11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
An Exploration of Supporting teachers’ Assessment Literacy in School to School Support Context: A Chinese Case Study
Juyan Ye1, Yan Bi2
1Beijing Normal University, China; 2Tiangong University, China
Presenting Author: Ye, Juyan;
Bi, Yan
Introduction
Recent changes in education policy emphasize promoting school-to-school support and school-led improvement to enhance resource sharing and build a professional learning network for high-quality and balanced education (Ainscow et al., 2006; Muijs, 2015; Muijs et al., 2010; Liu, 2018). In China, the government encourages prestigious public schools to support weaker public schools, with supporting teachers sent from prestigious schools to implement improvement missions. Existing studies have focused on the willingness of supporting teachers to rotate to weaker schools and its influencing factors (e.g., Du et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2023), with limited research on how these teachers undertake the support work (e.g., Zhong et al., 2018; Zhang & Ye, 2023; Qian et al., 2023). The assessment culture differences between supporting and weaker schools greatly influence the process and assessment of school improvement. The supporting schools and teachers often represent a student-centered educational philosophy, in line with the Chinese new curriculum reform, while weaker areas often focus on test and score-oriented education. However, little research exists on how supporting teachers actively engage in assessment reform to promote teaching and learning reform in supported schools. Therefore, this paper aims to explore how supporting teachers employ their assessment literacies to foster teaching and learning reforms in the schools they support and the strategies they use to span across boundaries.
Boundary spanning practice and boundary object
The concept of 'boundary spanning' arises when individuals venture into unfamiliar territory and must navigate and merge elements from different contexts to create hybrid situations (Engeström et al., 1995). Those who engage in this practice are known as boundary spanners, connecting various communities of practice and facilitating relationships between them (Wenger, 1998). Their activities involve establishing routines that uphold connections between different communities of practice or stakeholders and providing a platform for ongoing engagement in professional activities. To achieve this, leaders may utilize boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989) , which are tangible items or artifacts that exist within multiple communities of practice, serving as a means of translation within multi-site work relations and requirements. The role of individuals as boundary spanners requires the ability to manage and integrate diverse discourses and practices across social boundaries. Additionally, educational infrastructure is essential to foster interactions and networks across schools or communities of practice, support boundary practices, and sustain improvement (Spillane et al., 2016).
Teacher assessment literacies framework
Assessment is a vital element in education, impacting teaching and learning. Teachers' assessment literacy involves understanding the assessment process, the interaction between assessment and teaching, and the ability to conduct assessments effectively (Stiggins, 1991). The focus has shifted towards "assessment for learning," emphasizing teachers' ability to review students' learning and performance data and develop programs that support student learning. Teacher assessment literacy is a dynamic and context-dependent social practice, involving the articulation and negotiation of classroom and cultural knowledge to achieve student learning goals through assessment (Adie et al., 2020; Ataie-Tabar et al., 2019; Baker & Riches, 2018; Schneider, Deluca, Pozas & Coombs, 2020; Willis et al. 2013). Scholars have redefined the framework of teacher assessment literacy, emphasizing aspects such as selecting appropriate assessment methods, interpreting results, providing student guidance, and using assessments for instructional design and school improvement (Brookhart, 2011). There is also a growing emphasis on the ethical dimensions of teacher assessment, including managing ethical conflicts, upholding fair assessment ethics, and addressing student cheating (Pope et al., 2009; Pastore et al., 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethod
This paper seeks to understand the supporting teachers' assessment initiatives in recipient schools, employing a qualitative research approach.
The Research site
The study will based on the educational support of School Z to School X.
School Z, located in a the capital city in China, is at the forefront of national and global education reform, with a focus on using assessment to enhance learning and promote core competencies. In contrast, recipient School X, situated in a province that lags behind in national curriculum reform, emphasizes score-oriented teaching and lacks integration of teaching and assessment. The school also faces challenges such as large class sizes, shortage of professional teachers, and limited assessment feedback to guide and motivate learning.
The contrasting assessment cultures at School Z and School X represent the two poles of the integration of teaching and assessment in Chinese schools. Studying how supporting teachers from School Z conducts assessment reforms at School X can provide valuable insights into inspiring improvement.
Data collection
Z School's support for X School began in March 2018, with 12 supporting teachers dispatched in September of the same year. The first author established a partnership with the team from the start and actively participated in and witnessed most of the support work, collecting data through participatory observation, interviews, and material collection.
Participatory Observation: The author visited X School on three occasions, observing classroom lessons, participating in teaching research, and taking part in the selection of teaching innovation awards and X School's guidance on promoting teachers' development through subject research.
Interviews: Formal and informal interviews were conducted with the support team, the director of local education bureau, the leadership of X School, and teachers at X School who actively responded to the reforms.
Materials Collection: Textual materials were collected, including systems and measurement standards developed by the assistance team, updates on the school's WeChat platform, application materials for the school-based Teaching Innovation Award, and project proposal documents. This also includes reports from the assistance team and assisted school teachers on various occasions.
Data analysis
This study is rich in data. Researchers focused on data closely aligned with the research question, conducting preliminary data selection based on relevant data. Further data selection was carried out around major themes, and the extracted data was then summarized to ensure unique insights into teacher assessment reform in the context of China's assistance.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsConclusions
The study found that supporting teachers at X School conducted the following work to build an assessment for learning culture:
Established clear curriculum development objectives to guide students' learning.
Expanded teachers' understanding of assessment, diversified assessment methods, and enhanced formative assessment.
Fully utilized the educational function of homework.
Actively developed students' self-assessment ability.
Actively implemented "focus on every student's learning, treat every student fairly and justly" assessment ethics.
Led stakeholders to establish a unified assessment philosophy.
Built the infrastructure support required for assessment reform.
The findings are consistent with international discussions on the teacher assessment framework, emphasizing assessment to enhance learning, the integration of teaching and assessment, core quality and competency-based learning assessment, students' self-assessment, and respect for students. The support team also identified a dimension that has not been mentioned in the international literature. This dimension involves developing the mindset of parents and other education stakeholders towards assessment for learning, with the aim of reforming the local assessment culture.
To promote a change in mindset, supportive teachers utilized various boundary objects, such as reallocating and decorating school spaces, developing guidelines for teaching and assessment, and reporting school activities from a student-centered perspective.
The study also found that different supporting teachers did not adopt the same strategies for assessment practice. They engaged in collaborative discussions and combined individual exploration with their understanding of their teaching subject, teaching characteristics, and prior educational experiences. This personalized exploration fostered professional learning and development.
The study suggests that teacher education should prioritize the development of teachers' skills in promoting learning through assessment. The current implementation of "Assessment to Promote Learning" still requires strong top-down support in the context of the new era.
ReferencesBrookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3-12.
Du, P., Zhang, Y., Ye, J. (2018). Analysis of Teacher's Willingness for Job Rotation Exchange from the Perspective of Push-Pull Theory: A Survey in a District of Beijing. Educational Development Research, 38(04), 37-44.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995) Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction. 5(4), 319-336.
Liu, J. (2018) Constructing resource sharing collaboration for quality public education in urban China: Case study of school alliance in Beijing, International Journal of Educational Development, 59, 9-19.
Muijs, D., West, M., Ainscow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives on net working. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21 (1), 5-26.
Muijs, D. (2015). Improving schools through collaboration: a mixed methods study of school-to-school partnerships in the primary sector. Oxford Review of Education. 41 (5), 563–586.
Pope, N., Green, S., Johnson, R.. & Mitchell, M. (2009). Examining teacher ethical dilemmas in classroom assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 778-782.
Pastore, S.; Andrade, H. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128-138.
Qian, H., Walker, A., Zheng, Y. (2023). Boundary-spanning practices of system leaders in China: Enabling conditions and inherent tensions, Educational Management Administration & Leadership,1-20.
Star, S. & Griesemer, J.R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and bound ary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19(3), 387–420.
Spillane, J., Shirrell, M. & Hopkins, M. (2016). Designing and deploying a professional learning community (PLC) organizational routine: bureaucratic and collegial arrangements in tandem. Le Travail Collectif Des Enseignants 35, 97-122.
Stiggins, R. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534-539.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zhong, Y., Ye, J., & Lo, Nai-kwai. (2018). Learning leadership beliefs, behaviors, and influences of teachers in job rotation exchange: A survey based on District Z in Beijing. Educational Development Research, 38(04), 51-58.
Zhang, J., Ye, J., Wang, J. (2023). The Effects and Implementation Mechanism of Teacher Exchange and Rotation: An Empirical Analysis Based on Three Mobility Paths. Journal of Educational Studies, 2, 129-143.
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
Quality Assurance with Learning Analytics in Secondary Education: A Systematic Literature Review on Affordances and Constraints
Jerich Faddar1, Margot Joris1, Valerie Thomas1, Alejandra Martinez-Monez2, Sara Romiti3, Martin Brown4
1Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium; 2Universidad de Valladolid, Spain; 3INVALSI, Italy; 4Dublin City University, Ireland
Presenting Author: Faddar, Jerich;
Joris, Margot
Quality assurance (QA) in education has become increasingly decentralised in many European countries over the past decades, making schools increasingly responsible for the monitoring, safeguarding and development of their own quality. Although the main concern of quality assurance in schools is to develop the quality of teaching and learning; different, more school-level approaches to QA can be taken, for instance by drawing on a distinction between external and internal evaluation (Eurydice, 2015). Although quality assurance mechanisms are embedded in educational systems’ regulations, several initiatives and evolutions overarch the differences across jurisdictions in Europe. The European Commission’s Education and Training working group, for instance, points towards the need for capacity building in quality assurance processes (European Commission, 2018).
This capacity building is linked primarily to the pursuit of evidence-informed quality assurance in schools (Brown & Malin, 2022). As part of their (internal) evaluation procedures and quality development, schools are stimulated to make use of different sources of evidence (Wiseman, 2010) to further develop their quality and inform their decision making. Following the digital transformation in education, huge amounts of digital resources and data have been introduced and proliferated in schools for (re)designing and evaluating education, for instance through the introduction of digital learning management systems and Learning Analytics (LA). LA assess, elicit and analyse static and dynamic information about learners and learning environments for the optimisation of learning processes and environments, as well as for educational decision making in organisations (Ifenthaler & Drachsler, 2020; Rodríguez-Triana, Martínez-Monés, & Villagrá-Sobrino, 2016).
Despite its potential, the actual use of LA is still rather scarce in K-12 education compared to the context of higher education (Andresen, 2017; Gander, 2020). Existing literature focused on higher education points to organisational readiness, (Clark et al., 2020), characteristics of data(systems), the ethical issues around the use of LA (Cerratto Pargman & McGrath, 2021; Tzimas & Demetriadis, 2021), and staff readiness (Mandinach & Abrams, 2022) to play an important role in the successful use of LA. In K-12 education, however, LA are currently primarily used at the micro level to identify learners’ needs and tailor instruction to meet these needs (Wise & Jung, 2019). The use of LA by educational professionals, f.i. at the school (management) level, has therefore not yet reached its full potential. This could be due to the fact that K-12 students are mostly minors and even more pressing ethical considerations and caution in the use and processing of learning analytics data are at play. Furthermore, the way secondary schools are organised is very different from higher education. However, the fact remains that schools’ own data regarding learning processes remain largely un(der)explored (Ifenthaler, 2021) due to, i.e., lack of awareness of the vast amount of data available and a lack of capacity to work with these data (Datnow & Hubbard, 2016; O’Brien, McNamara, O’Hara, & Brown, 2019).
In this contribution, we present a systematic literature study conducted as part of a larger Erasmus+ KA project titled ‘QUALAS’ (Quality Assurance with Learning Analytics in Schools), which aims to promote capacity building in secondary schools in Flanders (Belgium), Ireland, Italy and Spain to use (different) LA data for quality assurance (QA); according to the key principles for QA put forward by (European Commission, 2018). Our overall aim is to identify and put into practice possibilities for enhancing the capacity of educational professionals in secondary schools to make appropriately use of learning analytics for quality assurance.
As a first step, we addressed the following research question: what affordances and constraints does existing literature identify for the use of learning analytics in the context of quality assurance in secondary education?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis systematic literature review was conducted as a rapid narrative summary, following the guidelines provided by Amog et al. (2022). It concerns a qualitative review based on the fixed research question mentioned above, which paid no specific attention to the role of theory in the selected studies and made use of purposive sampling. Due to time constraints (as this review presents the first step in the first phase of our overall project), the review concerned a limited number op studies, by: searching by specific years (2011-2023), databases (ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCOhost), language (English), and sources (scientific papers). While only one reviewer conducted the title and abstract reviewing, the full text review was conducted jointly by all partners to minimise potential bias (Ganann, Ciliska & Thomas, 2010).
Additionally, the review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol by Moher et al., 2020 for developing and conducting the search strategy, selection, analysis synthesis and assessment. The review contained 40 papers that met our criteria for inclusion and exclusion. The criteria for inclusion were: articles written in English within the time span of 2011-2023, and discussing the context of secondary education. Exclusion criteria were: papers only discussing LA in the context of higher education or post-secondary education, papers only mentioning LA as a keyword or descriptor but not studying LA or LA use in or for schools (e.g. by teachers, school leaders, school staff, students, etc.), or studies following (quasi-)experimental designs that only mentioned a form or resource of LA as a means of research data collection without coupling LA to school use by educational professionals or without embedding them in teaching and school practices.
The appraisal (coding) of the selected studies was conducted according to the following categories:
• Thematic grouping according to: focus on effectiveness or user experiences
• Forms or elements of capacity building mentioned
• Type of study: empirical, theoretical, review, etc.
• Meta data
Additionnally, our focus on affordances and constraints for QA was translated to adopting QA as the main coding category for the selected studies. This category included the following themes or sub-categories:-
• Function of LA use: accountability, improvement, etc.
• Level of LA use: school, team, teacher, students
• Type of LA data: descriptive, diagnostic, predictive, prescriptive
• Quality of processes, outputs, inputs, or contextual factors
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOverall, our review confirms the observation made by Hernandez-Leal et al.(2021) that the vast majority of studies concerning LA in secondary education are usually focusing on experimentation with specific techniques or methods (flipped learning, serious games, dashboards, etc.) providing specific types of LA applied as research methods for data collection. Moreover, these are often applied in a very restricted manner, e.g. within a specific subject area or discipline (robotics, language learning, programming, etc.).
In response to our research question, we identified a large number of both affordances or opportunities, and constraints or challenges linked to the use of learning analytics for quality assurance in secondary schools. Four main categories can be discerned:
1) Teacher and school staff characteristics (perceptions, intentions, behaviour, data literacy and digital competence, technology acceptance, confidence, pedagogical content knowledge, etc.)
2) School culture: quality of communication, decision making, provision of support, school policy-making and governance, reflexivity and assessment practices, social structures, etc.
3) LA characteristics: private vs. public stakeholders, potential for co-design and inquiry, materiality and accessibility, design, human-technology interactions, etc.
4) Concerns: privacy and ethics, student protection, teacher professionalism and educational marketisation
Overall, we find little explicit connections between quality assurance and LA. However, the affordances and constraints we identified for the use of LA for QA in secondary schools, largely mirror those identified in the existing literature on LA in higher education. However, privacy and ethical concerns appear to be even more fundamental in the context of the use of LA for QA in secondary schools. Moreover, LA are generally considered a supplement and aid to the teaching processes, professional judgements and decision-making on the part of educational stakeholders and are approached with due caution; whereas their potential as a means of improving the quality of learning processes and outcomes, is generally assumed and promoted.
ReferencesAmog, K., Pham, B., Courvoisier, M., Mak, M., Booth, A., Godfrey, C., Hwee, J., Straus, S.E. & Tricco, A.C. 52022). The Web-based "Right Review" tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 Knowledge Synthesis methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 147, 42-51
Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2016). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making: A literature review of international research. Journal of Educational Change, 17(1), 7-28. doi:10.1007/s10833-015-9264-2
European Commission. (2018). Quality assurance for school development. Guiding principles for policy development on quality assurance in school education. Retrieved from Brussels:
Eurydice. (2015). Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe. Retrieved from Luxembourgh:
Ganann, R., Cilisk, D. & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 5(56), 1-10
Hernandez-Leal, E., et al. N. D. Duque-Mendez and C. Cechinel (2021). Unveiling educational patterns at a regional level in Colombia: data from elementary and public high school institutions. Heliyon 7(9), 1-17.
Ifenthaler, D. (2021). Learning analytics for school and system management. OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021 Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots, 161.
Ifenthaler, D., & Drachsler, H. (2020). Learning analytics.
O’Brien, S., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., & Brown, M. (2019). Irish teachers, starting on a journey of data use for school self-evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 1-13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.11.001
Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Martínez-Monés, A., & Villagrá-Sobrino, S. (2016). Learning Analytics in Small-Scale Teacher-Led Innovations: Ethical and Data Privacy Issues. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(1), 43-65.
Wise, A. F., & Jung, Y. (2019). Teaching with analytics: Towards a situated model of instructional decision-making. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 53–69-53–69.
Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of research in education, 34(1), 1-24.
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
The Interaction of Quality, Quality Assurance and Evaluation on School Units in the Field of Educational Leadership: a SEM Approach.
Rodoula Gkarnara, Nikolaos Andreadakis, Dionysios Trikoilis
University of Aegean, Greece
Presenting Author: Gkarnara, Rodoula;
Trikoilis, Dionysios
The aim of this proposal is to explore how quality, quality assurance and evaluation of school units are connected in the field of school leadership More specifically, the intention is to examine the possibility of making a structural model that examines the interaction being developed between these concepts.
The implementation of quality assurance systems is one of the cornerstones of any educational system, while at the same time is being understood as a way to improve the quality of school units (Buzdar & Jalal, 2019). More specifically, the quality assurance of school units is a mechanism to ensure the provision of high-quality education, to identify and solve problems in the educational system in order to improve its quality. On the other hand, information is collected about the quality of the education provided (European Commission, 2020; Alaba, 2010). Within the framework of quality assurance of school units, quality should be ensured for the main stakeholders of the educational process. The adoption of quality assurance procedures in school units has many advantages, such as the establishment of high standards, the improvement of educational results, the recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of the educational system (Alaba, 2010). Moreover, improving the quality of education is the first strategic objective set by the Council of the European Union for the period 2021-2030 (2021/C 66/01).
As it is concluded from the above the quality assurance of school units is aimed at ensuring that the objectives set are achieved and includes, among other things, evaluation procedures (Onuma & Okpalanze, 2017). Evaluation of school units is a key component of quality assurance (Eurydice, 2004) and these two concepts appear to be directly linked, as evaluation is one of the procedures that can be used to ensure the quality of schools in conjunction with others, such as the monitoring of the educational system or even the evaluation of teachers (Euridice, 2015). The association of school quality assurance with school evaluation has been a major topic for many researchers (Gardezi et al., 2023; Onuma & Okpalanze, 2017), but no model of their interaction has been proposed so far.
School leadership is a key factor of quality education in schools as it affects school operations in many ways (Anastasiadou & Anastasiadis, 2019). However, the role of school leadership is also crucial for the quality assurance systems used to support schools (Afriadi et al., 2023). More specifically, school leadership has a positive direct impact on quality assurance (Hartati et al., 2019), whereas there is a direct and indirect effect of leadership on quality (Bellibaş et al., 2020). This intercorrelation can create a dynamic organizational entity with novel opportunities (Shattuck & Olcott, 2022). Last but not least, school leadership has become a critical factor for school evaluation in the effort of making schools more autonomous and more accountable as required in recent years (Pont, Nuche & Moorman, 2008).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe present research is part of a broader study, which refers to how greek teachers perceive the concepts of quality assurance as well as quality and evaluation of school units. For the needs of the survey a questionnaire was constructed based on the quality indicators that had been the subject of scientific publications in Greece in the last 20 years. The questionnaire was submitted either direct or through e-mails between the time period of May 2021 and April 2022. The sample of the survey consisted of 1095 teachers from public as well as private schools, where 51.9% of the sample was working in primary education and 48.1% in secondary education. Finally, the 82.6% of the sample was working in public schools and respectively the 17.4% in private schools.
In the beginning, Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analysis was applied in order to create the model. More specifically, exploratory factor analysis was applied to investigate the factor structure of the scales, as there was no ready-made theoretical model. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test whether the data fit the hypothesized measurement model. Additionally, the Cronbach's index was used as a reliability measure, which in all cases was above 0.70. The adequacy of the sample was examined with the statistical index of the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and the index of sphericity (Barlett's test of sphericity). Last but not least, two significant criteria were taken into account for the adaptation or creation of the scales: a. the percentage of the total variance explained and b. the item loadings of each factor. Therefore, the correlation index of each question with the final result was verified. The method used was the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE).
The structural model to examine the three concepts was done using the Structural Equation Modeling. Some indicators were used to assess the good adaptation of the metric and the structural model: the statistical criterion x2 (p >.05), the CMIN/DF index (≤ 3), the CFI indicator (≥ 0, 90), the SRMR index (& ≤ 0, 08) and the RMSEA index (< 0, 08).
Finally, the excellence of the final model in terms of reliability, convergence validity and discriminant validity was ensured by the values of Composite Reliability (CR), Average Extracted Variance (AVE), and the Maximum Shared Variance (MSV).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe final Structural Model is supported by indicators that indicate excellent fit. The interpretation of the structural model in the field of the school leadership validates scientifically that the quality objectives significantly affect the objectives of quality assurance (b=0.807, p<.001), which in turn affect the evaluation objectives (b=0.690, p <.001). This finding is considered very important, as no corresponding effect has been identified in another survey. An additional important finding of the proposal is that the school unit quality targets appear to have a negligible impact on the level of education of teachers in terms of school unit assessment (b=0.058, p<.01) and on the degree of education for teachers in terms of the quality assurance of school units (b=0.065, p<.05). Accordingly, it is observed that the degree of training of teachers on the evaluation does not seem to have a great influence on the assessment itself (b=0.108, p<.001), while a major, also, finding is that the level of education of teachers on quality assurance significantly affects the degree to which teachers are educated on the issues of evaluation (b=0.791, p<.001).
In conclusion, an interaction was found among the objectives for the quality of school units, their quality assurance and their evaluation, as a direct effect was detected between these concepts. In addition, interesting implications emerged, such as the importance of teacher training in quality assurance and the evaluation of school units.
References•Afriadi, B., Fatkar, B., Mirza, M., Fitri, F., Nur, M., Sobirov, B., & Colega Oli, M. (2023). Systematic Review of Education Quality Assurance Management in schools method matching. International Education Trend Issues, 1(2), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.56442/ieti.v1i2.146
•Alaba, S. O. (2010). Improving the standard and quality of primary education in Nigeria: A case study of oyo and Osun States. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 1(3), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2010.0021
•Anastasiadou, S., & Anastasiadis, L. (2019). Quality Assurance in Education in the Light of the Effectiveness of Transformational School Leadership. In N. Sykianakis, P. Polychronidou, & A. Karasavvoglou (Eds.), Economic and Financial Challenges for Eastern Europe (pp. 323–344). Chapter, Springer.
•Bellibaş, M. Ş., Gümüş, S., & Liu, Y. (2020). Does school leadership matter for teachers’ classroom practice? The influence of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on instructional quality. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1858119
•Buzdar, M. A., & Jalal, H. (2021). Quality enhancement, teaching quality, and students perceived satisfaction: challenges and perspectives in higher education. Research Journal of PNQAHE, 2(2), 1–13.
•Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021-2030) 2021/C 66/01. (2021). Official Journal, C 66, 1-21. CELEX: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021G0226(01)[legislation]
•European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, (2020). Supporting school self-evaluation and development through quality assurance policies: key considerations for policy-makers: report by ET2020 Working Group Schools, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/02550
•Eurydice . (2004). Evaluation of Schools providing Compulsory Education in Europe. Belgium.
•Eurydice. (2015). Assuring quality in education – Policies and approaches to school evaluation in Europe. Luxembourg
•Gardezi, S., McNamara, G., Brown, M., & O’Hara, J. (2023). School inspections: A rhetoric of quality or reality? Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1204642
•Hartati, S., Matin, M. M., & Talib Bon, A. (2019). The Influence of Leadership on Academic Quality Assurance at the Private Nursing Vocational Schools. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 23–25.
•Onuma, N., & Okpalanze, N. P. (2017). : 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2017.1695.1714 Assessment of Quality Assurance Practices in Secondary Schools in Enugu State Nigeria. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 25(8), 1695–1714. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2017.1695.1714
•Pont, B., Nuche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). (rep.). Improving School Leadership. Volume 1: Policy and Practice. OECD.
•Shattuck, K., & Olcott, D. (2022). The Synergy of Leadership, Quality, Policy, Change: Opportunities and Tensions. American Journal of Distance Education, 36(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2022.2036550
|
