José González MonteAGudo2
ConsiderACión3
This exploratory paper outlines some ideas and reflections about institutional and cultural perspectives, within the general context of the RANLHE pro- ject, developed during forty months, between January 2008 and April 2011 (Merrill & González-Monteagudo, 2010a & 2010b; González-Monteagudo, 2010a & 2010b). Although the main focus of our research is Non-traditional students (learning careers, identity, academic attainments, and so on), it is apparent that it is only possible to fully understand this topic if we pay a strong attention to economic, social, cultural and institutions factors related with students and their academic contexts (Jhonston, 2009).
From a theoretical viewpoint, institutional and cultural dimensions in HE (Higher Education) have usually been worked in Sociology (Sociology of knowledge, Sociology of institutions; Sociology of organizations; Sociology of networks, Sociology of Culture), Social Psychology, Cultural Anthropology (including ethnographic fieldwork) and educational research on HE. These trends of contemporary social research have changed over the last few decades, mixing its approaches, contents, methods and results (Giddens, 1984 and 2007; Kottak, 1997; González-Monteagudo, 1996).
In this presentation I refer to three different levels: macro, meso and micro. Macro level is related to economic, social and cultural structural factors, describing wider processes of social change. Meso level refers to the institu- tional level: traits of HE institutions, organizational dimensions of universities and faculties, leadership, power, academic tasks, and so on. Micro level
Recibido: 05 de octubre de 2012. Aceptado: 22 de noviembre de 2012.
José González Monteagudo. Docente e investigador de la Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Sevilla, España. Licenciado en Pedagogía por la Universidad de Sevilla, 1980. Doctor en Pedagogía por la Univer- sidad de Sevilla, 1996. Entre otras se destacan las siguientes producciones escriturales: Learning Careers of Poor University Students in the Dominican Republic: Cultural, Institutional and Personal Dimensions, en Barbara Merrill; José González-Monteagudo (Eds.): Educational Journeys and Changing Lives. Adult Student Experiences. Sevilla: Digital@Tres, vol. 1, 48-63; Biografía, identidad y aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios no tradicionales. Estudio de caso de una mujer trabajadora, en Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, vol. 14, nº 3, 131-147. Correo Electrónico: monteagu@us.es
This paper is located within the European research project Access and Retentionm: Experiences of Non- traditional Students in Higher Education (Ref. 135230-LLP-2007-UK-KA1SCR), Transversal actions, Lifelong Learning Programme, between January 2008 and April 2011, 40 months. In this project participated seven European countries (England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Sweden, and Spain). During the project we undertook around 1000 biographical interviews with non-traditional students and policy-makers of 24 universities. The funding of the project was approximately 800.000 euros. For details, see the website of the project: www.ranlhe.dsw.edu.pl (available only in English).
refers to activities and processes developed within universities, in units of middle and small dimension such as Departments, teaching activities, research group, committees, and so on. The three levels are in reciprocal and permanent interaction. To understand HE in a complex and systemic way means to pay attention to these interactions between different levels, including the development of a sociocultural lens about students and drop- out (Quinn, 2004).
Key-words: Higher education, socialization, institutional analysis, sociology of universities, culture and learning.
Este artículo exploratorio presenta algunas ideas y reflexiones sobre las dimensiones institucionales y socioculturales de las universidades, dentro del contexto general del proyecto RANLHE, llevado a cabo a lo largo de cuarenta meses, entre enero de 2008 y abril de 2011 (Merrill y González- Monteagudo, 2010a y 2010b; González-Monteagudo, 2010a y 2010b). Aunque el foco principal de nuestra investigación han sido los estudiantes “no tradicionales” o en situación de desventaja (carreras de aprendizaje, identidades y rendimiento académico), es evidente que solo podremos comprender plenamente este tópico si prestamos especial atención a los factores económicos, socioculturales e institucionales relacionados con los estudiantes y sus contextos académicos (Jhonston, 2009).
Desde el punto de vista teórico, las dimensiones institucionales y sociocultu- rales en la enseñanza superior han sido habitualmente investigadas desde la perspectiva sociológica (sociología del conocimiento, de las instituciones, de las organizaciones, de las redes y de la cultura), la psicología social, la antropología cultural (incluyendo el trabajo de campo etnográfico) y la investigación pedagógica sobre la enseñanza superior. Estas corrientes de la investigación social contemporánea se han transformado de manera significativa en las últimas décadas, combinando sus enfoques, contenidos, métodos y resultados (Giddens, 1984 y 2007; Kottak, 1997; González- Monteagudo, 1996).
En este artículo hago alusión a tres niveles mutuamente relacionados que pueden dar cuenta de las dinámicas sociales y académicas en la enseñan- za superior: macro, meso y micro. El nivel macro está relacionado con los factores económicos, socioculturales y estructurales, mediante los cuales se describen y explican procesos sociales globales o generales. El nivel meso se refiere a la dimensión institucional: rasgos de las universidades, dimensiones organizativas de facultades y otros entes universitarios, lide- razgo, poder y tareas académicas. El nivel micro alude a las actividades y procesos desarrollados dentro del ámbito universitario, en unidades de tamaño mediano y pequeño, tales como los departamentos, las actividades
docentes, los grupos de investigación y los grupos gestores. Estos tres niveles están en permanente y cambiante interacción. Para comprender la enseñanza superior de una manera sistémica y compleja hemos de pres- tar atención a las interacciones entre los diferentes niveles, incluyendo el desarrollo de una mirada sociocultural sobre los estudiantes y el fenómeno del fracaso y abandono en la educación superior.
Palabras-clave: Educación superior, socialización, análisis institucional, sociología de las universidades, cultura y aprendizaje.
Culture refers to norms, values, beliefs, traditions, attitudes, norms of conduct, and styles of language, assimilated, construc- ted and shared through social learning pro- cesses (Kottak, 1997). Culture in organi- zations is the set of shared beliefs, values, and assumptions that guide behaviour. New members learn the culture of their organization and their role in it during a pe- riod known as organizational socialization (Mendoza, 2004). Traditionally anthropo- logists had been more interested in that what unifies society and social groups, in shared traits. Thus Cultural Anthropology has insisted in commonalities and similari- ties among individuals and groups. From a different origin and perspective, Sociology has focused more on social differences and inequalities, stressing the importance of making part of different collectives or groups (in function of social class, family background, gender, place of residence, ethnic characteristics, age and generation) to establish differences and explain social inequalities.
Culture consists of two related yet diffe- rent dimensions (Kottak, 1997):
Material dimension: material proces- ses related to social activities, located in a specific time and space; it implies the use and manipulation of specific artefacts related, in the case of HE institutions, to knowledge, teaching and research.
Symbolic, mental and cognitive dimen-
sion: social and individual processes of understanding, interpretation; sym- bolic dimension of culture is related to values, norms, beliefs, religions, philosophies and ideologies (this is the level of the superstructure proposed by K. Marx).
Nowadays culture is characterized by an accelerated process of change; like in other sectors, university culture suffers the impacts of important factors which transform institutions, groups, individuals, and traditional habits of thinking and be- haviour, legitimated over time (Castells, 2003; Giddens, 2007):
Economic globalization and new sys- tems of management.
Transformation of the Nation-state and forms of political and citizen participa- tion.
ITC.
Migrations, ethnic diversity and multi- culturalism.
Changing gender relations and the progressive crisis of patriarchy.
Scientific and technological advances.
All these factors are impacting upon HE institutions as well as being affected by the work developed in universities. It is a dialectical and complex process. Universi- ties are being changed as a result of social transformations and also universities are influencing these processes as key institu- tions charged of the creation and diffusion of knowledge and research. It is important to study how different institutions respond in diverse ways to social and cultural sha- red settings.
Prevailing social and cultural forms of socialization have a strong impact upon the socialization of academics. The functions and tasks of the universities, within a globalized and changing context, have been redefined in a contradictory way, under the influence of diverse and op- posed political, economic, administrative, institutional and professional discourses.
The impact of ICT is transforming and redefining university teaching. Traditional communication between students and lecturers has been altered and it is com- plemented by new forms, and formats. Teaching programmes developed via di- gital platforms are growing. Conventional teaching programmes also have changed as a result of new technologies. In this context, attitudes towards lifelong learning are also changing dramatically.
Economic structural factors sometimes tend to be marginalized, emphasizing the role of institutional and cultural factors. Nevertheless it is necessary to pay more attention to economic factors, which in- fluence academic success, completion and dropout. The family income available, the national and regional economic struc- ture, the labour market and the possibilities of employment are important traits. The current economic crisis seems to have a double and paradoxical influence on uni- versity studies. On the one hand, degrees are not considered as a necessary requi- rement to access to employment or to pro- gress in the labour market. In the current context of high unemployment, degrees are not a guarantee to access to the labour market and to stay in it (Quinn, 2004, 68, for example, refers to the decline of tradi- tional industries, the limitation of working opportunities and the lack of an apparent transition from the university degree to the local labour market). On the other hand, the increasing of unemployment and the decreasing of possibilities for accessing to a job by young people are raising the interest towards HE as a path to improve employability and a useful resource while the economic situation makes better.
The impact of social class in relation to university students (learning careers, identity, drop-out, specific difficulties, institutional habitus) remains in many occasions hidden. The social class is considered as an important dimension to analyze primary and secondary teaching. Nevertheless, in HE class tend to be ignored or marginalized as a perspecti- ve of analysis. Many academics do not perceive the social class as an important issue. It is supposed that, after having accessed the university, there is equality among students, regardless their social or family backgrounds. In this case, there only seem have an interest towards the fact that students with less economic resources have available grants and financial support. This issue seems to be very relevant for our project (on class and class debates, see: Crompton, 2008).
Different national contexts have general traits, which influence upon HE. Some of these traits are:
Contemporary and recent history.
Features and backgrounds of the prevailing political system.
Shared values (i.e.: visions on effort and perseverance, an important di- mension of the academic success).
Use of time, including its implications in relation to yearly cycles of holidays, work, and school timetables.
Styles, traditions and socially legitima- ted ways of socialization, education and family values about children and young.
Self-perception of society and groups; stories, narratives, myths, which have been legitimated in different ways.
Traditions, feasts and celebrations.
Educational policy, laws and norms on education sector.
Social, economic and cultural profile of the local communities in which are located university institutions.
Groups and associations active in the social arena: political parties, trade unions, religious groups, and media.
Companies and the private economic
sector.
Position of the HE institutions in re- lation to the public/state and private sectors, including the funding of HE institutions and of the tuition fees.
There exists a strong pressure upon HE institutions to produce more, to be profita- ble and to compete. Accountability, quality and evaluation are some of the words which show this new reality across Euro- pe. This pressure, based on new ways of management and control, is transforming the processes of research and teaching, as well as the dynamics of faculties and departments, and the professional careers of academics, researchers and lecturers (see for example the Research Assessment Exercise). In this context it is interesting to recover the term of greedy institutions, coined by Coser in 1974 (cit. in Wright et al, 2004) to refer to organiza- tions that establish high demands on their employees (here is it important the time dimension: academics tend to work more than previously; around 60 hours a week).
Socialization has usually been ap- proached from three perspectives: functio- nalist, interpretive and critical (this part about the three perspectives basically comes from González-Monteagudo, 1996, and it is based on: Lacey, 1993; Zeichner, 1979). Initially socialization had been treated from a functionalist viewpoint, following the Durkheim’s and Comte’s French positivism. Important concepts in this approach are status quo, social order, consensus and social integration. Functio- nalism is realist, positivist, determinist and nomotetic. Socialization is based on a consensual and static conception of so-
ciety. According to Merton (cit. in Mendoza, 2008), during socialization process indivi- dual acquire the values, attitudes, norms knowledge and skills needed to exist in a given organization. Functionalism does not pay attention to the importance of di- fferent social subgroup nor to differences of class, gender, ethnicity, religion and so on. Functionalism posits that the diverse professional subcultures are all homoge- neous and uniforms.
The interpretive approach of socializa- tion is antipositivist, nominalist, voluntarist and ideographic. Symbolic interactionism has largely contributed to this approach, particularly H. S. Becker, with his pionee- ring study of medicine students. Socializa- tion is understood as a process over the whole life and career. There are stressed the subjective meanings of the partici- pants. In Lacey’s study (1993), teachers manifested two main orientations or types of commitment: a radical commitment and a professional engagement (here we can think about the connections between pro- fessional life, on one hand, and personal/ ideological life, on the other hand). The ac- tive role of individuals is theorized through the concept of social strategy: the activity of the social actor referred to the selection of ideas and actions and the undertaking of complex interactions in a specific situation. There are three kind of social strategies: a) internalized adjustment (acceptance and fulfilment of norms); strategic obedience (external respect but inner discrepancy); and strategic redefinition (searching for new solutions, according to own interests and expectations).
The critical approach of socialization stems from the Marxism and the Frankfurt school. The focus is placed in concepts such as totality, consciousness, alienation, ideology and criticism. An important goal of this approach is to explicit activities and processes which are usually taken for granted. The critical perspective pays special attention to power relations and to inequalities as a result of the institutional functioning. Also there is interest towards
conflicts and strategies of resistance by groups and individuals. Socialization is understood as contradictory, dialectical, collective and individual. To understand socialization processes it is indispensable to analyze and criticize institutional, histo- rical, social and cultural contexts.
Using the concept of socialization it is possible to grasp the complexity and in- terplays of macro, meso and micro levels indicated before, in relation to academics and lecturers. In the interactive level, lecturers contribute to construct the lear- ning identity of students, and conversely students configure identity of academics. The colleagues are important because with them it is constructed a subculture of teaching.
Socialization process occurs both formally and informally. There is an anticipatory socialization (mediated by expectations, ideas and previous knowled- ge), which influences the initial entry into the organization and the different stages through the career as a member of the organization (Mendoza, 2004).
Weick (cit. in Mendoza, 2004) identifies several vocabularies as forms of exchan- ges and communications in organizations: ideologies (shared values, beliefs and norms that bind people together); traditions (vocabularies of predecessors: patterns, beliefs or images of action transmitted at least for three generations); stories (vo- cabularies of sequence and experience; stories serve as a means for members to express their knowledge, understanding and commitment to the organization).
We need to question the kind of knowledge produced and transmitted in HE contexts. The political, ideological and epistemological criticism of knowledge is a challenge that we have in front of us when we undertake research in universities (this section is based on Murphy & Fleming, 2000; see also Giddens, 2007). Marxists,
feminists, and postmodernists have strongly questioned academic knowledge (monopoly of truth, lack of relevance, lack of contact with the reality, reproduction of social inequalities). Scientific and acade- mic knowledge (usually known as college knowledge) has been historically a product of males, but with consequences for wo- men and their identities. Murphy & Fleming (2000) indicates that adult education can be understood as an educational paradigm opposed to Higher Education. While adult education has promoted experiential lear- ning, common knowledge and subjectivity, HE has mainly based on reason, truth and objectivity. According to these authors, adult education approaches and the post- modernist turn are useful perspectives to challenge and question the authoritarian way of producing and teaching of HE institutions.
Alheit (n/d) has applied the distinc- tion (proposed by Becher; see Becher
& Trowler, 2001) between hard and soft disciplines, and between pure and applied disciplines to research the different habi- tus related to different university degrees. Alheit’s proposal is useful to avoid an individualistic approach about academics and their role in relation to teaching, re- search and knowledge. Natural sciences (Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Mathema- tics) are pure and hard disciplines, guided by the ideal of the casual explanation (exclusive habitus). Classical sciences and Humanities (History, Philosophy, and Literature) are pure and soft disciplines, orientated by understanding and inter- pretation (habitus ambivalent). Technical sciences (Engineering) are hard and applied; here the goal is the development and application of techniques and products (pragmatic habitus). Finally, applied Social sciences (Social work, Education) are soft and applied; the aim is the professional practice in interactive contexts (inclusive habitus). For a discussion on habitus and its sociological implications in relation to identity, organizations and professions, see Dubar, 2004).
The classroom is a physical and psy- chosocial setting. The classroom culture consists of these elements: space, par- ticipants, social organization, intentional content (educational goals, academic contents, learning activities), and beliefs and thinking systems.
Individuals and groups through re- ciprocal interaction construct contexts. Contexts refer to that what people are doing, when they are doing it, and how do they are doing it. Each institution creates over time a specific culture, constituted by implicit beliefs, representations, traditions, rites and symbols.
The systemic conception of institutions includes micropolitical aspects. Institutions are impregnated of values, interests and motivations. It is important to pay atten- tion to the diversity of goals, ideological struggles, conflicts, power relations and political activities.
The culture of educational institutions is influenced by demands coming from the social context. In dynamic, complex and democratic societies, educational institutions are characterized by: expan- sion of their roles, interest towards qua- lity, participatory management, frequent changes, tolerance in respect of diversity, democratization in the process of taking decisions, capacity of decision in activities and behaviours, and establishment of rela- tions with the social setting that surround them. On the other perspective, educatio- nal institutions become more regulated, controlled externally and bureaucratic. Both contradictory tendencies are an im- portant trait of modernity, according to Max Weber and other scholars. This dilemmatic dimension of modern institutions is una- voidable. Many conflicts in organizations come from pressure about opposed traits: diversity versus uniformity, co-ordination versus flexibility, external dependency versus autonomy, contact versus isolation, and change versus stability.
Teaching culture alludes to a set of shared knowledges, with implicit and taken
for granted contents, which functions as a collective model and a perspective to cope with everyday activities.
There are several teaching cultures: individualism (isolation of academics and lecturers; development of an indepen- dent practice, not submitted to criticism); balcanization (different subgroups which share common interests within each subgroup); collaborative culture (trust and mutual help; friendly relationships, shared values, acceptance of disagreements); artificial collegiality (formal and bureau- cratic means). A positive teaching culture is enhanced through meetings with chairs of the departments, opportunities for team teaching, frequent discussions of pedago- gical issues, induction sessions devoted to new entrants, and peer observation (Wright et al., 2004).
Socialization in the gender role is an important aspect of institutions. The landscape is changing dramatically, but women still have lower academic and professional positions in HE in relation to men, and also there are differences between male and female students in relation to social status and labour op- portunities of the different degrees. In the study by Becher and Trowler (2001) were interviewed 221 academics selected from elite universities; only 21 of them were women. In the RANLHE project it will be interesting to analyze from a gendered viewpoint the management of HE institu- tions in the top levels of the organization, as well as the opinions of policy-makers and senior managers.
Universities are organizations based on professional bureaucracies (Minzberg, cit. in Bourgeois, Duke, Guyot & Merrill, 1999). The tasks of the universities are complex, uncertain, and problematic. Universities share these features: professional cul- ture (demands for autonomy, based on academic freedom and control by peers; divided loyalty towards colleagues and the local community; division of labour,
with strong specialization and multiple disciplines; co-ordination of work); profes- sional power; fragmentation in function of diverse disciplines and fields of expertise; and progressive interference and control by top managers and administrators on lecturers and researchers. From a structural-functionalist approach (based on Bourdieu’s publications), universities are structured according to two principles of legitimation: the scientific principle and the academic principle.
The political model considers the orga- nization as a system of conflictive and in- terdependent alliances, striving to impose their own preferences and interests on the system considered globally (this section is based on Bourgeois, Duke, Guyot & Merrill, 1999).
Leadership is an important dimension of university institutions. There are diffe- rent leadership styles: interpersonal style (active and visible manager); adminis- trative style (control of the organization
derived from the business management); political-antagonist style (based on con- versation and dialogue; it adopts open forms and it considers legitimate the political perspective of discussion and confrontation); political-authoritarian style (the political process is considered as illegitimate and it remains hidden; imposition of the own viewpoints). These different styles can be useful as a lens to better understand policy-makers and senior managers in HE.
It is important to stress structural and cultural factors (class, gender, ethnicity, generation), which influence the student identity and the construction of a learning career. The differences of social and cultu- ral capitals between students and HE insti- tutions can hinder the social and academic integration by students and consequently their academic success. It is needed to pay more attention to the wider social, cultural and institutional structures if we want to address the problem of dropout, mixing structural and agentic approaches to bet- ter grasp the complex nuances related to Non-traditional students.
Alheit, Peter (s/f): The symbolic power of knowl- edge. Exclusion mecanisms of the university habitus` in the German HE system. (Paper not published).
Archer, Lousie; Hutchings, Merryn; Ross, Alistair (2003): Higher education and social class: Issues of social inclusion. London: Routledge Falmer.
Ball, Stephen (1987): La micropolítica de la escuela. Hacia una teoría de la organización escolar. Barcelona: Paidós, 1989.
Becker, Howard et al. (1961): Boys in white.
Student culture in medical school. London: Transaction, 1992.
Becher, Tony; Trowler, Paul (2001): Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education
& Open University Press.
Bourgeois, Etienne; Duke, Chris; Guyot, Jean- Luc; Merrill, Barbara (1999): The Adult University. London: Open University Press.
Castells, Manuel (2003): La era de la informa- ción. Vol. 2. El poder de la identidad (2nd ed.). Madrid: Alianza.
Clancy, Patrick; Wall, Joy (2000): Social back- ground of higher education entrants. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
Crompton, Rosemary (2008): Class and Strati-
fication (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dubar, Claude (2004): La socialisation (3ème ed.). Paris: Armand Colin.
Giddens, Anthony (1984): The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, Anthony (2007): Sociología (5th ed.).
Madrid: Alianza.
González-Monteagudo, José (1996): Vida coti- diana y profesión docente: Teoría y práctica educativas centradas en historias de vida. Un enfoque etnográfico (PhD). Seville: Uni- versity of Seville.
González-Monteagudo, José (2010a): Learning Careers of Poor University Students in the Dominican Republic: Cultural, Institutional and Personal Dimensions, in Barbara Mer- rill & José González-Monteagudo (Eds.): Educational Journeys and Changing Lives. Adult Student Experiences. Sevilla: Digital@ Tres, vol. 1, 48-63.
González-Monteagudo, José (2010b): Biogra- fía, identidad y aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios no tradicionales. Estudio de caso de una mujer trabajadora, en Profe- sorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, vol. 14, nº 3, 131-147 (University of Granada, Spain).
Jhonston, Rennie (2009) (Ed.): Access and retention: Experiences of non-traditional learners in HE. European Lifelong Learning Project 2008-2011.
Kottak, Philips (1997): Antropología. Una ex- ploración de la diversidad humana (6th ed.). Aravaca (Madrid): McGraw-Hill.
Lacey, Colin (1993): Socialización profesional.
In Torsten Husen & Neville Postlethwaite (Dirs.) (1989-1993): Enciclopedia Internacio- nal de Educación. Barcelona: Vicens-Vives, vol. 9, 5247-5258.
Mendoza, Pilar (2008): Socialization to the academic culture. A framework of inquiry. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 31, 104-117.
Merrill, Barbara (1999): Gender, change and identity: Mature women students in Higher Education. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Merrill, Barbara; González-Monteagudo, José
(2010a): Social Networks and Benefits of
Learning of Non-traditional Adult Students, in Emilio Lucio-Villegas (Ed.) (2010): Trans- forming/Researching Communities. Xátiva (Valencia): Diálogos.Red, 73-82.
Merrill, Barbara; González-Monteagudo, José (2010b): Experiencing Undergraduate Learning as a Non-Traditional Adult Student: A Biographical Approach, in Luis Gómez Chova, David Martí Belenguer; Ignacio Can- del Torres (Eds.): International Conference on Education, Research and Innovation 2010. Proceedings CD. Valencia: IATED, pages 5046-5054.
Murphy, Mark; Fleming, Ted (2000): Between common and College knowledge: Exploring the boundaries between adult and higher education. Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 22, 1, 77-93.
Quinn, Jocey (2004): Understanding working- class ´drop-out` from Higher Education through a sociocultural lens: Cultural narra- tives and local contexts. International Studies in Sociology of Education, vol. 14, 1, 57-73.
Reay, Diane; David, Miriam; Ball, Stephen (2005): Degrees of choice: Social class, race and gender in Higher Education. Stoke-on Trent: Trentham.
Santos Guerra, Miguel Ángel (1993): Hacer visible lo cotidiano. Teoría y práctica de la evaluación cualitativa de los centros esco- lares. Madrid: Akal.
Wright, Mary; Assar, Nandini; Kain, Edward; Kramer, Laura; Howery, Carla; McKinney, Kathleen; Glass, Becky; Atkinson, Maxine (2004): Greedy institutions: The importance of institutional context for teaching in Higher Education. Teaching Sociology, vol. 32, April 2004, 144-159.
Zeichner, Kenneth (1979): Dialéctica de la socialización del profesor. Revista de Edu- cación, 1985, 277, 95-123.
importantes los procesos de evaluación de los estudiantes que se encuentran en el último año de formación tecnológica o profesional, dado que los resultados obtenidos en el hoy Examen Saber Pro (antes ECAES) constituyen un referente para determinar en qué forma y hasta qué punto la institución educativa ha cumplido con su función de transmisión del conoci- miento. Los resultados de estas pruebas, además, permiten determinar si el plan de estudios es pertinente a los requerimien- tos actuales o si se hace necesario ade- lantar procesos de actualización docente.
Los procesos de autoevaluación con mi- ras a la obtención de mejores estándares de calidad no sólo deben fijar su mirada única en los lineamientos, orientaciones y guías que otorga el gobierno, sino que también debe tener en cuenta aspectos cómo el papel del docente, lineamientos e indicadores de las propias instituciones y demás herramientas que el medio le ofrece para el ejercicio académico. De esta manera los procesos de autoeva- luación serán procesos que conllevan a mejoras integrales buscando siempre el mejoramiento continuo y mejores niveles de calidad en todo el quehacer de las ins- tituciones y sus programas académicos.
No cabe duda que la educación actual debe responder a necesidades de tipo global. Ya no basta con conocer sobre las condiciones del contexto inmediato, pues- to que las exigencias a escala profesional trascienden el plano de las distancias de tipo geográfico, porque los actuales pro- fesionales o tecnólogos deben desarrollar habilidades que les permitan hacer uso de la información que tienen, transformarla y adelantar acciones que les permitan el logro y apropiación de nuevos conocimien- tos que suplan necesidades del ambiente en donde se desarrollen sus actividades profesionales.
Las tecnologías de información y co- municaciones constituyen hoy por hoy una herramienta de gran importancia al momento de mejorar la forma como se desarrolla la educación en las IES, porque permite trascender a situaciones donde no hay limitaciones de espacio o tiempo, don- de las formas de captar el conocimiento se hacen de forma más inmediata y en las que se logra la interacción simultánea con actores que no necesariamente formen parte del contexto académico, pero que pueden hacer aportes de importancia en el ejercicio de enseñanza-aprendizaje.
Tulio Ramírez, Gloria Almeida Parra
Plumilla Educativa
ANUIES. (2000). La Educación Superior en el Siglo XXI. Líneas estratégicas de desarrollo. Una propuesta de la ANUIES. México.
Borrero Cabal, Alfonso. (1999). Planeación, Autoevaluación y Acreditación de IES. Sim- posio Permanente sobre la Universidad. Conferencia XXXII. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Santafé de Bogotá.
Campo, Álvaro; Chaparro, Fernando; Corredor, Martha; Lago, Diana; Londoño, Guillermo; Niño, Jesús & Rizo, Harold. (2006). Linea- mientos para la Acreditación de Programas de Educación Nacional. Consejo Nacional de Acreditación. Bogotá D.C. Colombia.
Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de la Educación Superior. (1997). Hacia una Agenda de Transformación de la Educación Superior: Planteamientos y Recomendacio- nes. Bogotá.
Congreso de Colombia, Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. Constitución Política de Colombia. Ley 30 (1992). Por la cual se organiza el servicio público de la Educación Superior. Diario Oficial No. 40.700 de 29 de diciembre de 1992. Disponible en: http:// www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/ basedoc/ley/1992/ley_0030_1992.html (Re- cuperado el 11 de abril de 2011).
Consejo Nacional de Acreditación. (2001).
Criterios y Procedimientos para el Registro Calificado de Programas Académicos de Pregrado en Ciencias de la Salud. Bogotá.
Dias Sobrinho, José. (2006). Acreditación de la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe. En: La Educación superior en 2007- Acreditación para la Garantía de la Calidad:
¿Qué está en Juego? Madrid: Global Univer- sity Network forInnovation (GUNI). 282-295.
Farai, Ana Milena y Ospina, Luz Andrea. (2009).
Efectos del modelo de aprendizaje expe- riencial y sus pedagogías asociadas en el logro de las metas de aprendizaje por parte de los estudiantes del curso de liderazgo de pregrado en ICESI. Cali, Universidad ICESI.
Gaceta Constitucional No. 116 de 20 de julio de 1991. Disponible en: http://www.secreta- riasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/cp/cons- titucion_politica_1991.html (Recuperado el 11 de abril de 2011).
García, Carmen (1996) Globalización y conoci- miento en tres tipos de escenarios Caracas. Revista Educación Superior y Sociedad, Volumen 6, No 1: 81-101. Disponible en: http://ess.iesalc.unesco.org.ve/index.php/ ess/article/download/257/214 (Recuperado el 3 de Mayo de 2011).
García, Carmen. (1996). Conocimiento, educa- ción superior y sociedad en América Latina. Caracas: Centro de Estudios del Desarrollo- Cendes. Editorial Nueva Sociedad.
Ginés, José. (2004). La Necesidad del Cambio Educativo para la Sociedad del Conocimien- to. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. No. 35. pp 13-37. Disponible en: http://www. rieoei.org/rie35a01.htm (Recuperado el 10 de Abril de 2011).
Giraldo, Uriel; Abad Dario y Díaz, Edgar (2002).
Bases para una política de calidad de la educación superior en Colombia. Bogotá: Consejo Nacional de Acreditación-CNA.
Gómez, Víctor; Celis, Jorge. (2009). Sistema de aseguramiento de la calidad de la educación superior: consideraciones sobre la acredita- ción en Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Sociología. Vol. 32, Nº 2, julio – diciembre. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bo- gotá. Disponible en: http://www.humanas. unal.edu.co/img/Nuevo/revista_colombia- na_sociolog%C3%ADa/32/04-(Gomez- Celis_Sistema-de-aseguramiento).pdf. (Recuperado el 11 de Abril de 2011).
_content&task=view&id=351&Itemid=445.
(Recuperado el 12 de Abril de 2011).
Klein, Lucia y Sampaio Helena. (2002). Actores, arenas y temas básicos. En R. Kent (comp.). Los temas críticos de la educación superior en América Latina en los años noventa. Mé- xico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. 31-105.
Mejía, Marco Raúl. (2006). Educación en la Globalización, entre el pensamiento único y la nueva crítica. Bogotá. Ediciones desde Abajo.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. Decreto 2566 de 2003. Por el cual se establecen las
42 • Instituto Pedagógico
condiciones mínimas de calidad y demás requisitos para el ofrecimiento y desarrollo de programas académicos de educación superior y se dictan otras disposiciones. Disponible en: http://www.mineducacion. gov.co/1621/articles-104846_archivo_pdf. pdf (Recuperado el 1 de abril de 2011).
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. Decreto 3963 de 2009. Por el cual se reglamenta el Examen de Estado de Calidad de la Educación Superior. Disponible en: http:// www.unal.edu.co/diracad/evaluacion/de- creto_ECAES.pdf (Recuperado el 1 de abril de 2011).
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. Decreto 80 de 1980. Por el cual se organiza el sistema de educación postsecundaria. Disponible en: http://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1621/ articles-102556_archivo_pdf.pdf (Recupe- rado el 1 de abril de 2011).
Nussbaum, Martha. (2010). Sin Fines de Lucro
(1ª edición). Buenos Aires: Katz Editores.
Orozco, Luis Enrique. (1993). El Sistema Na- cional de Acreditación de IES según la Ley 30 de 1992. Seminario Reforma de la Edu- cación Superior. Ley 30 de 1992. Santafé de Bogotá, Universidad de los Andes. Centro de Investigación en Educación Superior.
Roa, Alberto. (2002). Acreditación y Evaluación de la Calidad en la Educación Superior Co- lombiana. Estudio realizado para IESALC- UNESCO. Disponible en: http://www.cedus. cl/files/acr_co_roa.pdf. (Recuperado el 7 de marzo de 2011).
Serrano S., Rafael. (1999). Algunas Considera- ciones sobre las Consecuencias de la Acre- ditación en la Educación Superior. Bogotá.
Tünnerman, Carlos. Nuevas Perspectivas de la Pertinencia y Calidad de la Educa- ción Superior. Boletín Iesalc Informe de Educación Superior. No. 207. Disponible en: http://www.iesalc.unesco.org.ve/index. php?option=com_content&view=article& id=2029%3Anuevas-perspectivas-de-la- pertinencia-y-calidad-de-la-educacion- superior&catid=126%3Anoticias-pagina- nueva&Itemid=712&lang=es. (Recuperado el 15 de mayo de 2012).
Universidad de Caldas. (1995). Comité Asesor de Rectoría. Grupo de Exvicerrectores Aca- démicos. Documentos 2, 4 y 5. Manizales.