| Session | ||
15 SES 08 A: Partnership research in Erasmus+ projects
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Partnerships Facilitating Transformative Education: How the Erasmus+ Funded TUTOR Project Can Transform Inclusive Education. Maynooth University, Ireland Presenting Author:The TUTOR (Teacher’s Upskilling aiming aT a hOlistic inclusivity in leaRning) Project is a three year Erasmus+ research project that draws on the partnership of expert groups and institutions across Ireland, Austria, Greece, Turkey, and EU. The objective is to create partnerships of teacher education and training providers to establish Teacher Academies to support teachers to develop their capabilities in understanding and developing more inclusive learning environments. Inclusive education has traditionally been thought of as being an approach to serving students with disabilities in education (Suleymanov, 2015). TUTOR draws on critical approaches to inclusive education, noting the shift to focus on how socio-cultural systems need to become more inclusive, and in educational contexts supporting full participation in mainstream settings with the support of appropriate adaptations and accommodations (Zigmond, Kloo and Volonino, 2009). ‘Inclusion is an attitude and approach that embraces diversity and differences and promotes equal opportunities for all’ (Inclusion BC, 2019). Drawing on international policy, the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) described inclusion as a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of learners. EU policy acknowledges the need for teachers voices to be included in policy responses to the current classroom diversity (European Commission, 2015). This acknowledges how broader socio-economic and political contexts impact on classrooms such as the precarious global economic, environmental and political context, increased migration, and complex intercultural contexts. TUTOR draws on critical education and transformation education theories by combining the knowledge of different advocacy groups and NGO’s working in partnership with universities to develop and deliver a continuous professional development (CPD) programme of learning for current educators in second level and Further Education and Training (FET) which is situated in current knowledge, context, and practice allowing for transformational educational experiences. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A desk-based literature review was conducted at EU level and by each country partner examining each country’s national policies and frameworks and research in relation to best practice in inclusive education, resulting on the compilation of a report on the findings of the desired status of inclusive education at local and EU level. Following the literature review, focus groups and teacher interviews were conducted with over 800 stakeholders involved in second level schooling, Further Education and Training (FET), advocacy groups and NGOs across the four countries and at EU level. An anonymous, online questionnaire was also disseminated to schools and FET institutions. This second stage of the methodology allowed the partners to identify the existing status of inclusive education in each country and at EU level. The findings were then analysed through three rounds of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2013) in MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software to identify the gaps between the desired state and the existing state of inclusive education at national and EU level. The identified gaps are currently being utilized as the basis for designing the CPD curriculum. Once the curriculum is designed it will undergo pilot testing with stakeholders from second level and Further Education and Training in each partner country followed by teacher mobilities between the partners host countries in order to support a collaborative international approach to inclusive education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings It is expected that through the partnership of a large transnational network of universities, non-government organisations, advocacy groups, and further education organisations, funded by Erasmus+, teachers in second level and further education and training will be offered a continuous professional development programme that is based on current, robust research; that is the identified gaps between the desired state and the existing state of practice. The CPD programme will also be complemented with the opportunities for educators to travel to other countries for experiential learning mobilities, and the development of an online community of practice at transnational level. Thus consolidating the new theories, practices, and concepts, with opportunities to observe and practice in expert institutions, and continue the transformative educational experience through continuing transnational professional dialogue. References Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research - a practical guide for beginners. London; Los Angeles; New Dehli; Singpore; Washington: Sage. European Committee. (2015). Education & Training 2020. Schools policy: A whole school approach to tackling early school leaving - Policy messages. European Commission, Brussels. Korsgaard, M. T., Larsen, V., & Wiberg, M. (2020). Thinking and researching inclusive education without a banister - visiting, listening and tact as a foundation for collective research on inclusive education. Inclusive BC (2019) About - Inclusion BC International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(5), 496-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1469680 Suleymanov, F. (2015). Issues of Inclusive Education: Some Aspects to Be Considered. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 3(4), 8, 1-23. Watkins, A., & Meijer, C. J. W. (2016). Implementing inclusive education: Issues in bridging the policy-practice gap (First ed.). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620168 Zigmond, N., A. Kloo, and V. Volonino. 2009. ““What, Where, and How? Special Education in the Climate of Full Inclusion”.” Exceptionality 17 (4): 189–204. doi:10.1080/09362830903231986. 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Evaluating Erasmus Mundus Masters Learning in Preparing 21st Century Museum and Heritage Educators for Multicultural, Multidisciplinary, Multifaceted Practice. 1University of Glasgow, United Kingdom; 2University of Tartu, Estonia; 3European Museum Academy, The Hague Presenting Author:Evaluating Erasmus Mundus Masters Learning in Preparing 21st Century Museum and Heritage Educators for Multicultural, Multidisciplinary, Multifaceted Practice. Dr. Maggie McColl – Senior Lecturer Museum and Heritage Education and Programme Director International Master of Education in Museums and Heritage, University of Glasgow
In this paper, the authors discuss their shared consortia objectives in designing and developing a structure and syllabus to support masters-level learning shaped by the European Commission’s Erasmus+ goal of ‘fostering excellence and worldwide internationalisation of higher education institutions’ (European Commission, online). The authors share the experiences of partners from The Universities of Glasgow, Tartu, County Cork, Malta, Radboud, Iberoamericana Mexico City and the European Museum Academy as they recall the process involved in creating a multidisciplinary degree to equip the next generation of museum and heritage professionals with the necessary skills to navigate a fast-evolving, economically and politically-challenged sector. The first part of this paper addresses the building of the consortium over several years to include a diverse range of international institutions and organisations already expert and active in the teaching of museum and heritage syllabi. The authors discuss the identification and mapping of museum and heritage education content across the five credit awarding partners (UofG, UT, UCC, UM & RU) and the embedding of practice based experience (EMA & UI) to support current and emerging museum and heritage themes evident on a global landscape. The authors place a spotlight on the collaborative process that enabled them to establish effective partnerships, while reflecting on the challenges and risks involved in these initial stages and how they were dealt with. The second part of this paper is situated against the backdrop of Education in Museums and Heritage (EDUMaH) and its evolution from idea to successful 2022 European Commission application, garnering 5.4 million euros for 90+ students scholarships. With the first cohort of 23 students commencing their studies in September 2023, the authors outline the broad cultural profile of the first scholarship recipients and share the group’s initial intended hopes when applying to study EDUMaH. This baseline starting point will be explored alongside the same students’ reflective sense of where they have developed to at the end of their first year of study and their hopes for future development going forward. In particular, the authors will delve into the students’ perceived relevance of their accumulative knowledge and skill sets as a result of participation in EDUMaH in readying them for the future workplace. A key focus in the analysis of student perceptions will be the impact of partnership working on the part of the consortium to create a successful student experience. The authors will share their evaluation of the students’ reflections in terms of their development as compared with the original learning objectives set out by the consortium at the design stage of the programme. These considerations will be used to imagine a way forward for this project and for similar partnerships in higher education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Ontology (the idea of reality) and epistemology (how we seek knowledge) guide the methodology and methods adopted for this study. An interpretivist paradigm is assumed to reflect the negotiable nature of knowledge within cultures, social settings and human relationships. A reflective approach is first used to revisit the original objectives agreed by the EDUMaH partners to establish the foundations of the programme, characterised by relevant international thematic content. Information extracted from the successful EDUMaH Erasmus+ application is presented and analysed alongside supplementary commentary from consortium partners. We will also revisit the earlier failed applications and reflect on the changes that were introduced in the process of reworking the proposal. The programme objectives will be considered in relation to key literature and policy, drawn from international sources with direct relevance to museum and heritage education theory and practice. In addition, with input from consortium partners, we will explore relevant national policy documents and concerns raised therein to assess the programme’s ability to address them. A combined wealth of academic knowledge and practice-based experience position the authors to explore and discuss decisions that informed the design and development of EDUMaH in considerable depth. The approach adopted will allow for strengths and challenges in the collaborative development process to be highlighted and shared. The second stage of the methodology identified for this study is focussed on the student perspective. Information from the students’ scholarship applications is used to present a starting point against which to explore the students’ perceptions of knowledge and skill accumulation at a more advanced stage of study. Quantative and qualitative analysis of students’ perceptions through the use of questionnaires, containing open-ended and closed questions are used to gather data from Erasmus Mundus EDUMaH students on their initial hopes as defined in their applications alongside their perceptions of how they have developed at a later stage in their academic journey. Student perceptions of the partnership aspect of their Erasmus Mundus study are explored to establish its influence on their educational experience. Finally, the partnership perspective as outlined in the first methodological stage is triangulated against the data gleaned from the second: the student perspective. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The various stages of the research project outlined in this paper are intended as a means of evaluating the nature and effectiveness of the partnerships responsible for designing, developing and implementing the International Master of Education in Museums and Heritage Erasmus Mundus degree. By exploring and analysing the consortium partners’ intended objectives for students and the collaborative processes and approaches undertaken when developing the degree, the authors are able to create a reference point against which to compare the student perspective. The findings offer insights to partnership relationships and sense of ‘jointness’ at the developmental stage of designing an Erasmus Mundus Masters programme, including partnerships between formal and informal institutions i.e. universities, museums and heritage organisations. They also offer a lens through which to consider the reality of the Erasmus Mundus student experience and the experience of participating institutions as compared with a theoretical framework that has been shaped by academic and practice experts. Ultimately, the paper illuminates the strengths identified in the consortium partnership’s design and development of their Erasmus Mundus programme in terms of meeting the needs of the 21st century Museum and Heritage Education professional but it also identifies opportunities for improved partnership working, going forward. References Babic, D. (2016) “Bridging the Boundaries between Museum and Heritage Studies” in Museum International, 1 (2) pp.15-28. Blake, J. (2018) “Museums and Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage – Facilitating Participation and Strengthening Their Function in Society” in International Journal of Intangible Heritage 13 pp. 17–32. Cairns, D. (2019) “Researching Social Inclusion in Student Mobility: Methodological Strategies in Studying the Erasmus Programme” in International Journal of Research & Method in Education 42 (2) pp. 137–147. Ferreira-Pereira, L.C. & Pinto, J.M. (2021) Soft Power in the European Union’s Strategic Partnership Diplomacy: The Erasmus Plus Programme in L.C. Ferreira-Pereira & M. Smith (eds) The European Union’s Strategic Partnerships. Palgrave MacMillan pp. 69-94. Ferrer-Yulfo, A. (2022) “Transforming Museum Education Through Intangible Cultural Heritage” in Journal of Museum Education 47 (3) pp. 319–30. Holen, A., Ashwin, P., Maassen, P., Stensaker, B. (2021). “Student Partnership: Exploring the dynamics in and Between Different Conceptualizations” in Studies in Higher Education 46 (12) pp. 2726–2737 Jacobone, V. & Moro, G. (2015) “Evaluating the impact of the Erasmus programme: skills and European identity” in Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40 (2) pp. 309–328. Labrador, A. M. (2022) “Integrating ICH and Education: A Review of Converging Theories and Methods” in International Journal of Intangible Heritage 17 pp. 13718–36. Nguyen Hai Ngan Tran, da Encarnação, C. A., Amado, F., dos Santos, S. P. (2023) “Challenges and Success Factors of Transnational Higher Education: A Systematic Review” in Studies in Higher Education 48 (1) pp. 113–136 Nikolić Ðerić, T., Neyrinck, J., Seghers, E., Tsakiridis, E. (2020) Museums and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Towards a Third Space in the Heritage Sector. Bruges: Werkplaats immaterieel erfgoed. Malcolm Tight (2022) “Internationalisation of Higher Education Beyond the West: Challenges and Opportunities – the Research Evidence” in Educational Research and Evaluation 27 (3-4) pp. 239–259. Tran, L. T. (2016) “Mobility As ‘Becoming’: A Bourdieuian Analysis of the Factors Shaping International Student Mobility” in British Journal of Sociology of Education 37 (8) pp. 1268–1289. University of Glasgow Connect (online) Making a Success of Erasmus Mundus at https://www.gla.ac.uk/explore/internationalisation/uofgconnect/newsletters/june2023/erasmusmundus/ (last accessed 30.01.24) Vellamo, T., Kivisto, J. & Pausits, A. (2023) “Steering by Stealth? Influenceof Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Programmes” in European Higher Education Policy, European Journal of Higher Education, 13 (2), pp. 179-196. | ||