Glocalisation and Education: opportunities and threats

Virginija Būdienė,Vice-minister, Lithuania

Vilnius-Riga2008-06-18

Political, technological, cultural challenges

Multi - membership (EU, NATO, UN, …)MulticulturalMultitribalMultidimensionalMultitaskingMarginalisationMultiage(ing)Multiple loyalitiesMultiple residenceClimate change, Energy challenge, Food crisis

Socio-economic challenges faced by EU

• Globalisation (emergence of new competitive economies)

• Demography (ageing population and migration flow)

• Rapid change (in the nature of the labour market)

• ICT revolution (technology driven)

People with low qualifications are at an increasing risk of unemployment and social exclusion

Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament,

COM (2006) 481 final

Challenges for Education in Lithuania

Freedom Globalisation (learning to be)

Rapid change (learning to do)

Information explosion (learning to know)

Societal differentiation (learning to live together)

Guidelines for Education, 2002Jacques Delors, 1996

Lithuania 2000 EU 2006

Freedom

Globalisation Globalisation

Rapid change Rapid change

Information explosion ICT revolution

Societal differentiation Demography

Glocalisation (1)

Glocalisation (or glocalization) is the powerfield of globalization and localization.

By definition, the term “glocal” refers to the individual, group, division, unit, organisation, and community which is willing and is able to “think globally and act locally.”

The term has been used to show the human capacity to bridge scales (from local to global) and to help overcome "little-box" thinking.

Term initially used by Japanese. Explicitly elaborated by Robertson, Wellman, Bauman.

Glocalisation (2)

“Glocalization" is one of the most grotesque words that academics have managed to coin.

e.g. Glocalization is the ugliness that ensues when the global and local are shoved uncomfortably into the same concept. It doesn't sit well on your palette, it doesn't have a nice euphoric ring. It implies all sorts of linguistic and cognitive discomfort. (e.g. Threat: opportnities for some, marginalization for many)

The term itself has many interesting roots in economics, social networks and

performance studies. What the term means in each is actually quite different.

Power field

• Global economy• Free trade• Free flow of people• Free flow of labor force• Free flow of finance

• Brain circulation• Outsourcing• Global declarations and

treaties• International intergov-

organisations (EU, UN, UNESCO, OECD, WB)

• Education industries• ICT

• Nation-state, Language• Uniqueness• Culture,customs,traditions• Political agendas• Management skills• National school• National curriculum• National didactics• National textboks• Education industries

Glocalisation in Education

Governance: horizontal, leadership

System: in flux, dynamicInfrastructure: networkingDistribution of knowledge and

informationBrain circulation, mobilityDivide: quality, achievement,e-divide, megaopolis, culturalIncentives (output): merit, PPPCurriculum: creativity andinnovation, key competencies, deep understanding of knowledge used in real settingsAssessment: formative

Governance: hierarchical, beaurocratic

System: stable, stereotypesInfrastructure: getoisation,

provincialismDistribution of thingsBrain drainDivide: access, social -poor/rich,

urban/rural, Incentives (input): social, publicCurriculum: disciplinarity and specialization; rules and habits;transmission and acquisition ofacademic knowledge, surfaceknowledgeAssessment: summative

Glocalisation (3)

Indeed, global and local are really two sides of the same coin as a place may be better understood by recognising the dual nature of recent processess.

The combination of glocal-dimensions with temporal- and cultural- and other dimensions is a challenge. For education as well.

Knowledge economy

• Transition of countries from an industrial to a knowledge economies, base dominant activities on the production and distribution of knowledge and information, rather than the production and distribution of things (Drucker, 1993).

Creative economy

• Many analysts have come to emphasise the importance of creativity, innovation, and ingenuity in the knowledge economy.

• Today’s economy is the creative economy, powered by human creativity (Florida, 2002).

Industrial/key technologies

Innovationsin a social

setting

MILITARY/

BASIC SCIENCE

PARTNERSHIP

1945-1988 1989-2005 2005-

Changes are not drivenby forces within science,but by changes in society, which have taken place over the last 50 years

Prof. Ove Poulsen, Presentation at LT Science Council meeting, 2005 02 18

Creativity in the Center

Knowledgetriangle

Educationtriangle

Skills

Attitudes

Innovation

Research

Creativity

Entrepreneurship

Challenges for Education in the second half of the XXI century

Closing conference discussion of the School Improvement Project

• Concern of the past century – Access to Education for All

• Current concern – Quality Education for All• Rising concern – Quality for Everyone (diversity

& individualization)

Basic compe-tencies

Support for

teacher

Social dialog

Quality mana-gement

Alter-natives & links

Equity

Lifelong Learning

Culture of

Manage-ment

Education strategy

Quality of Education

Current debates on the education development priorities

The Programme for Implementation of the Provisions for the National Education Strategy 2003–2012

• Percentage of pupils with reading literacy proficiency “level 1” and “lower” on the PISA reading literacy scale

• Percentage of VIII grade pupils achieving the basic and higher levels in Lithuanian language

• Percentage of VIII grade pupils achieving the basic and higher levels in mathematics

• Percentage of VIII grade pupils achieving the basic and higher levels in natural science

• Percentage of VIII grade pupils achieving the basic and higher levels in social science

Data and information to ground political decisions come from

• researches of the status of education;

• national surveying of pupils’ achievements;

• international comparative studies of education.

Researches of the status of education

Researches, their data, conclusions, and recommendations are used for:

• Planning activities and decision making,

• Revision of education priorities;

• Analysis of current situation.

National surveying of pupils’ achievements for education management

Information on pupils’

achievements

Identification of educationalproblems

Evaluation of educational systems at schools and municipalities in the sense of accessibility and

efficiency

Calculation of education

added value

Evaluation of national

curriculum

International Researches

• IEA TIMSS – Trends in international mathematics and science study;

• IEA PIRLS – Progress in international reading literacy study;

• IEA ICCS – International civic and citizenship study;• IEA SITES – Second Information Technology in

Education Study; • OECD PISA – Programme for international student

assessment; • OECD TALIS – Survey of teachers, teaching and

learning;• ESPAD – The European school survey project on

alcohol and other drugs.

PIRLS average results

Reading (general)

Girls – Boys

Reading Literary

Reading Informational

PIRLS mean 500 17 500 500

EU mean 534 12 534 532

Latvia 541 23 539 540

Lithuania 537 18 542 530

PIRLS results (percentage of students at International Benchmarks)

Advanced High Intermediate Low

PIRLS mean 7 41 76 94

EU mean 9 44 81 96

Latvia 8 46 86 98

Lithuania 5 43 86 99

PIRLS results (Students’ Attitude Towards Reading)

Percentage of Students with High attitude towards reading

Their

average result

PIRLS mean 49 525

EU mean 48 556

Latvia 33(lowest from all countries)

564

Lithuania 47 551

PIRLS results (Children’s Books at home)

Percentage of Students with more than 100

children’s books at home

Their

average result

PIRLS mean 13 553

EU mean 14 547

Latvia 13 553

Lithuania 5 570

PISA results (Science)

Science mean (score)

Below Level 1 (per cent)

Level 6 (per cent)

Boys minus Girls (score difference)

EU mean

497 5,2 1,0 1

Estonia 531 1,0 1,4 -4 (not sign.)

Latvia 490 3,6 0,3 -7

Lithuania 488 4,3 0,4 -9

PISA results (Science, Knowledge)Earth and Space Systems (score dif. from country mean)

Living Systems (score difference from country mean)

Physical Systems (score difference from country mean)

Knowledge about Science (score dif. from country mean)

Estonia 9 8 4 -8

Latvia 4 -8 5 2

Lithuania -1 15 2 -6

PISA results (Science, Competencies)

Identifying scientific issues (score difference from country mean)

Explaining phenomena scientifically (score dif. from country mean)

Using scientific evidence (score dif. from country mean)

Estonia -16 9 0

Latvia -1 -3 1

Lithuania -12 7 -1

PISA results (Mathematics)Math mean (score)

Below Level 1 (per cent)

Level 6 (per cent)

Boys minus Girls (score difference)

EU mean

491 8,5 2,7 10

Estonia 515 2,7 2,6 1 (not sign.)

Latvia 486 6,4 1,1 5 (not sign.)

Lithuania 486 7,8 1,8 2 (not sign.)

PISA results (Reading)Reading mean (score)

Below Level 1 (per cent)

Level 5 (per cent)

Boys minus Girls (score difference)

EU mean

483 8,8 7,0 -42

Estonia 501 3,4 6,0 -46

Latvia 479 6 4,5 -50

Lithuania 470 8,7 4,4 -51

ministry of education and scienceof the Republic of Lithuania

How many teachers use ICT?

In SITES surveyed 22 countries from 20 % to 80 %

Lithuania: •63% math teachers •65% science teachers;

LT is 7th out of 22countries surveyed.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ECT

1 CHL

TWN

2 FIN

2 HKG

4 ISR

1 ITA

1,3 JPN

2 COT

SGP

SVK

SVN

†,2 CAB

# DNK

# EST

# FRA

†,2 LTU

† RUM

# NOR

† RUS

† ZAF

†,1 THA

Percentage reporting use of ICT

Rank Country KEIEconomicIncentive Regime

Innovation

Education ICT

1 +8  Sweden   9.26 8.59 9.72 8.98 9.76

2 -1  Denmark 9.22 8.97 9.43 9.22 9.25

3 +1  Norway   9.17 9.45 8.86 9.20 9.17

4 -2  Finland   9.07 8.95 9.60 9.20 8.52

5 -2  Netherlands   9.02 8.69 9.41 8.74 9.25

6 -1  Switzerland 8.99 9.42 9.82 7.44 9.28

7  Canada   8.94 9.38 9.35 8.62 8.40

8 +3  Australia   8.88 8.39 8.71 9.17 9.25

9 +1 United Kingdom

  8.80 8.54 9.21 8.50 8.93

10 -4  United States   8.80 8.45 9.44 8.35 8.95

KEI Indexes (2007 World Bank, KAM )

KAM - Knowledge Assessment Methodology

25  Estonia   8.07 8.07 7.42 8.29 8.49

26 -3  Italy   7.98 7.30 8.05 7.86 8.72

27 -3  Korea, Rep.   7.74 6.16 8.44 7.70 8.67

28 +4  Hungary   7.64 7.64 8.18 7.68 7.08

29  Czech Republic   7.64 7.59 7.67 7.59 7.69

30 +1  Cyprus   7.63 8.04 7.64 6.61 8.22

31 +12 Lithuania   7.49 7.45 6.43 8.30 7.79

32 -6  Portugal   7.44 8.02 7.40 6.93 7.43

33 +19  Latvia   7.37 7.26 6.44 8.35 7.45

34 -4  Greece   7.29 7.38 7.62 7.56 6.60

35 +3  Poland   7.24 7.07 6.89 8.11 6.87

KEIEconomicIncentive Regime

Innovation

Education

ICT

Current debate

Debate needed about NEW CULTURE OF EDUCATION, not the fragments

Curriculum development

•Subject oriented vs. individuality oriented

•Academic classroom vs. homelike learning space

•Professionals vs. partnership

Teachers’ training

• Training vs. motivation for self-development

• Didactical ideology vs. individualization tools

• Classroom vs. school-home corporation

Evaluation of Education

• Experts’ quality vs. social agreement culture

• External summative vs. internal formative

• National goals vs. international benchmarking

The main propositions of glocalaization:

1. Diversity is the essence of social life;

2. Globalization does not erase all differences;

3. Autonomy of history and culture give a sense of uniqueness to the experiences of groupsof people whether we define them as cultures, societies or nations;

4. Glocalization is the notion that removes the fear from many that globalization is like a tidal wave erasing all the differences.