solution of various educational problems in secondary school students in the 7th grade.

Hypotheses put forward:

A) The study of phenomena in the classroom at school can contribute to solving a variety of educational problems.

C) The use of phenomenally oriented learning has a positive effect on the development of meta-subject skills among students in secondary school, in grade 7.

This is a study among a small group of 24 students conducted during September - November 2022 by students at the intellectual school of Almaty.

Evaluation method. The results pre- and post-testing were analyzed through a comparative method. The metacognitive skills of students were evaluated when solving problems:

• self-regulation,
• internal motivation,
• argumentation,
• interpretation.

The tests conducted before and after the study showed positive dynamics, and many students improved their results. The study showed that phenomenon-based learning had provided a more meaningful learning experience by actively engaging learners to solve problems that have a real-world context. It also helps learners to make connections across different disciplines. The results of the study show positive dynamics of changes in the level of self-regulation, internal motivation, argumentation, and interpretation of students.

When conducting the study, we considered how the authenticity of various educational problems of modern society can be attractive to students if you think about how to make the learning process such that it does not lead to entertainment and only superficial experiences. An important part of a teacher's job is to create positive cognitive dissonance through competing worldviews/roles [1]. Considering the solution of educational problems by students as an opportunity to study the features of the surrounding world from different points of view, it becomes clear the rationale for the use of phenomenally oriented teaching in school lessons, in interdisciplinary interaction, from the perspective of several subject contents that differ from each other [2].

Education in our school begins with the 7th grade. Students come to our school with different background knowledge, from different educational institutions of the city, region, and republic, with different features of the curricula. We noticed that students of grades 7 unproductively use the subject knowledge and skills acquired in various subjects, and as a result, they cannot offer solutions to any educational problem. Students have poorly developed self-regulation, low internal motivation, ineffective argumentation and practically no interpretation. Many scientists and educational researchers have emphasized the role of metacognitive processes in the regulation of cognitive activity, in particular intellectual activity. According to John Flavell, the concept of "metacognition" is defined as "the ability to analyze one's own thinking strategies and manage one's cognitive activity" [3].

According to A. Brown's model of metacognition, the regulation of cognition, as a category of metacognition, includes planning in the form of choosing a strategy for solving educational tasks [4]. The role of metacognitive processes is considered very important in the educational activities of students, since they understand and evaluate their own learning process, considering their own solutions to educational tasks and problems [5]. Phenomenally–oriented learning is just the interdisciplinary approach to learning that we need, which is student–oriented and based on research and problem solving. The purpose of phenomenon-based learning is to prepare students to solve problems related to real life [6].

Due to the recent surge of immigration to Sweden, it is estimated that approximately 25% of students aged 7-19 are second language learners. This heterogeneous group of students poses a challenge for teachers across all subjects, due to diverse individual differences, varying levels of language proficiency and the unique linguistic characteristics of each subject.

Enhancing science literacy can be facilitated by incorporating a focus on comprehending words in context, as proposed by Logan and Kieffer (2021). Furthermore, functional science literacy, as defined by Norris and Phillips (2003), encompasses not only an understanding of science terms, but also the ability to effectively communicate, read, and write using these terms in non-technical settings. The project, Science and Literacy Teaching (SALT), funded by the Swedish Research Council, attempted to identify the best strategies for supporting science teachers in working with second language learners.

Remark: An earlier version of the project has been presented two years ago. We previously presented preliminary results of this study.

Our rapidly changing society influences the work of schools. Today, public schools in different countries are under enormous pressure to adapt and change as they need to to deal with technological improvements and cultural changes that leads to the increase heterogenization of societies (cf. e.g. OECD 2019, 2016; Imlig, Lehmann & Manz 2018; European Union 2016; Altrichter & Maag-Merki 2016).

In spite of the abundant literature about the conceptual and practical notions and processes of educational change, there is still a need to learn more about the ways to conceptualize and put into practice transitional change processes in individual schools and how to conceptualize and put into practice transitional change in individual schools and school district (Steffens, Heinrich, Dobbelstein, 2016; Reinbach 2016). Transitional change processes refer to the steps and strategies that a district takes to implement significant changes in its operations and policies such as curriculum reform, or the implementation of new technologies. Transitional change processes can be complex and multi-faceted, involving a range of different stakeholders, such as students, teachers, administrators, and community members.

For principals, teacher leaders and project managers in charge of implementation processes at different levels, these accelerated changes raise the question about how to bring successful and sustainable implementation that is accepted and carried through by all those involved?

Many leaders have assumed and taken on willingly the challenge of implementing numerous, simultaneous and, in part, highly complex transitional processes. They are often confronted with scepticism, reserve, doubt and even outright boycott, often by politicians, staff and parents (Rasmussen 2017; Landert 2014).

This is where the project Shaping Transitional Processes in Dynamic Societies comes in. This project was conducted by a research group of the Zurich University of Teacher Education and the education authority of the Principality of Liechtenstein. The project aims at developing relevant and helpful support services and practices for school principals and project leaders with which current and future reforms and improvements can be mastered alongside the demanding daily school routine.

In order to answer the questions and to advance the research process of the project as transparently and comprehensibly as possible, the approach of Design Based Research (DBR) was used (Euler and Sloane 2014; Euler 2017). Due to its methodological design, the chosen approach opens up the possibility to think and design practical school improvement processes in complementarity with school improvement research (Rau, Gerber u. Grell 2022, 353) and thus to consider both the relevance for practice and the further development of theoretical findings.

School performance feedback (SPF) systems present educational professionals with student achievement data in order to support self-evaluation and data-based decision making (Schildkamp & Teddlie, 2008; Visscher & Coe, 2003). However, in order to arrive at (formative) conclusions based on SPF, recipients need to make sense of the (summative) data they are presented with (Schildkamp, 2019; van der Kleij et al., 2015). Attribution, or reflecting on the causes of (learning) outcomes, is an integral part of this sensemaking process (Coburn & Turner, 2011). In line with the basic propositions of attribution theory (Weiner, 1985, 2010), the nature of educators’ causal explanations for student outcomes has been found to affect their emotions and subsequent (instructional) behavior (Wang & Hall, 2018).

Research finds that educational professionals often struggle to pinpoint factors that (may) have led to certain outcomes, particularly when those outcomes are unfavorable (Verhaeghe et al., 2010). Moreover, in defiance of ideals relating to data-based decision making, student performance is often attributed to external causes such as student characteristics, rather than matters internal to educational professionals, such as instruction (Evans et al., 2019; Schildkamp et al., 2016). This is especially apparent in cases of student failure (Wang & Hall, 2018). Consequently, it can be difficult to formulate productive decisions and constructive actions based on SPF (Schildkamp et al., 2016).

In the present study, we examine educational professionals’ causal explanations for results presented in a SPF report from a low-stakes national assessment (NA) in Flanders, Belgium. Like typical external standardized assessments, the Flemish NA relate school performance to standards and to the performance of reference groups (AERA et al., 2014; Visscher & Coe, 2003). We investigate educational professionals’ attributions of these data, with a particular interest in the locus of causality of the attributions they make. To what extent is the SPF interpreted introspectively (i.e., with regard to aspects of school policy and instructional practice that can be improved or sustained) and to what extent is school performance ascribed to external factors (such as aspects of the test itself, or input from students)?

Our review of the literature suggests that perceptions of school leaders remain somewhat underexposed in studies on attribution in educational data use. However, SPF intends to inform both school policy and instructional practice. Consequently, we will not only focus on teachers’ attributions in the present study, but also on causal explanations made by school leaders. Furthermore, we will examine causal explanations for both outcomes perceived as favorable, and those perceived as unfavorable. Perhaps in line with the very term “diagnosis”, we find that the attributions and attributional processes discussed in empirical literature are predominantly focused on explanations for student failure (van Gasse & Mol, 2021; Verhaeghe et al., 2010) and not so much for student success. However, school improvement is not only a narrative of identifying problems, but also of fostering what works.

In summary, the three research questions we address, are:

RQ1 To which internal and external factors do teachers and school leaders attribute their school’s performance on a national assessment?

RQ2 Do attributions differ according to the attributor’s work role?

RQ3 Do attributions differ according to the perceived favorability of the result?

We adopt a qualitative approach and make use of authentic educational data, because our aim is to illuminate how individuals and groups make meaning of something they experience (here, their schools’ SPF) from their own perspectives (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013).

This three-year study aims to design and validate the Kazakhstani Teacher Observational Protocol (KTOP) aimed at gauging the degree to which teachers/ instructors in Kazakhstan successfully implement reform-based practices in high school and undergraduate STEM lessons.

The 2011-2020 Educational Strategy for Kazakhstan outlined the goal of further development of the ‘training system and professional development’ with the primary objective being to improve teachers' learning and professional mastery in the Kazakhstani school system. Education reform has been considered necessary as the secondary curriculum was perceived as overly dense, with a focus on rote learning that resulted in only providing superficial knowledge rather than deep mastery of topics (Fimyar, Yakavets, & Bridges, 2014).

Education reform across contexts has focused on teachers' critical role in improving education quality (Schleicher, 2016). The question remains as to how initiated changes are validated or measured. Teacher observation instruments have been developed to measure effective teaching (Mantzicopoulos, et al., 2018). In addition to being used to provide standardized data to monitor education, these instruments can help to determine if professional development programs or the use of reformed curricula are producing changes in teaching practices (MacIsaac et al., 2001). Classroom observation instruments can be constructive tools for aiding in the evaluation of teachers and designing professional development (Evenhouse et al., 2018). Classroom observation allows observers to gather information on student and teacher behaviours and the classroom environment within an authentic setting, which is one way that links theory and practice in order to better understand the classroom environment (Snyder, 2012). Observations have been used to gather data on teachers’ integration of technology (Helmer et al., 2018); student-teacher interactions (Darling-Hammond, 2006); and explicit subject-area learning (Waxman et al., 2009). In Kazakhstan, the fast pace and wide range of reforms raises questions about teachers’ readiness to implement reforms in the classroom. Moreover, historically “open lessons” where teachers and administrators observe lessons may be rehearsed without systematic criteria for evaluation.

To address these issues, this paper reports on the pilot study where researchers collected data to determine how well the KTOP is suited to the reform-based practice in Kazakhstan. The reform-based practice was conceptualized by way of the following six subscales: lesson design and implementation, methods/teaching strategies, communicative interactions, student-teacher relations, assessment interactions, and integration of content and language in teaching.

. The specific questions addressed:

RQ1: What is the overall level of inter-rater reliability of the Kazakhstan Teaching Observational Protocol (KTOP) instrument?

RQ2: What is the level of inter-rater reliability of the KTOP instrument’s (a) lesson design and implementation (5 items), (b) methods/teaching strategies (5 items), (c) classroom culture (communicative interactions; 6 items), (d) classroom culture (student-teacher relationships; 5 items), (e) assessment interactions (3 items), and (f) integrating content and language in teaching (2 items) subscales?

RQ3: How well targeted is the KTOP instrument for identifying the higher- and lower-reform-based teaching practice in the Kazakhstani high school and higher educational contexts?

.

In a challenging context for the teaching profession and also for teacher education (Carrillo & Flores, 2022), it seems pertinent to highlight the relevance of teachers' motivations for choosing to teach. The factors that are sources of motivation for choosing to teach cover a wide range of nuances that are worth systematically exploring. In this regard, over the last decades, much research has been conducted on the factors that influence teaching choice in the international context (Fray and Gore, 2018; Heinz, 2015; Watt et al., 2017; Navarro et al., 2021). That is why identifying and analyzing the motivations for choosing to teach is a prolific line of research (Shang et al., 2022). Although, a scoping review of the literature shows that the investigations are contextualized in face-to-face teacher education.

From this perspective, the objective of this research is to identify the factors influencing teaching choice through an exploratory study with student teachers in a distance education context. The hypothesis that we posed is that the factors that influence the teaching choice of students in a distance university are different than those motivational profiles that traditional students have (face-to-face education) because the profile of the distance student is very heterogeneous.

Acknowledgments: Teaching Innovation Project supported by the Vicerrectorado de Digitalización e Innovación de la UNED (Spain): "Factors that influence teacher choice: an exploratory study with university students of the Degree in Early Childhood Education" (FIED-EI).

The role of teachers is becoming increasingly important as Europe addresses its educational, social and economic challenges (Eurydice, 2018). At the same time, the most widespread problems in Europe and the world are teacher shortage, which is no longer a myth (Martin, & Mulvihill, 2016), but is real, large and growing, and worse than we thought (García, & Weiss, 2019). The European Commision (2015) pointed out problems of teacher shortages: shortage in some subjects, in some geographical areas, ageing teachers, high drop-out rates from the teaching profession, insufficient numbers of students in teacher studies programmes and high student attrition. The pandemic has also had an impact on the number of existing teachers, through increased anxiety and changes in workload (Darling-Hammond & Hyler 2020). The shortage of teachers, especially those for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), is a well-known global problem recognized by many (Diekman, & Benson-Greenwald, 2018).

What are the main factors influencing the teacher shortage? In this research the factors are divided into three groups: work environment/circumstances, personal and academic/professional.

Factors related to the working environment/circumstances determine a teacher's job satisfaction in school. They are: lack of recognition, poor remuneration/advancement opportunities, and loss of autonomy (Aragon 2016). Few researchers noted the characteristics of schools: type of school, class size (Cowan, et al., 2016), a perceived lack of respect for teachers (Barth,et al., 2016), and teacher workload, teacher cooperation (Toropova, Myrberg, & Johansson, 2021). In Latvia, teachers' job satisfaction is most influenced by a positive and democratic school culture - teacher relationships, teacher-student relationships and teacher-principal relationships (Geske & Ozola, 2015:206). In the LIZDAs study (2016): the biggest difficulties that teachers face in their work are the lack of respect from education policy makers, children's permissiveness, increased media interest in negative events in school life, stress and professional burnout

Personal factors are mainly related to teachers' perceptions of the teaching profession and their motivation to work in schools. Kyriacou and Coulthard’s (2000) study on undergraduates’ views of teaching as a career choice indicated three categories of the most motivating factors: altruistic reasons (desire to benefit society), intrinsic reasons (interest in subject matter and expertise), and extrinsic reasons (extended work breaks, level of pay, etc.). As the current shortage of teachers in STEM subjects calls for stimulating students' interest and motivation to learn, the teacher is given the role of inspirer. To teach, motivation can be seen as a multidimensional construct that includes (social influence, positive prior teaching and learning experiences, perceptions of teaching ability, intrinsic value, personal and social utility values), perceptions of the teaching profession (perceptions of task demands and returns), and evaluations of social withdrawal experiences and satisfaction with the teaching profession choice (Kuijpers, Dam, & Janssen, 2022).

Academic/professional factors have been attributed to the teacher's performance in the classroom: Do my knowledge, skills, and attributes fit with those demanded by the profession? (Klassen, Granger, & Bardach, 2022). It means that all teachers need the skills (explain a subject in a way that students understand, use a variety of teaching methods) and knowledge (subject content, pedagogy and psychology) to accomplish their immediate goals as a teacher.

The teacher shortage is becoming more acute today, with fewer and fewer students choosing not to become teachers. This situation is particularly problematic in STEM education, so the aim of the study was to find out the views of STEM faculties students on the choice of science teaching as a profession. In order to achieve this goal, the research question was posed: what factors determine the choice of STEM students to become/not to become a STEM subjects teacher?

Background, rationale and research questions:

Although the empirical evidence on the educational impact of the systematic use of formal performance data from central tests is quite strong (Datnow & Park, 2018), the Flemish⁽¹⁾ education system is one of the few European education systems in which no form of central testing is widely implemented (OECD, 2013). As of school year 2023-2024, all Flemish pupils will also take central tests during their school career, which (in contrast to numerous other education systems) aim to take a strong development-oriented perspective.

While policymakers and governments expect teachers to use data to improve student learning, teachers still appear reluctant to integrate this data into their teaching practices (Schelling & Rubenstein, 2021). In this regard, a numerous number of descriptive studies provide in-depth insight into influencing factors of data use (Schildkamp, Poortman, Luyten, & Ebbeler, 2017). However, most of these studies only consider (a small number of) psychological factors to a limited extent. Since data use is essentially a human endeavour, it is important, in order to fully benefit from the rich potential of data use, to also study psychological aspects (Schildkamp, Poortman, Ebbeler, & Pieters, 2019).

Because the use of formal performance data from central tests for educational improvement can be considered a (relative) educational change, certainly in Flanders, but also to some extent in an international context, and to select psychological factors driving teachers’ data use for educational improvement, we drew inspiration from the literature related to ‘change readiness’. Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) consider teachers’ readiness as ‘one's beliefs, attitudes and goals regarding the extent to which change is needed and their perceptions of individual and organisational ability to successfully implement those changes’. The readiness to use formal performance data concerns, in other words, both ‘willing’ and 'being able' to change. Each of these dimensions explains an aspect of readiness (Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013) and is highlighted in the literature because of their role in successful educational change processes (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Because readiness can be considered a predictor of behavior (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993), we expect that a positive teachers’ readiness (i.e. a positive appraisal of willing and being able to use formal performance data to improve student learning) may contribute to effective (future) data use. Consequently, this study firstly examines the extent to which teachers are ready to use formal performance data (from central tests) to improve student learning (RQ1).

Moreover, data use does not occur in isolation (Schildkamp et al., 2019). By including school-level factors we account for the fact that teachers’ readiness does not occur in isolation en can be impacted by a data use stimulating school culture (Prenger & Schildkamp, 2018). As a consequence we secondly study to what extent characteristics of a data use stimulating school culture have an impact on teachers’ readiness (RQ2).

In sum, the present study aims to address the aforementioned knowledge gap by quantitatively studying Flemish teachers' readiness to engage with formal achievement data (from central tests) to improve student learning and school culture’s impact.

^{(1) Flanders is the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium.}

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the world experienced a technological boom in education, especially in formal education. The popularity of e-learning, online learning, blended-learnig (BL) has increased with applying them to non-formal adult education (Wiliamson et al., 2020). Various BL courses and tools have been created for adult non-formal learning, for example, applying BL for adult learners’ literacy classrooms (Rosen, 2019), specific professional development (Macumber, 2021), organizational learning (Sutherland, Porter, 2019), mindfulness and well-being courses (McGarvie, 2020), adults’ social inclusion and social capital (Cocquyt et al., 2019), developing language skills (Erickson, 2019), adult engagement in learning communities (Abedini, Abedi, Zowgi, 2021) and others.

The current research was conducted in the Erasmus+ project “Cultural knowledge and language competences as means to develop 21st century skills” involving six EU countries: Croatia, Latvia, Slovenia, Romania, Poland, Czechia (Project No.2018-1-HR-01-KA204-047430; 2018-2021).

The project aims to develop adult learners’ 21st century skills and foster learners’ knowledge of the rich European cultural heritage and its values by applying innovative learning approaches and materials consequently improving people’s education level and bringing them closer to cultural heritage, history and the common values of Europe, enhancing their overall development and employability.

3 comprehensive outputs have been created: two BL courses and LLL guidelines for adult educators. In ECER2019 the course construct was presented (Luka, 2019), in ECER2021 the results of the English language course implementation (O1 Output) were presented (Luka, 2021a, b), in ECER2022 implementation of the “Culture-based multilingual blended-learning course for adult learners” in 10 languages (EN, HR, LV, Sl, PL, CZ, HU, RO, DE, FR) in the 6 countries was introduced (Output 2) (Luka, 2023). The contribution of ECER2023 deals with the evaluation of the learning management system (LMS) (Output 1 & 2), since learning environment is a crucial part of BL. The course employs generic model by Wang (2008) comprising three components: pedagogy (makes learning meaningful, authentic and relevant to learners), social interaction (ensures interaction with peers, teachers, experts), technology (interaction with content and with people is implemented through the interaction with the interface). This model enables securing learner engagement (Shi et al., 2021).

Technology-supported learning environments in education have been in the focus of researchers for more than twenty years (Müller & Wulf, 2021).Recent research on LMS implies that LMS must be user-friendly (Hofmeister & Pilz, 2020), interactive (Gao et al., 2020) and innovative (Patra et al., 2021). It has to offer synchronous and asynchronous interaction opportunities (Ruscanda et al., 2021), consider learners’ learning styles (Carrillo, Flores, 2020) and provide a feedback to learners (Ionescu, 2020). Hence, it is crucial to create such a LMS that would support the use of various teaching/learning methods (pedagogical content), involve learners in interaction (social component), and secure the learning process technologically (technological component).

The topicality of this research is underlined by the target groups of learners – alongside with regular adult learners, adults with certain barriers to learning (cultural, social, econonomic, geographic, and having learning difficulties) and the course implementation during the pandemic period predominantly in an online-only BL format. Thus, the BL course and the LMS required the incorporation of specific features. Hence, the evaluation of the LMS after the course acquisition is very important.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the suitability of the LMS for the implementation of a BL adult learning course for various target groups in the six partner countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, when novel ways of teaching/learning had to be found.

The research question: How do the learners evaluate the LMS and is it suitable for implementation of a BL adult learning course for adults with barriers to learning?

Modern-day twenty-first-century education is now being constructed around the pillars of a framework that supports and dwells on Information and Communication Technology in the learning process. Nowadays, teachers are supposed to develop a pedagogical approach that integrates and blends with technology in learning. Often seen many digital learning tools are complex demanding special training, thus forcing teachers not to practice it in their pedagogical approach.

TPACK is a framework that highlights the labyrinth involved with the adoption of a particular digital learning tool and its use between the three basic components of knowledge (technology, pedagogy, and content). This particular article takes a deeper dive into the TPACK framework and how essential it is to integrate technology into education with ease.

Hernawati & Jailani (2019) argue that the birth of the internet has changed the way we perceive learning. According to Schoenl & Fusarelli (2008), it is stated that the exercise of ICT as a medium for instructional tools and the pedagogical capabilities of teachers are the reasons to support the learning organization as well as teachers to face the problems that might arise whilst developing the students’ learning skills.

This study aims at helping HEIs understand and validate the practice of their digital learning tools by teachers and learners. The aim of the research: evaluate the digital efficiency of teachers and learners with digital tools and identify the steps to be taken in order to make the learners and teachers digitally capable to practice the digital learning tools with ease.

As described by Harris & Matt Koehler (2009), Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework aims to identify the concept of digital learning needed by teachers for novelties in their pedagogical approach. TPACK simultaneously aims to answer the likeliness of confusion, as well as the complex stacked type of the teacher's information.

Chai. et.al (2013) have reviewed 74 journal papers that investigated ICT integration with the TPACK framework. The understanding of the TPACKs must be learned by the teachers to efficiently enforce ICT in the classroom. TPACK is a framework for teachers, educators, and students that addresses the issue of incorporating technology into learning which has been exercised apart from content learning and pedagogical education.

Further discussions: As stated by Steinle & Lynda Ball (2013), every teacher has their own TPACK capabilities to harness when it comes to digital tools for learning, such as a mathematics teacher needs to have the skills of a well-connected CK and PCK, that a teacher can have the freedom to enter tweak or modify pre-lecture and post-lecture for interactive, monitored and effective learning.

Case studies & arguments: study conducted in Tanzania by Patrick et.al (2016), Africa showed that more than 50% of teachers in terms of preparedness for classroom technology integration were not prepared with the content or the knowledge of the ICT for education at their research institution. With such a percentage index and the lack of technological knowledge in modern-day society, a teacher would make knowledge transferred to other learners completely obsolete.

Final statements: There is still a fair share of critics for TPACK, but the framework is still relevant. Various communities implement different aspects of TPACK globally. Mary C. Herring (2016) indicates that TPACK’s official website has over 6,000 registered users who have common shared interests that together have compiled a detailed bibliography of TPACK-related literature involving over 600 articles

Research suggests that, in line with social developments, schools are using more intensively digital technologies (OECD, 2021). However, an improvement in infrastructure does not automatically lead to a well-considered use of that technology in education (Albion & Tondeur, 2018). We must therefore be aware that the use of ICT does not automatically have added value. The ultimate goal of ICT use in teaching-learning processes is to ensure that more and can be learned more deeply.

From a theoretical perspective, the extent to which schools develop a policy on the technical and didactical use of ICT and the extent to which schools strengthen educational practice by means of digital education, formed the basis of this study. Research also showed that different preconditions on pedagogical, organisational and technological aspects can influence the quality of the offered digital education. A suitable, reliable and secure digital infrastructure as well as a digitally competent school team are just two of these important preconditions.

In addition to subject-specific knowledge, the literature points to teachers’ technological and didactic ICT knowledge and skills to provide quality digital education, although time and space to professionalise is important too. Lawrence and Tar (2018) emphasize the importance of a positive attitude towards digital education among teachers in relation to the quality of the lessons offered.

From a parental perspective, a positive involvement in learning is a beneficial effect on the child's learning gains. This involvement can be strengthened by the use of digital technologies. Parents who are sufficiently digitally competent support their children often better with digital homework and make more use of digital communication channels in the school (del Carmen Ramírez-Rueda et al., 2021).

We embarked on this topic with the aim of providing a broad overview of how Flemish primary and secondary schools organize digital education in their school. Three questions were identified during the literature study as being in need of attention: (1) To what extent do the Flemish schools of compulsory education pursue a high-quality ICT policy? (2) To what extent do the Flemish schools of compulsory education strengthen the teaching learning practice through digital education? (3) To what extent are the preconditions for high-quality digital education fulfilled in the Flemish schools of compulsory education?

To evaluate the implementation of Digisprong, a government initiative to strengthen digitalisation in the Flemish schools of compulsory education, the Inspectorate of education collected data on how schools shape digital education. A mobile survey via the VOI.CE app was used to gather the perspectives of different education stakeholders school leaders, teachers, ICT coordinators, pupils and parents).

The survey (N=7481) provides an interesting picture of the state of the digital education offered in Flemish schools. Halfway through the rollout of the Digisprong, a large majority of schools state they have a vision on ICT, although they do not always have an effective strategy to realize that vision. The results indicate also differences between schools. To close the gap between the needs and needs regarding school members’ digital competences, a good professionalisation policy is needed that takes into account the needs and requirements of the whole school team.

With a view to a sustainable strengthening of quality development in schools, we look at both the strengths as well as areas for improvement. At the same time, we want to educate with the help of this research raising awareness to develop a sustainable ICT policy aimed at strengthening the digital teaching learning practice.

Early between school tracking (i.e. tracking) is an institutional set-up that has strong implications for students and their future outcomes. While there is increasing consensus that tracking does not increase average levels of achievement but average levels of inequality (e.g., Terrin & Triventi 2022, meta-analysis), we know little about the underlying mechanisms. The focus of this study is a potential mechanism that is as prominent as it is understudied: the role of unequal school resources in tracked systems. In other words, while higher tracks (i.e. academic tracks) benefit from above-average resources, lower tracks (i.e. vocational tracks) are disadvantaged. We call such a situation input-stratification, because the total input (resources) assigned to the education system is stratified across tracks (c.p. Esser 2016).

Input stratification has been discussed as a potential mechanism throughout the literature (e.g. Betts 2011; van de Werfhorst 2021, Terrin & Triventi 2022), but there are hardly any studies providing evidence on the unequal distribution of resources across tracks. For instance, van de Werfhorst (2021; 1214) and Terrin & Triventi (2020, meta-analysis; 7) still cite the prominent paper of Brunello & Checchi (2007). While Brunello & Checchi (2007; 795) only provide student-teacher ratios in 2004 for a handful of countries, ostensibly because resources are not the focus of their study, they apparently provide the best evidence on input-stratification to this date. The scarcity of evidence may be explained by the inherent difficulty of estimating (causal) effects of school resources (e.g. Gibbons & McNally 2013) combined with the scarcity of high-quality data that allows for comparison across countries. Thus, a consequence is that we do not know whether a) input stratification (unequal resources) actually exists in tracked systems and b) whether it drives unequal levels of achievement in different tracks. Although answering b) is outside the scope of this study, we argue that it is still valuable to know about a) since b) presupposes a). Our approach is driven by two goals.

First, we want to provide a thorough discussion on the role of school resources in tracked systems. While the topic of school resources is often mentioned in the literature, it is hardly spelled out with its theoretical implications. The unequal distribution of resources across tracks could be a mechanism that explains why tracked systems fail to show increased (average) achievement but increased social inequalities (i.e. Terrin & Triventi 2022). Accordingly, students on higher (lower) tracks benefit (are disadvantaged) through resources above (below) average. But since tracks are segregated by social status (Strello et al. 2022), high (low) status students are more (less) likely to benefit from above-average resources, explaining the increased social inequality in tracked systems.

Given the limited space, we merely note that we incorporate the existing literature on school resources in our study (e.g. Krüger 2003 vs. Hanushek 2003). We distinguish between explicit resources (e.g. official government funding) and implicit resources which are indirect consequences of the institutional set-up (e.g. self-selection of more capable or motivated teachers). Further we discuss whether differences in resource allocation across tracks should be seen as a bug or a feature of tracked systems (i.e. vocational vs. academic training; c.p. Esser 2021).

Second, we want to assemble data sources that are either informative about resource levels 1) across tracks within a country or 2) across tracked and untracked countries. Noting the inherent difficulties of estimating the effects of school resources, we will restrict our analysis to a descriptive analysis in order to answer the question whether the existence of input-stratification is plausible given the existing evidence.

The education system is a key social institution of any modern state, critical to the socio-economic and cultural development of society. For this institution to work effectively in a complex and uncertain world, its management must be data-driven (Burns et al., 2016). Informed transformation of educational content and the systematic use of new technologies in pedagogical practice are important characteristics of effective educational systems (Nelson & Campbell, 2017; Wiseman, 2010). Only research can determine "what works," similar to what is successfully implemented in, for example, health care (Davies, 1999).

The lack of effective use of research in educational policy and practice is regularly highlighted, and mechanisms are sought to strengthen the impact of research on decision-making in education systems (OECD,2022). The importance of and need for evidence-based decision-making was particularly vivid during the pandemic, highlighting how the existing gap between research and policy decisions may have dramatic consequences (Stuart & Dowdy, 2021).

A fairly wide pool of interventions designed to increase educational outcomes exists and well documented in international research. Prominent examples of cataloging this type of information are, for example, the following electronic resources:

- The U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Educational Sciences WWC open repository[1];

- repository of practices to help Every Student Succeeds Act, Evidence for ESSA[2];

- BEE Encyclopaedia of Educational Practices, created by Johns Hopkins University[3].

Webpages such as these appear due to the fallacy of the view that any educational projects are useful and effective. Moreover, evaluations of their effectiveness are often highly contradictory. It is not uncommon to find that proposed interventions do not lead to any worthwhile outcome (Lortie-Forgues & Inglis, 2019). However, the very fact that educational programs are evaluated for their effectiveness is extremely important in optimizing resources for their implementation and scaling.

The movement toward evidence-based education is most evident in English-speaking countries (Dekker & Meeter, 2022). However, there is growing interest in China (Slavin et al., 2021), Sweden (Segerholm et al., 2022), the Netherlands (Wubbels & van Tartwijk, 2017), Italy (Mincu & Romiti, 2022), France (Bressoux et al., 2019)[4]. To a much lesser extent, we see the development of this movement in the Post-Soviet states. The importance of the studies has been only increasing and is especially evident since these countries began to participate in PISA, the results of the first waves of which opened up possibilities for analyzing the connection between differences in the quality of educational outcomes and the reforms implemented (Khavenson & Carnoy, 2016).

Of particular interest is the ability of countries to generate and use their own "contextualized" research data about "what works" in education. Here one encounters a problem — in general, there are few works characterizing the landscape of educational research in the post-Soviet space (Chankseliani, 2017; Hernández-Torrano et al., 2021). We found no systematic review or meta-analysis of publications summarizing research on the impact of educational interventions on school students' academic outcomes that could allow policymakers and practitioners to construct informed educational policies.

The purpose of our paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of educational improvement programs in the Post-Soviet states, as there is a clear lack of systematization of such information in the presence of a clear demand for data-driven reforms. Our paper simultaneously addresses two tasks leading to the overall goal — a meta-analysis of studies summarizing the experience of post-Soviet countries in terms of interventions aimed at improving educational outcomes, and the search for a basis for building educational policies that would consider the current state of affairs.

[1] https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

[2] https://www.evidenceforessa.org/page/about

[3] https://bestevidence.org/

[4] References are omitted in the list due to the lack of space.

Choice theory has shaped much of public-school policy throughout the world as countries have adopted free market principles to establish educational alternatives to state and traditional public schools with the goal of improving chronically failing schools. While public dollars are being used globally to support private school enterprises, public dollars are also being used to finance public school alternatives to the state and traditional public-school offerings. On both sides of the Atlantic Ocean during the 1990s, school choice theory promoted public school alternatives to state or traditional public schools with the emergence of Multi-Academy Trusts in the United Kingdom and the rise of Charter Schools in the United States. Beginning with the Education Reform Act of 1988 -- which allowed for the formation of city technical academies -- and since the “academisation” of schools in 2010, the number of multi-academy trusts have soared from 407 in 2011 to 6493 during 2017 (Male). Concurrently since the first charter school in Minnesota in 1992, the number of charter schools in the United States have climbed to 7,038, and 44 states now have charter school laws. Both school growth trends in choice schools have had the unflinching endorsement of respective national governments.

Theoretical Framework: Choice Theory is the study’s theoretical framework. Choice theory is the antithesis of the governmental centralization of public schools, as conceived by German fiscal influence in the United States educational policy during the early twentieth century (Seligman). Choice Theory seeks equitable and efficient resource distribution through parental selection and market-fueled competition. Whether promoted by Milton Friedman in the 1950s (Friedman) or Adam Smith during the 1770s, Choice Theory application advocates a variety of resource distribution schemes in contemporary school finance policy, featuring tuition tax credits, vouchers, funding portability, and charter schools. Given this framework, my study will evaluate how the theoretical framework has effectively or ineffectively been implemented in school finance policy within British multi-academy trusts and US charter schools through an equity and efficiency analysis. Due to the researcher’s limitations to aggregate data on all multi-academy trusts and charter schools in both respective countries, an explanatory quantitative study will be conducted among choice schools in these countries’ largest municipalities: London (or Inner London - its schools within fourteen local education authorities) and New York City (NYC’s Department of Education). Given this theoretical backdrop, the paper’s main research questions include:

1. To what extent do the distribution of per pupil expenditures of London multi-academy trusts and New York City (NYC) charter schools vary when compared to the distribution of these per pupil expenditures in state schools and the traditional public schools in each of these municipalities?

2. To what extent does the per pupil funding formula allocate to the magnitude of student need in both London multi-academy trusts and NYC charter schools when compared to this needs-based allocation in the traditional public and state schools in each of these municipalities?

3. Given the school spending data from the Income and Expenditure Reports in England for state and choice schools and the School Based Expenditure Reports in the NYC public schools, to what extent can one track the usage of resources to determine what percentage of resources are being allocated for total uses on instruction – minus capital outlays, security, transportation, building up-keep, and other non-instructional needs?

4. Are multi-academy trusts and charter schools respectively in London and NYC getting more bang for the “pound” or “buck” when analyzing the relationship between student gain scores and per pupil expenditures in these schools, especially when compared to analyzing the same data of state and traditional schools in these two municipalities?

International organisations and their role and impacts on local/national and global policymaking in the sector of education have been object of discussion in a vast number of academic studies during the past decades (e.g. McNeely 1995; Verger, Novalli, and Altinyelken 2018; Martens and Windzio 2022). However, the perspectives of the practitioners working within these international organisations are rarely analysed. In this study we analyse the role and impacts of international organisations in the differentiation between education systems through the understandings of education experts in these organisations. Empirically the paper builds on thematic semi-structured interviews with Finnish education experts working in international organisations. Our research question is: How are the international organisations impacting the reduction, construction or continuity of differentiation between the educational systems of the Global North and the Global South through development collaboration initiatives?

We develop our analysis by combining the onto-epistemic lenses of complexity thinking (e.g. Cilliers 1998) with the Luhmaniann concept of differentiation (e.g. Luhmann 1982; Baraldi, Corsi, and Esposito 2021;) and utilise the perspective of sensemaking as a tool to guide the analysis (e.g. Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld 2005; Brown, Colville, and Pye 2015). The combination of different perspectives and concepts has been done successfully in previous literature (e.g. Zahariadis 1998; Howlett et al. 2016; Santos 2022) demonstrating that different theoretical lenses can benefit from being aggregated, not only leading to a better understanding of the phenomenon under analysis, but also by contributing to advancements of each of the different theories utilised, while also innovating the ways in which theories are utilised in qualitative research. In the case of this study, this theoretical aggregation enables the development of a more holistic analysis of the dynamics of development cooperation in the education sector, contributing not only to a better understanding of these dynamics but also of how the Finnish education experts involved in them make sense of what happens around their professional environment.

The study starts with two assumptions a) that there is an imaginary, blurry divide between the so-called Global North (often described as developed countries, also donor countries) and the so-called Global South (frequently see as the underdeveloped, peripherical countries, which are the receivers of international support); and b) that the initiatives developed by international organisations impact the development of education globally, but more intensively in the Global South as it has been discussed in earlier research (e.g. Verger, Novelli, and Altinyelken 2018).

Hence, while bundles of studies, analyse the role of international organisations from distant, macro-economic perspectives. We study the sensemaking of the (Finnish) education experts working in international organizations to understand, from an internal perspective, the roles and impacts of international organisations in development cooperation, with the aim of comprehending if these organisations indeed maintain or even increase differentiations North-South or if they actually manage to reduce this differentiation and harmonise education systems, access and quality globally, as it is the aim Sustainable Development Goal 4 – Quality of education. This study contributes to complementary fields of research, namely Global Education Policies studies and Development studies.

Our findings indicate that interviewees understand the complexity and ambiguity of development cooperation and that international organisations, by keeping the leadership of development cooperation initiatives often maintain and can even increase differentiations among education systems along the divide North-South.

Education systems globally are grappling with the challenge of how to best prepare children and young people for life and work in the context of a rapidly changing and uncertain future. This focus has become more urgent given the impact of the recent COVID-19 pandemic and the imperative for rapid economic recovery, promoting societal cohesion and building healthy, resilient citizens. In this context, contemporary thinking and research is no longer focussing on system reform, as in reshaping what is already in place, but rather system transformation which requires a fundamental rethink of the purpose and goals of education (Sengeh & Winthrop, 2022) and the ways in which learning is organised to ensure that every child is learning successfully (Masters, 2022). This presentation illustrates the research process and outcomes of doing system transformation in partnership with a national education system. The research contributes new methodological understandings to the practice of system transformation relevant to a broad international audience.

Education systems around the world are grappling with the challenge of how to best prepare children and young people for life and work in the context of a rapidly changing and uncertain future. This focus has become more urgent given the impact of the recent COVID-19 pandemic and the imperative for rapid economic recovery, societal cohesion and building healthy, resilient citizens. In this context, thinking and research is no longer focussing on system reform, as in reshaping what is already in place, but rather system transformation, which requires fundamental rethink of the purpose and goals of education (Sengeh & Winthrop, 2022) and the ways in which learning is organised to ensure every child is learning successfully (Masters, 2022).The system transformation literature (see Fullan, 2009; 2011; Fuller & Kim, 2022; Masters, in press; Sengeh &Winthrop, 2022; Winthrop et al., 2021) reflects common themes including developing a shared vision for the purpose of education, the importance of participatory approaches and, focussing system efforts on the teaching and learning core to ensure all students learn successfully.

Masters (in press), building on a review of practices across five of the world’s top performing systems, including two European systems (Finland and Estonia), conceptualises a learning system as six interconnecting components: a quality curriculum; informative assessment processes; highly effective teaching; comprehensive student support; strong leadership of learning and; a supportive learning ecosystem. At the centre of the learning system is a clear purpose- preparing young people for life and work and ensuring every student learns successfully. Sengeh and Winthrop (2022) conceptualise system transformation similarly. In their model, which they call a participatory approach to transformation, they refer to 3Ps: Purpose, Pedagogy and Position. Purpose is self-explanatory. This is the notion that, in a particular context, a shared vision of the purpose of education needs to be developed. Pedagogy refers to a sharp focus on the teaching and learning core. Position relates to the cohesion between different system elements to support the pedagogical core.

In 2022, ACER partnered with a national education system to implement a major system transformation initiative focussing on five core areas: curriculum implementation, quality teaching, assessment processes and practices, educational leadership, and school and system school improvement.

Consequently, the overarching research questions were:

1. What are international benchmarks describing international good practice in the areas of this system’s focus focus?
2. How does the current state of the system compare to international best practice as identified international benchmarks?
3. What key strategic actions need to be undertaken to work toward international best practice?

We find ourselves at the beginning of what might become an exciting new era in the field of Educational Change. Andy Hargreaves and Dennis Shirley anticipated a new era, what they called a Fourth Way, that, “pushes beyond standardization, data-driven decision making, and target-obsessed distractions to forge an equal and interactive partnership among the people, the profession, and their government” (2009, p. 71). Many different stakeholders are now working in partnership to improve schools, including, among others, educators, university-affiliated researchers, parent groups, for-profit and charity organisations, and government agencies. This plurality of participants has helped a more diverse research landscape emerge. A welcomed departure from a technocratic model of evidence-based education, which narrowly assumed that, “the only relevant research questions [were] questions about the effectiveness of educational means and techniques” (Biesta, 2007, p. 5). Instead, researchers are developing new collaborative research strategies (Penuel et al., 2020) and refining working arrangements, such as Research Practice Partnerships (Coburn et al., 2021; Coburn & Penuel, 2016) and Networked Improvement Communities (Bryk et al., 2011; Russell et al., 2019), to support engagement between multiple stakeholders and build collective capacity for sustained improvement across large school systems (Fullan, 2010).

However, as Stephen Ball aptly points out, “policy works by accretion and sedimentation rather than revolution; new policies add to and overlay old ones, with the effect that new principles and innovations are merged and conflated with older rationales and previous practices” (Ball, 2021, p. 63). Festering just beneath the surface of this supposed collaborative landscape is a policy strata where accountability was, and in many areas, remains the cornerstone of education policy (Smith & Benavot, 2019). Dominant school improvement models emanating from this policy context have similar characteristics- they involve mandates for teachers in the form of prescribed practices and specified outcome targets, and involve routine standardized testing to support comparisons of student academic achievement across schools (Afdal & Afdal, 2019; Biesta, 2009; DeLuca & Johnson, 2017; Fuller et al., 2008; Jackson & Temperley, 2007; Taubman & Savona, 2009). Even in national contexts like England where schools appear to be gaining autonomy through networked governance (Goldsmith & Kettl, 2009), organizational replication reigns (Peurach & Glazer, 2012) as government agencies continue to steer education provision, albeit from a distance (Whitty & Wisby, 2016), resulting in “coercive autonomy” (Greany & Higham, 2018) and schools well within the “shadow of hierarchy” (Davies, 2011).

This presentation reports on findings from a Mixed Methods Social Network Analysis project that traced the activities of a teacher innovator as they scaled up their own educational improvement initiative from a single-school pilot into a thirty-school regional program. The research is part of a larger effort to explore how teacher-led educational change can thrive in contexts dominated by networked governance. Specifically, this research asks- How can classroom teachers repurpose School Improvement Networks to replicate their own improvement initiatives in schools?

In England, School Improvement Networks, or educational systems in which a central hub organization works with outlet schools to enact change (Peurach & Glazer, 2012), is becoming the predominant model for large-scale school improvement. For example, the Education Endowment Foundation’s (EEF) Research Schools Network and the Department for Education (DfE) curriculum hubs and Teaching School Hubs are all systems where a lead school connects with outlet schools across a region to deliver common approaches for learning and teaching. Furthermore, by 2030, all schools in England are expected to be members of Multi-academy Trusts (MATs), or networks of schools, sometimes with dozens of members, controlled by lead schools and early joiners. Teachers can repurpose the relational infrastructure of networked governance to lead large-scale school improvement initiatives.

Undoubtedly the progress of any nation highly depends upon the proficiencies of its younger generation (Taleba & Hassanzadehb, 2015). Modern learning organizations and modern learning techniques have been continuously emphasized by the EU to harness the capabilities & exploit the potential of generation Z in the diverse areas of education in relation to ICT (Reding, 2003).

Previously, various researchers have focused on harnessing and exploiting new technologies that equip learners to learn with flexibility, comfort, and interaction. Nowadays learners are equipped with smart handheld or desktop devices to enable them to access digital learning materials with ease. Smart education and Modern Smart Learning organizations have become a concept that has acquired huge attention and is considered to be a necessity in this modern age. (Zhu, Yu, & Riezebos, 2016)

To overcome these changing trends and prepare the masses for a modern and technically advanced job market the European Union’s educational support program Erasmus+ has been working extensively on fostering many research, exchange, and development programs. KNOWLO project is one such program funded & supported by Erasmus+.

The aim of the KNOWLO Project is to develop a framework that helps traditional VET & HEIs transform into modern learning organizations.

This paper aims to offer crucial support to any traditional learning organization on the path of transforming into a modern learning organization. This paper can be treated as a case study towards identifying various aspects of consideration when undergoing transformation.

The KNOWLO project has 5 results to develop namely R1 to R5 where R1 is a Transformational Framework, R2 Self-Assessment tool for organizations, R3 Learning & sharing platform for VET & HEIs, R4 Resource Database, and R5 promotion of a Smart sharing culture.

This paper highlights crucial criteria developed under Result 1 for the transformational framework.

A SMART learning organization is a place where resources such as academics and intellect are used to their optimum (Vveinhardt & Minkute-Henrickson, 2015). One of the challenges is how to self-assess if an organization is traditional or smart to foster a knowledge-sharing culture.

The most common tool to assess is a survey that involves a crucial set of criteria necessary for the transformation.

A smart learning organization can possess various aspects of a traditional learning organization, however, the aspects that make it smart are features such as organizational self-awareness, communication, diversity, inclusion, emotional intelligence, and digitalization (Uskov et.al, 2019).

According to (Botella et.al, 2017) emphasis has mostly been given to student self-assessment in terms of their educational competencies and ability with digital learning and psychology. According to (J.W.Gikandi et.al, 2011) it is stated that online instruction, in general, is considered more beneficial compared to traditional mode. However, it is stressed that teaching and learning processes require to be centrally assessed so that they can provide learners with opportunities to demonstrate their abilities and capabilities of an organization to foster such developments.

The systematic review by Al-Kurdi et.al (2018) highlights the fact that there are limited contributions in the understanding of knowledge-sharing culture in HEIs in comparison to other sectors. According to (Taylor & James, 2001) Organizational transformations do not happen automatically, it needs proactive human mediation. Stakeholders’ participation often benefits such transformations in organizations. Lee (2018) claims that the impact of knowledge sharing on people has not been given due consideration. Hence, the KNOWLO project is committed to working in these areas, helping learning organizations with a framework that comprises all the essential criteria necessary for a Smart Learning organization.

AI, or artificial intelligence, refers to computing systems that can perform tasks similar to those of humans, such as adapting, learning, and using data for complex processing (Popenici & Kerr, 2017). There are various branches and sub-branches of AI, but for feedback purposes, the most relevant ones are natural language processing (NLP), educational data mining (EDM), and learning analytics (LA) (Gardner et al., 2021). NLP is beneficial for feedback because it can analyze linguistic components of students’ written work and provide feedback on writing quality, syntactic complexity, and grammatical errors. EDM allows for data-supported feedback through data visualization and can also provide verbal feedback using NLP or manual input from instructors. LA uses student activity data to provide personalized feedback through an interactive dashboard. Feedback can be either semi-automatic or fully automatic, depending on the system used (Wongvorachan et al., 2022). AI has been incorporated into NLP, EDM, and LA, leading to the development of complex systems that can provide students with timely and individualized feedback. As a result, both their performance and learning process can be improved. It has been demonstrated that AI-based feedback systems are more effective and efficient than more conventional forms of feedback.

It has been demonstrated that incorporating AI into feedback improves student motivation and engagement, which results in higher learning outcomes (Alazmi & AlZoubi, 2020). Moreover, it has been revealed that AI-based feedback systems are economical and scale to large classrooms, making them appropriate for use in both traditional and online learning environments (Chang et al., 2020). Thus, the integration of AI in feedback is not only improving the learning experience of students but also transforming the traditional methods of feedback in education. According to Zawacki-Richter et al. (2019), the incorporation of AI in K-12 education has seen significant growth in recent years. Crompton and Song (2021) also note that the use of AI offers numerous possibilities for enhancing teaching and learning. One way AI is being utilized is in the automatic grading of essays, as reported by Yang et al. (2019). Additionally, AI can provide swift feedback to students, as stated by Benotti et al. (2018), and can adjust instruction to meet the unique needs of each student, as highlighted by Arnett (2016).

A systematic review of the application of AI and robotics in K-12 education was carried out by Hrastinski et al. (2019), with an emphasis on the relationship between teachers and students. However, the scope of the study was limited to papers from one international symposium and solely on robotics, rather than AI more broadly. Furthermore, it did not examine the potential of AI in enhancing feedback practices in K-12 education. Zafari et al.'s (2022) and Crompton et al.’s (2022) studies examined the current state of AI integration in K-12 education, with a focus on its general use, not just its use for feedback.

The aim of this study is to address the call by scholars (Banihashem et al., 2022) to investigate the role of NLP, EDM, and LA in enhancing feedback practices in K-12 education. This paper will provide researchers and educators with a deeper insight into the application of NLP, EDM, and LA for feedback purposes. In this regard, the present systematic review seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the primary reasons behind the utilization of NLP, EDM, and LA in feedback studies in K-12 education?

2. What types of data are utilized in studies on NLP, EDM, and LA to provide feedback in K-12 education?

3. What NLP, EDM, and LA tools and techniques are employed by studies to facilitate feedback in K-12 education?

Educators, education researchers, and policymakers have increasingly pointed to the importance of advanced coursework to prepare high school students to enter and succeed in college. Research has found ample evidence of the importance of such coursework, which can include Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. The positive advantages of taking such coursework appears to accrue while students are in high school and to increase their likelihood of entering and succeeding in postsecondary education (Coca et al, 2012; Conger et al., 2021; Perna et al., 2015).

Unfortunately, access to advanced coursework is not uniform across students or schools in the United States. Studies of access to IB coursework have found that despite growing efforts by the International Baccalaureate Organization to expand and “democratize” IB course offerings, lower-income and ethnic minority students do not have equal access to them (Perna et al., 2015). There is also evidence that both IB and AP coursework are less available to students in remote and rural schools, relative to students in cities and suburban areas (Gagnon & Mattingly, 2016; Thier & Beach, 2021). However, because IB is offered on a much smaller scale than AP, IB courses are much less common than AP courses in rural schools (Thier & Beach, 2021). Assuming that IB and AP programs provide a clear advantage over non-advanced coursework, this pattern has negative implications for the educational achievement and attainment of students in rural areas, as well as for rural development (Saw & Agger, 2021).

Despite the clear advantages of advanced coursework for students’ high school and postsecondary success, it is not clear whether all advanced coursework has the same benefit for students. Many studies that examine the link between advanced course-taking and student success combine AP and IB into one group, as if they offered the same educational experience and rigor (e.g., Long et al., 2012). In fact, there are important differences between AP and IB in their missions, structures, and potential utility for high school students (Saavedra, 2014; Thier & Beach, 2021). For example, whereas AP offers discrete, subject-based courses, IB provides a comprehensive program of study leading to an internationally recognized high school diploma. Further, IB’s emphasis on global understanding may offer an additional benefit to students in rural areas, who have less opportunity to develop “international mindedness” than their peers in large cities (Thier & Beach, 2021). Unfortunately, very few studies have directly compared the relative impact of AP and IB coursework on students’ high school and postsecondary success.

Our objective is to examine differential access to and impact of advanced coursework—specifically IB and AP courses—for high school students across communities of different sizes (urban, suburban, town, and rural) in the United States. Although AP and IB are commonly grouped together under the category of “advanced coursework,” we examine differences between these two curricular and programmatic approaches in terms of availability, course-taking, and impact on high school and post-secondary outcomes. Using data from the US National Center for Education Statistics’ High School Longitudinal Study (HSLS 2009), which allow us to generate nationally representative results, we examine the following research questions:

1. Does access to AP and IB courses vary across schools in communities of different sizes (urban, suburban, rural, towns) in the United States?
2. How do students in these schools differ in terms of whether and which advanced courses they take?
3. Do students in these schools differ in terms of the relative impact of AP and IB courses on their high school achievement and post-secondary outcomes?

The rapidly changing social reality of contemporary world brings new challenges to an individual (including children) in everyday life. One of the most important issues is the growing demand for agency, that is, the ability to make decisions and be proactive in various contexts and spheres of public and personal life without external control or support typical for the institutional systems (including educational systems). The concept is "agency" generally implies the ability of a person to proactively influence the environment, social structures, including the creation of new forms of interaction in various spheres of public life (Sorokin, Zykova, 2021). Agency can be considered as an umbrella concept combining such constructs as subjectivity, autonomy, independence, initiative, self-determination, self-regulation, proactive behavior, social impact, cooperation, etc. [Udehn, 2002; Sorokin, Frumin, 2022; Cavazzoni et al., 2021].

The field of education has a special role in the formation and development of these personal qualities and behavioral models. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the framework of the project "The Future of Education and Skills 2030" emphasizes the importance of forming agency among students, understood as a proactive position in relation to their educational trajectory. The OECD also considers the so-called "transformative competencies" as a special educational result, which are necessary for individual success in the modern world and for social well-being.

Unfortunately, contemporary school remains to a large extent what Goffman called a "total institution", assuming a rigid system of rules and regulations, in which it is quite difficult to find opportunities for proactivity. Under these circumstances, participation in extracurricular activities becomes of special importance for developing children’s agency. The available literature shows that extracurricular activities of schoolchildren have great potential in terms of the formation of agency, since its format implies, in comparison with formal school education, more room for independence, initiative, and free choice [Lareau, Weininger, 2008; Peterson et al., 2013; Kosaretsky et al., 2019]. A number of studies have shown that extracurricular activities make a significant contribution to the formation of such qualities as perseverance, independence, self-confidence, creativity, and social activity [Fletcher, Nickerson, Wright, 2003; Baker, 2008; Durlak, Weissberg, Pachan, 2010; Baharom, Sharfuddin, Iqbal, 2017].

At present, literature lacks tools for assessing agency of children and adolescents in formal school and extracurricular education (Sorokin, Froumin, 2022; Cavazzoni, 2021), especially given high diversity between different educational contexts, as well as different ages, etc. Also, there are no general models for analysis and interpretation of the empirical results related to various possible manifestations of agency. In particular, lacking are models allowing to correlate different types and levels of children’s agency with external factors, including educational practices.

The present study is aimed at filling this research gap and investigating the relationship between agency (proactive behavior of certain manifestations) of schoolchildren with academic results in formal school education and with participation in various extracurricular activities.

Research questions:

- How the agency of schoolchildren manifests itself in various fields, such as extracurricular activities, the circle of peers, family, economic activities? What is the difference between groups of respondents with different educational characteristics in terms of manifestations of agency?

- How is the extent (or level) of proactive behavior (agency) of schoolchildren relates to their academic performance in school curriculum subjects? How strong is the correlation?

- How is the level of proactive behavior (agency) of schoolchildren relates to their involvement in extracurricular activities both at school and outside of school? Involvement in which extracurricular activities is most correlated with the level of agency of schoolchildren?