| Session | ||
11 SES 09 A: Education for All: Treatment of Educational Diversity
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper Teachers’ Attributes for Academic Optimism: Understanding its Development for Equity and Excellence 1University of Antwerp, Belgium; 2Atheneum Martinus Bilzen, Belgium Presenting Author:Individual teachers' academic optimism (TAO) is an important teacher characteristic that influences student achievement. Academically optimistic teachers believe they can make a difference, build trusting relationships with students and parents, and focus on learning (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008). Research confirms a strong correlation with student achievement, even after controlling for background variables such as SES and migration (Ates & Unal, 2021). At the same time, TAO is inherently malleable; pessimistic teachers can become optimistic (Hoy, 2012). Despite the essential importance of TAO, the academic community has so far had limited success in grasping how TAO is formed, how it evolves and – crucially – how it can be influenced. Therefore, understanding how teachers attribute their level of academic optimism to certain causes is an important step in expanding the knowledge base on TAO, as this can offer more insight into the mechanisms at play in creating academically optimistic teachers. Using attribution theory, we try to capture how teachers explain high or low levels of TAO. Attribution theory states that the perceived causes of past events determine what will happen in the future (Weiner, 2010). Depending on the underlying properties of causes (locus, stability, and controllability) that teachers attribute to their degree of academic optimism, causal attributions shape teachers' affective reactions, expectations, and behaviour (Tõeväli & Kikas, 2016). In other words, teachers who attribute internally and believe they exert control over student learning are more likely to take responsibility compared to teachers who attribute causes externally, uncontrollably, and stable (Wang et al., 2015). To promote favourable attribution patterns, it is therefore important to understand those causal attribution processes (Suter et al., 2022). Consequently, knowledge about the causes teachers name for high or low levels of academic optimism creates opportunities for understanding the development of TAO. In addition, this study examines the role of students' disadvantaged background and schools' level of academic optimism (SAO) regarding these attributions. After all, teachers' attribution process is not independent of the social (school) context (Murray et al., 2020). Previous research has already shown that school composition influences teachers' attribution processes regarding their students’ success or failure (Riley & Ungerleider, 2012). Despite good intentions, a common attribution error is over-reliance on information based on stereotypes (Reyna, 2008). These stereotypes lead to failure being internally, uncontrollably, and stably attributed to the student, negatively affecting expectations for future success. Because teachers can influence students through their attributions (Georgiou, 2008), it is important to know whether causes for high or low levels of TAO are attributed differently according to school composition. At the same time, we examine whether the degree of school-level academic optimism can be related to those attributional processes. School academic optimism (SAO) is a characteristic of the collectively shared school culture and is reflected in the degree of collective efficacy, the trust the team has in students and parents and the way a school-wide focus on learning exists (Hoy, 2012). As the degree of SAO influences normative culture and behaviour in schools (Wu & Lin, 2018), we also expect an influence on the mode of attribution. Schools with high levels of SAO believe they can make a difference, but whether this also trickles down into the way teachers attribute TAO is unknown. While that information could offer more insight into how schools can create an academically optimistic culture. This all leads to the following research questions: (1) How do teachers attribute causes for high or low levels of TAO? And (2) what role do the number of disadvantaged students and the level of SAO play in making these attributions? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In an urban aera data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 16 teachers from eight secondary schools that participated in previous quantitative research on academic optimism. These schools were chosen through purposive sampling by the level of SAO (high/low) and the number of disadvantaged students (highest and lowest quartile). As academic optimism is a latent construct, our approach involved a detailed examination of its subcomponents. We explored the factors influencing teachers' perceptions of high or low levels within these components of academic optimism. To elicit insights, teachers were prompted to identify the causes and subsequently discuss their attributions. In addition to the interview guide, we employed a checklist to systematically address the internal/external locus of control and consider dimensions of stability and controllability for each component. Furthermore, we explicitly inquired about the connection between teachers' beliefs, and the potential influence of students' background characteristics, if respondents did not already raised these context factors themselves. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using Nvivo software, with a codebook developed based on academic optimism and attribution theory. Distinctions were made in attributions for high or low levels of academic optimism components, based on respondents’ positive or negative evaluations. The codebook, applied deductively, considered locus of control, stability, and controllability. Regular team discussions ensured coding accuracy. Each unique attribution received a separate code, with the repetition of the same attribution not included as a new code. The study classified interviews as cases, attaching school characteristics obtained from prior research. Quantifying attributions within each code facilitated comparisons based on school characteristics. This comprehensive process addressed research questions, offering insights into teacher attributions related to academic optimism subcomponents and background characteristics of students. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Results show that teachers attribute causes for high degrees of TAO both to themselves (internally) and others (externally), and they mainly perceive these causes as stable and controllable. Low levels of TAO are attributed exclusively externally and outside their control, but both stable and unstable. This is in line with previous research and confirms the self-serving attribution bias where people attribute success internally but failure externally (Cabanis et al., 2013). In addition, the degree of SAO seems to play a role in attribution, rather than school composition. Teachers in academically optimistic schools are more likely to attribute high levels of TAO to positive school characteristics that are stable and controllable. Moreover, they explain low levels of TAO less frequently with causes referring to students' disadvantaged backgrounds, compared to colleagues from less optimistic schools. The latter group attributes causes for low levels of TAO exclusively external and beyond their control. In conclusion, teachers in academically optimistic schools seem to speak differently about their students, their school, and themselves. In the way they attribute low or high levels for TAO opportunities are seen and responsibilities are recognised. This creates possibilities for increasing academic optimism by addressing teachers' perceptions and attributions. After all, academic optimism may be changeable, but if teachers are not willing to assign themselves a role in this process, this transformation will be little successful (Oakland & Tanner, 2007). As higher levels of TAO can lead to better performance for all students the importance of these insights come to the fore. More detailed results, insights, and consequences, as well as limitations, will be covered in the presentation. References Ates, A., & Unal, A. (2021). The relationship between teacher academic optimism and student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.52963/perr_biruni_v10.n2.20 Cabanis, M., Pyka, M., Mehl, S., et al. (2013). The precuneus and the insula in self-attributional processes. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(2), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0143-5 Hoy, W. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A 40-year odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211196078 Murray, R. M., Coffee, P. A., Calum, A. E., & Robert C. (2020). Social Identity Moderates the Effects of Team-Referent Attributions on Collective Efficacy but Not Emotions. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 9(3), 322–340. Oakland, J. S., & Tanner, S. (2007). Successful change management. In Total Quality Management and Business Excellence (Vol. 18, Issues 1–2, pp. 1–19). https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360601042890 Reyna, C. (2008). Ian is intelligent but Leshaun is lazy: Antecedentsand consequences of attributional stereotypes inthe classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXIII(4), 439–458. Riley, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2012). Self-fulfilling Prophecy: How Teachers’ Attributions, Expectations, and Stereotypes Influence the Learning Opportunities Afforded Aboriginal Students. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’éducation, 35(2), 303–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.35.2.303 Suter, F., Karlen, Y., Maag Merki, K., & Hirt, C. N. (2022). The relationship between success and failure causal attributions and achievement goal orientations. Learning and Individual Differences, 100, 102225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102225 Tõeväli, P. K., & Kikas, E. (2016). Teachers’ ability and help attributions and children’s math performance and task persistence. Early Child Development and Care, 186(8), 1259–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1089434 Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Rahimi, S. (2015). Self-efficacy and causal attributions in teachers: Effects on burnout, job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.005 Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433596 Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 821–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.08.004 Wu, J. H., & Lin, C. Y. (2018). A multilevel analysis of teacher and school academic optimism in Taiwan elementary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9514-5 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper Social Justice in Portuguese schools - New directions and approaches CIIE/FPCEUP, Portugal Presenting Author:Globalisation has led to increasing diversity in school contexts, in terms of students' backgrounds and nationalities, cultures and languages (Rijkschroeff et al., 2005). This new reality poses unprecedented challenges to schools, in their attempt to achieve equity through teaching-learning environments, to improve contextualised, multicultural settings and student-centred strategies. It is also necessary to consider the perennial social and economic inequality structure, which continues to generate inequalities in academic achievement (Broer et al., 2019). Socioeconomic inequalities are evident in most European cities, segregation is increasing, and the gap between upper and lower classes is widening (Musterd et al., 2017). There is a clear danger that education may reflect this imbalance and once again become a platform for reproducing economic and social inequalities. To counter this tendency, schools are increasingly expected to innovate, to develop effective strategies and methods, and to redesign organisational changes. All these efforts aim at transforming diversity into an asset, increasing students' motivation and engagement in learning, and empowering the whole student community in the acquisition of knowledge. What we intend to bring to this presentation is a qualitative case study, conducted in two elementary schools in Portugal, that addresses how teachers and other members of the educational community regard interventions that are being implemented, for targeted, disenfranchised, groups of students. The selected schools depict a variety of socio-economic, ethnic and immigrant backgrounds. They face a number of challenges, dealing with low SES groups, as well as a wide range of new immigration arrivals, that present linguistic differences. These interventions, which aim at reducing both long-standing and recent inequalities, are described, analysed, and evaluated by the research participants.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used These case studies intend to understand the meaning and specificities of these interventions or measures in the perspective of the participants. The collection of data consists of fifteen individual interviews with teachers and headteachers, education staff (school psychologist and social workers) and parents. These materials have undergone content analysis, as systematic description of phenomena (Breakwell, 2012) allowing for the organization of content into several categories, that structure the strategies developed in these school contexts. More specifically, the research questions focus on: what has been created in this school over the last few years to achieve greater success for all pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged groups? What features seem to be producing more transformative teaching and learning? What does not seem to be working as expected? Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Seeing that the research is ongoing, we still do not have many specific results on the perceived efficacy of these strategies. However, we expect to depict a vast array of interventions. The findings, so far, reveal different types of interventions, which can be organized into pedagogical, classroom tailored strategies, as well as school level organization policies, following the implementation of new legislation acts in education. These strategies connect with the research questions, in their description and evaluation of more or less effectiveness, in the participants perspective, that is, these discourses about strategies and measures are being subjected to a content analysis treatment of their perceived efficacy and barriers. Some concrete examples of innovative interventions implemented by these contexts are, considered by the participants as transformative, could be: the creation of interdisciplinary classes (DACS), coordinating several subjects in the same classroom; a project designed to teach the national language to immigrant students; new school organisation policies to improve attention and discipline (timetables, mobile phone use); strategies for closer links between family and school, among others. References Breakwell, M. G. (2012). Content analysis. Breakwell, Wright & Barnett (Eds). In Research methods in psychology. (p. 511-530). Sage Publisher. Broer, M., Bai Y. & Fonseca, F. (2019). Socioeconomic Inequality and Educational Outcomes Evidence from Twenty Years of TIMSS. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Musterd, S., Marcińczak,S., van Ham, M. & Tammaru, T. (2017) Socioeconomic segregation in European capital cities. Increasing separation between poor and rich, Urban Geography, 38:7, 1062-1083, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2016.1228371 Rijkschroeff, R., ten Dam, G. Duyvendak,J.W., de Gruijter , M. and Pels,T. (2005). Educational policies on migrants and minorities in the Netherlands: success or failure? Journal of Education Policy. 20, 4, pp. 417–435 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper Making a Return to Education and Training: a Systematic Review of Literature (2010-2023) UNED, Spain Presenting Author:Early leaving from education and training (ELET) in the European Union has been a critical objective for the improvement of equity and quality of education systems in the region, at least since the Lisbon European Council (2000), in March 2000, defined the so-called Lisbon Strategy, with the objective for 2010 of making Europe the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with better and sustainable jobs and greater social cohesion, in which the reduction of ELET was established as an objective. This has been repeated throughout the subsequent education and training strategies that have been published. Reducing dropout remains a priority, however, the scientific literature is beginning to point to a gap in understanding how we can facilitate the return of those who have left education or training and subsequently return (Gilles & Misfud, 2016; Guerrero-Puerta, 2022; Psifidou et al., 2021). Awareness of this process can contribute to a broader integration of the school-work trajectories of young people and, at the same time, broaden the possibilities of support and accompaniment for those who decide to return (Nouwen and Clycq, 2019). In this framework, and due to the scientific literature is very diverse, we propose -as the main objective of the study- to analyze relevant research on the topic in order to present a thematic map of the state of the art on early leaving education and training. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The methodology adopted in this study will be a systematic review of the literature focused on the return to education or training after leaving education or training. To carry out this review, two major academic search engines, Scopus and Web of Science, will be used to identify related studies. Studies published between 2010 and 2023 were considered. This methodology will allow us to analyze and synthesize the most up-to-date findings and information on the return of individuals to education or training after having interrupted their educational trajectory. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings In this line of research on the topic of returning to education or training after leaving, we can find different lines of literature development. On the one hand, De la Cruz & Ilinich (2019), Feito (2015), and Nieto, et al. (2018) focus on the students' return trajectory and explore the meanings they attribute to early school leaving, as well as their influence on the return process using a biographical approach. In addition, they examine the post-dropout period, motivation to return, and students' perceptions of the leaving and return process. These studies highlight the importance of considering factors that led to leaving before being consolidated, which can be projected onto the return process. These investigations also question the linearity of the trajectories and emphasize the importance of addressing the tension between individual agency and structure in the dropout and return processes. In addition, some authors, such as De la Cruz & Ilinich (2019), highlight the influence of individual factors on return, thus, they point out that young people's first contact with the labor market and precarious conditions may be triggers for return. Feito (2015) argues that the low demand of the Spanish productive system in terms of credentials and training has historically contributed to dropout and is now being reversed with an increase in educational return. In addition, another of the resulting lines highlights the importance of accompaniment processes in return transitions. Thiele et al. (2017) study the return of students from lower classes and the importance of guidance to make educational options visible. Emery et al. (2020) reaches similar conclusions when investigating the return trajectories of migrant students, emphasizing the relevance of accompaniment and guidance in this process. In conclusion, these studies highlight the complexity of leaving and returning processes in education, considering individual and structural factors, and emphasizing the importance of support and guidance to facilitate the successful return of students. References Cruz Flores, G. D. L., & Illich Matus Ortega, D. (2019). “¿ Por qué regresé a la escuela?” Abandono y retorno escolar desde la experiencia de jóvenes de educación media superior. Perfiles educativos, 41(165), 8-26. Feito-Alonso, R. (2015). La ESO de adultos. Trayectorias de abandono escolar temprano entre estudiantes con experiencia laboral. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y formación del profesorado, 19(2), 351-371. Gillies, D. & Mifsud, D. (2016). Policy in transition: the emergence of tackling early school leaving (ESL) as EU policy priority. Journal of education policy, 31(6), 819-832. Guerrero Puerta, L. M. (2022). Jóvenes que Retornan al Sistema de Educación y/o Formación: Un Análisis de su Curso de vida. Nieto, J. M., Pruaño, A. P., & Soto, A. T. (2018). Del abandono educativo temprano al reenganche formativo: un estudio narrativo con biogramas. Educatio siglo XXI, 36(2 Jul-Oct), 93-114. Nouwen, W., & Clycq, N. (2019). The role of social support in fostering school engagement in urban schools characterised by high risk of early leaving from education and training. Social Psychology of Education, 22(5), 1215-1238. Psifidou, I., Mouratoglou, N., & Farazouli, A. (2021). The role of guidance and counselling in minimising risk factors to early leaving from education and training in Europe. Journal of Education and Work, 34(7-8), 810-825. | ||