11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
Online Teaching and the Ensuing Challenges While Promoting Quality Inclusive Education
Heidi Flavian1, Dana Barak-Harel2
1Achva Academic College, Israel; 2Oranim Academic College
Presenting Author: Flavian, Heidi;
Barak-Harel, Dana
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:
- How do including teachers with pupils with LD in their class perceive their role as disciplinary teachers during online teaching?
- How do including teachers with pupils with LD in their class perceive their role as disciplinary teachers promoting inclusion during online learning?
- What is the sense of self-efficacy among including teachers working remotely regarding their ability to optimally include pupils with LD?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study is based on the qualitative-narrative approach, according to which researchers seek to learn about participants perspectives and beliefs (Ganzevoort, 2012). The participants of this study were 45 primary-school teachers, who were individually interviewed via Zoom technology. Following the qualitative approach for online interviewing (Salmon, 2014), all interviews were recorded and were immediately professionally transcribed. This method allowed researchers to gain relevant information to better understand the participants’ perspectives regarding the challenges they experienced and the teaching strategies they used to enable the inclusion of learners with LD while teaching online.
Data analysis was conducted in two stages, looking for main themes and ideas that reveal new and practical knowledge: first, the two researchers analyzed the transcripts separately. At this stage, the researchers mainly followed core themes from previous literature, while also highlighting other themes that emerged from the transcripts. In the second stage of data analysis, the researchers compared their results, discussed the new themes they had found and any minor differences that were found.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBased on the participants’ answers, researchers found that online teaching challenges inclusion processes in general, but even more so when teachers aim to promote quality inclusion of learners with LD. Initial data analysis revealed that primary-school teachers believe that to promote quality inclusion in their classes, they need to teach in face-to-face sessions. They explained their attitude by emphasizing the importance of collecting data about their learners through unofficial ways, mainly based on their learners’ body-language. A common example that reoccurred in various ways was the fact that learners could mute themselves or turn off their cameras during online sessions, which was extremely challenging for teachers who wished to follow all their learners’ learning actions. On the other hand, teachers also emphasized the benefits of teaching and including learners with LD in online sessions, by referring to the virtual workspaces. They explained that these spaces allowed quiet learning areas for peer-learning and individual learning alongside one-on-one teaching, without distracting the other members of the class.
Promoting quality education is an ongoing process that should be based on stable educational theories, updated studies, and innovated learning procedures. There is no doubt that online teaching and learning provide teachers the opportunities to apply learning tools, but at the same time, there are challenges that need to be considered as well. Furthermore, teachers should be professionally prepared how to teach online learners with LD, because of the unique learning processes they require.
ReferencesFlavian, H., & Uziely, E. (2022). Determinants of teachers' attitudes towards inclusion of pupils with ADHD: The role of teacher education. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.941699
Flores, M. A., & Swennen, A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 453-456.
Ganzevoort, R. R. (2012). Narrative approaches. In: B. Miller-McLemore (Ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell companion to practical theology, 214-223.
Grigorenko, E. L., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Wagner, R. K., Willcutt, E. G., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. American Psychologist, 75(1), 37.
Kaur, N. & Manroshan, S.B. (2020). The face of education and the faceless teacher post COVID-19. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, Horizon, 2(S), 39-48.
Korkmaz, G., & Toraman, Ç. (2020). Are we ready for the post-COVID-19 educational practice? An investigation into what educators think as to online learning. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 293-309.
Salmon, J. (2014). Qualitative online interviews, Strategies, design, and skills (2nd edition). Sage.
Zhao, Y., & Watterston, J. (2021). The changes we need: Education post COVID-19. Journal of Educational Change, 22(1), 3-12.
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
Teaching/Learning Methodologies for Solving Intergenerational Communication Problems in Tourism and Hospitality Enterprises
Ineta Luka1, Valerija Drozdova1, Gita Šakytė-Statnickė2, Laurencija Budrytė-Ausiejienė2
1Turiba University, Latvia; 2Klaipeda State University of Applied Science, Lithuania
Presenting Author: Luka, Ineta
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.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research was conducted in Nordplus Adult Development project „NordTourNet-3: Solving Communication Problems of Different Generations in Tourism Companies” (NPAD-2020/10015; 2020-2023) implemented in Lithuania, Latvia and Sweden. The aim of the project: study communication differences among employees and customers of four different generations in tourism companies and create an educational game facilitating intergenerational communication problem solution in tourism enterprises and compile a training material package for educators of adult learners.
The research uses interpretivism paradigm to understand ‘individual cases and situation’ and meanings ‘that different actors bring to them’, and social phenomena are understood holistically (Coe, 2017, 6).
Qualitative exploratory research (Collis, Hussey, 2009) applying 12 semi-structured interviews conducted face-to-face onsite or using Zoom and Cisco Webex platforms and 9 unobtrusive social observations in tourism companies was done (Aurini, Heath, Howells, 2016). Data analysis: qualitative content analysis by implementing inductive coding process (Croucher, Cronn-Mills, 2019, 162).
Research question: What are the main generational differences and differences in communication in tourism and hospitality organisations and what teaching/learning initiatives and methodologies may be applied to develop adult learners’ communication competences to eliminate intergenerational communication problems?
Research sample: criterion sample (Aurini, Heath, Howells, 2016) was created for interviews – owners and top-level management representatives of tourism and hospitality enterprises with having at least five years of work experience in working with people of different generations, at least two years at a managerial position, and there were at least two employees from different generations in their enterprise. Opportunistic sample was created for observations.
The research period: January 2021 – June 2022.
Research limitations: None of the informants belonged to Generation Z. The employees of the enterprises selected for an analysis belonged to two or three generations only with Generation X represented in 11 tourism enterprises and Generation Y – also in 11 enterprises.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAll informants are directly confronted with generational differences in their organisation: responsibility, communication efficiency, stress management, self-esteem and self-confidence, loyalty to organisation, freedom and openness, attitude to work. Baby Boomers and Generation X are more responsible and more loyal to their organisation and value work more than younger generations. Lack of language skills and digital skills hinders communication efficiency. Generation X can operate in stressful situations better than other generations. Generation Y has higher self-confidence and self-esteem level than other generations. Generation Z appreciate freedom and openness more than other generations.
The identified generational differences in communication process: 1) language barrier (younger generations don’t speak Russian, older generations don’t speak English); 2) different interests leading to insufficiently effective communication with other generations; 3) the need to follow a hierarchy (Baby Boomers have the largest respect for hierarchy, Generation X has the lowest); 4) differences in communication (Baby Boomers and Generation X prefer communication by phone or face-to-face; Generation Z – electronic communication; Generation Y uses all three types of communication); 5) different use of virtual space (Generation Y initiated a more active transition to a virtual space during the pandemic); 5) different use of IT (Generations X, Y, Z tend to find information on Internet); 6) different communication channels (Baby Boomers use face-to-face communication, Generation X – e-mails, Generation Y – e-mail, social media, Internet sites, Generation Z – social media and Internet sites more often than other channels); 7) different cultures (the cause for most communication problems).
Such teaching/learning initiatives may be applied to develop adult learners’ communication competences: Specific training that meets the specifics of the company's activities; Digital literacy competencies (including management of communication in social networks); Public speaking courses; Foreign language courses; Marketing and sales courses; Face-to-face courses in personal communication with customers.
References*Amaritei, N.-C. (2013). Communication. International Journal of Communication Research, 3(3), pp.279-281.
*Aurini, J.D., Heath, M., Howells, S. (2016). The How to of Qualitative Research. LA: Sage.
*Bejtkovský, J. (2016). The Employees of Baby Boomers Generation, Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z in Selected Czech Corporations as Conceivers of Development and Competitiveness in their Corporation. Journal of Competitiveness, 8(4), pp.105-123.
*Bencsik, A., Horváth-Csikós, G., Juhász, T. (2016). Y and Z Generations at Workplaces. Journal of Competitiveness, 8(3), pp.90-106.
*Bencsik, A., Machova, R. (2016). Knowledge Sharing Problems from the
Viewpoint of Intergeneration Management. In ICMLG2016 - 4th International Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance: ICMLG2016, pp.42-50.
*Berelson, B., Steiner, G.A. (1964). Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
*Coe, R.J. (2017). The nature of educational research. R.J.Coe (Eds.), Research Methods & Methodologies in Education, (5-14), London: Sage.
*Collis, J., Hussey, R. (2009). Business Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
*Craig, R.T. (1999). Communication Theory as a Field, Communication Theory, 9(2), pp.119-161.
*De Oliveira Lopes Melo, M.C., de Faria, V.S.P., Magri Lopes, A.L. (2019). Building professional identity: a study with female managers who are baby boomers, generation Xers, and millennials. Cad. EBAPE.BR, 17(Special Issue), pp.832-843.
*Croucher, S.M., Cronn-Mills, D. (2019). Understanding Communication Research Methods. NY: Routledge.
*Dragan, A. (2019). Defining Managerial Communication, Limitations and
Challenges. Annals of “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati Fascicle I. Economics and Applied Informatics, 3, pp.176-180.
*Gontier, N. (2022). Defining Communication and Language from Within a Pluralistic
Evolutionary Worldview. Topoi, 41, pp.609-622.
*Hoben, J.B. (1954). English Communication at Colgate Re-examined. Journal of Communication, 4(3), pp.76-83.
*Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2000) Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. NY: Vintage.
* Kerry, G., Myron, E. (2009). Interaction among Undergraduate Students: Does Age Matter? College Student Journal, 43(4), A, pp.1125-1136
*Kirchmayer, Z., Fratričová, J. (2020). What motivates generation Z at work? Insights into motivation drivers of business students in Slovakia. Proceedings of the Innovation management and education excellence through vision, 6019-6030.
*Kraus, A. (2016). Perspectives on Performativity: Pedagogical Knowledge in Teacher Education. Münster: Waxmann.
* Littlejohn, S.W., Foss, K.A. (2008). Theories of Human Communication. USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
*Luka, I., et.al. (2020). Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia. In Flavian, H. (Ed.). From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, Emerald Publishing, 155-174.
*Pappas, C. (2013). 8 Important Characteristics of Adult Learners.
*Rothwell, W.J. (2008). Adult Learning Basics. Alexandria, Virginia: ASTD Press.
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
Using Diversity and Related Statistics in Educational Intervention Studies
Hermann Astleitner
Paris-Lodron-University of Salzburg, Austria
Presenting Author: Astleitner, Hermann
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).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur method is a review of statistical methods (e.g., Tipton & Osen, 2018). First, we have reviewed literature and collected statistical concepts which are relevant for diversity and educational intervention research. Second, we have conceptually structured these concepts based on statistical procedures, definitions and goals, software for computations as well as potential use in intervention research. Third, we have formulated implications that allow to guide research and statistical analysis in educational intervention research in the future.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe have found statistical concepts (as well as statistical software) on diversity related to dispersion indices (e.g., range), outliers (e.g., multivariate outliers), diversity indices (e.g., Simpson´s diversity index), or social cohesion indices (e.g., Herfindahl-Hirschman Index), analysis of covariance, aptitude-treatment-interaction-analysis, recursive partitioning methods, cluster analysis, latent class (clustering) analysis, and homogeneity of variance tests (e.g., Budescu & Budescu, 2012; Doove et al., 2014; Huitema, 2011; Kent et al., 2014; Leys et al., 2013; Schaeffer, 2016).
Using these concepts in a review of literature allows to identify numerous significant implications which can guide future activities in educational intervention research. We discuss issues related to educational interventions like changes in variances as side effects of interventions, disequalizing effects, handling outliers, diversity indices as sources for theory building, discovering different effectiveness patterns in different people, exploring participants who were particularly responsive or finding groups of people with similar characteristics before and after an intervention.
Within this paper, we present, up to our knowledge for the first time, a collection of well and less well-known statistical concepts and related implications that are important for handling diversity in educational intervention research. We have promoted a constructive, methodologically critical view of educational intervention research based on the concept of diversity (e.g., Mellenbergh, 2019). Our work aims to encourage the reflection and use of diversity-related tests as a standard in educational intervention studies as has been the case in other research disciplines (e.g., Magurran, 2003).
ReferencesAstleitner, H. (Ed.). (2020). Intervention research in educational practice. Waxmann. https://www.waxmann.com/index.php?eID=download&buchnr=4197
Bent-Goodley, T. (2021). Diversity in interpersonal violence research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11-12), 4937-4952. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211013003
Budescu, D. V., & Budescu, M. (2012). How to measure diversity when you must. Psychological Methods, 17(2), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027129
Conners, B. M., & Capell, S. T. (Eds.). (2021). Multiculturalism and diversity in applied behavior analysis. Bridging theory and application. Routledge.
Doove, L. L., Dusseldorp, E., Van Deun, K., & Van Mechelen, I. (2014). A comparison of five recursive partitioning methods to find person subgroups involved in meaningful treatment–subgroup interactions. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, 8(4), 403-425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11634-013-0159-x
Huitema, B. (2011). The analysis of covariance and alternatives: Statistical methods for experiments, quasi-experiments, and single-case studies. Wiley.
Kent, P., Jensen, R. K., & Kongsted, A. (2014). A comparison of three clustering methods for finding subgroups in MRI, SMS or clinical data: SPSS TwoStep Cluster analysis, Latent Gold and SNOB. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-113
Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764-766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013
Magurran, A. E. (2003). Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell.
McBride, N. (2016). Intervention research. Springer.
Mellenbergh, G. J. (2019). Counteracting methodological errors in behavioral research. Springer.
Schaeffer, M. (2016). Diversity erfassen: Statistische Diversitätsindizes [Capturing diversity: Statistical diversity indices]. In P. Genkova & T. Ringeisen (Hrsg.), Handbuch Diversity Kompetenz (pp. 47-60). Springer.
Schuelka, M. J., Johnstone, C. J., Thomas, G., & Artiles, A. J. (Eds.). (2019). The SAGE handbook of inclusion and diversity in education. Sage.
Teachman, J. D. (1980). Analysis of population diversity. Sociological Methods & Research, 8, 341-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418000800305
Tincani, M., Travers, J., & Boutot, A. (2009). Race, culture, and autism spectrum disorder: Understanding the role of diversity in successful educational interventions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(3-4), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.34.3-4.81
Tipton, E., & Olsen, R. B. (2018). A review of statistical methods for generalizing from evaluations of educational interventions. Educational Researcher, 47(8), 516-524. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18781522
Vinkenburg, C. J. (2017). Engaging gatekeepers, optimizing decision making, and mitigating bias: Design specifications for systemic diversity interventions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 212-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317703292
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
Defeating a Protean Enemy: Red Tape in Education
Jeroen Lauwers
Flemish inspectorate of education, Belgium
Presenting Author: Lauwers, Jeroen
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.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedRed tape revolves around the balance between effort and (positive) effect. When this balance is distorted, people feel frustrated with the poor effects of their efforts. Tackling red tape is thus not only about reducing people’s efforts, but also about raising the effects of their work.
In developing and launching the online tool called the ‘red tape calculator’, the Flemish inspectorate applied the following procedures:
1. On the basis of focus groups and extant secondary literature, we identified 34 areas in the school organization where red tape is most likely to occur. These 34 areas form the content of the questionnaire on which the red tape calculator is based.
2. School principles can ask for access to a personalized dashboard, from which they can invite the members of their particular school to participate in this survey.
3. We developed a functional grid in which school participants can mark the amount of effort they put into a certain area and the resulting effect of these efforts.
4. We programmed the calculator so that it can calculate the average balance between effort and effect for each of the areas as perceived by each member of the school community.
5. The calculator then provides a school report of the areas where the balance between effort and effect is quite sound, and areas where this balance is distorted.
6. This overview enables school leaders to address the causes of red in a more precise and strategic fashion.
The relevance of this online tool extends beyond individual schools, for the Flemish inspectorate also has access to the average scores of all participating Flemish schools. On the basis of this wider overview, the inspectorate is able to report on broader red tape tendencies in the schools to the Flemish government. This in turn allows for a more precise and purpose-driven political discussion about the actual need for certain decrees and other legal measures. The ultimate goal is, of course, to come to a legislative and practical framework that allows for the clear articulation of societal expectations towards the schools, but also for a maximum of autonomy in how teachers and school leaders deal with these expectations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs the ignite talk’s main purpose is to inspire listeners to address red tape in their local context, I will not dwell as much on the eventual results of this research in Flanders, but rather demonstrate how we devised the tool and how it assists us in tackling red tape in the different layers of the Flemish education system.
What we expect as an outcome from our engagement, is that schools will feel encouraged to claim the freedom they receive from the government to organize themselves in a functional way. At the aforementioned survey among over 7000 professionals in education, it was evidenced that more than 80% of the participants indicates that the level of red tape in Flemish education has increased in the past three years. It is to be expected that the combined effort from school leaders, inspectorate and legislators will result in a marked change of that trend (as we will measure again in a new survey in three years from now).
In the end, we hope that this purposeful effort to reduce red tape in education will also be positively linked to student performance, job satisfaction among school professionals and the attractiveness of working in education in Flanders.
ReferencesBozeman, B. (2000). Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Prentice Hall.
Campbell, J. W. (2017). Red tape and transformational leadership: An organizational echelons perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(1), 76-90.
DeHart-Davis, L., Davis, R. S., & Mohr, Z. (2015). Green tape and job satisfaction: Can orga nizational rules make employees happy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 849-876.
Department of Education Flanders (2016). Report: Operatie Tarra. www.onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/nl/operatie-tarra/rapport-operatie-tarra (in Dutch).
Eggers, W. (2007). Government 2.0: Using technology to improve education, cut red tape, reduce gridlock, and enhance democracy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kenis, P. et al. (2013). Report: Kom op tegen planlast. www.onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/nl/operatie-tarra/rapport-kom-op-tegen-planlast-2013. Antwerp Management School (in Dutch).
Muylaert, J., Decramer, A. & Audenaert, M. (2022). How leaders’ red tape interacts with employees’ red tape from the lens of the job demands-resources model. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1-26.
Struyven, K., & Vanthournout, G. (2014). Teachers’ exit decisions: An investigation into the reasons why newly qualified teachers fail to enter the teaching profession or why those who do enter do not continue teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 37-45.
|
