Inspection digital literacy for school improvement

  1. María del Carmen Martínez-Serrano 1
  2. Manuel Angel Romero-García
  3. Inmaculada García-Martínez 2
  4. Óscar Gavín-Chocano 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Jaén
    info

    Universidad de Jaén

    Jaén, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0122p5f64

  2. 2 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Revista:
EJIHPE: European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

ISSN: 2174-8144,  2254-9625

Año de publicación: 2023

Volumen: 13

Número: 4

Páginas: 701-714

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3390/EJIHPE13040053 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: EJIHPE: European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Educational inspection, as an essential part of the current educational environment, supports its mission through more pragmatic and comprehensive processes, techniques, and models, which guarantee the right of students to quality education. The aim of the present study was to determine the causal effect of gender and age on the dimensions of the instrument in the inspector population. Specifically, 118 male and female inspectors from the Educational Inspection Service of Andalusia (Spain) participated, with an average age of 47.56 years (±5.70). In terms of gender, 30 were women (25.40%) and 88 were men (74.60%). An instrument was developed specifically for this study with the purpose of assessing the participants’ opinions of the extent to which their work contributes to educational improvement. The results evidenced the relationship between the dimensions of the instrument: attention to members of the educational community (AMEC), supervision of guidance and tutorial action (SGTA), attention and inclusion of diversity (AID), and technological resources (TR) (p < 0.01). Similarly, the multigroup model obtained good structural validity (χ 2 = 68.180; RMSEA = 0.078; GFI = 0.923; CFI = 0.959; IFI = 0.967). In terms of gender, no significant differences were obtained, although the results were moderately superior among males compared to females. In relation to age, younger inspectors had better TR results, and older inspectors had better AMEC and SGTA results. The conclusions strengthen the importance of the Education Inspection Service in educational establishments, highlighting the need to supervise the processes of attention and inclusion for diversity. A great deal of resistance was observed, especially as there is a lack of training in information and communication technology (ICT).

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Financiadores

  • Junta de Andalucía
    • HUM-819

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Akaike, H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 1987, 52, 317–332.
  • Álvarez-Arregui, E.; Pérez-Pérez, R. Radiografías de la Inspección Educativa en la Comunidad Autónoma de Asturias. Revisión crítica con intención de mejora. Bordón 2010, 62, 9–28.
  • Arnaiz-Sánches, P.; Escarbajal-Frutos, A.; Caballero-García, C.M. El impacto del contexto escolar en la inclusión educativa. Rev. De Educ. Inclu. 2017, 10, 195–210.
  • Barea-Romero, C. Los Planes de Actuación de la Inspección Educativa. In La Inspección Y Supervisión De Los Centros Educativos; Cano, E.V., Zaragoza, F.M., Eds.; Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia: Madrid, Spain, 2017; pp. 175–200.
  • Cabero-Almenara, J.; Romero-Tena, R.; Palacios-Rodríguez, A. Evaluation of Teacher Digital Competence Frameworks Through Expert Judgement: The Use of the Expert Competence Coefficient. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2020, 9, 275–293.
  • Caena, F.; Redecker, C. Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (Digcompedu). Eur. J. Educ. 2019, 54, 356–369.
  • Casanova, M.A. La supervisión, eje del cambio en los sistemas educativos. REICE. Rev. Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic. Y Cambio En Educ. 2015, 13, 7–20.
  • Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2003.
  • Díaz-Delgado, M.A.; Garcia-Martinez, I. Standards for school principals in Mexico and Spain: A comparative study. J. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2019, 27, 113.
  • Domínguez-Alonso, J.; López-Castedo, A.; Vázquez-Varela, E. Atención a la diversidad en la educación secundaria obligatoria: Análisis desde la inspección educativa. Aula Abierta 2016, 44, 70–76.
  • Domínguez-Lara, S.A.D.; Merino-Soto, C.M. Por qué es importante reportar los intervalos de confianza del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach? Rev. Latinoam. De Cienc. Soc. Niñez Y Juv. 2015, 13, 1326–1328.
  • Eddy-Spicer, D.; Ehren, M.; Bangpan, M.; Khatwa, M.; Perrone, F. Under What Conditions Do Inspection, Monitoring and Assessment Improve System Efficiency, Service Delivery and Learning Outcomes for the Poorest and Most Marginalised? A Realist Synthesis of School Accountability in Low-and Middle-Income Countries; University College London: London, UK, 2016.
  • Ehren, M.C.; Gustafsson, J.E.; Altrichter, H.; Skedsmo, G.; Kemethofer, D.; Huber, S.G. Comparing effects and side effects of different school inspection systems across Europe. Comp. Educ. 2015, 51, 375–400.
  • Esteban-Frades, S. El devenir de la Alta Inspección educativa: Una situación inconclusa. Av. En Supervisión Educ. 2019, 31, 10.
  • Fernández-Batanero, J.M.; Montenegro-Rueda, M.; Fernández-Cerero, J.; García-Martínez, I. Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic review. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 45, 513–531.
  • Guitert, M.; Romeu, T.; Baztán, P. The digital competence framework for primary and secondary schools in Europe. Eur. J. Educ. 2021, 56, 133–149.
  • Hall, J.B. "Governing by templates" through new modes of school inspection in Norway. J. Educ. Chang. 2017, 18, 161–182.
  • Haris, I.; Naway, F.A.; Pulukadang, W.T.; Takeshita, H.; Ancho, I.V. School supervision practices in the indonesian education system; perspectives and challenges. J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res. 2018, 9, 366–387.
  • Hernández-Díaz, J.M. La Inspección Educativa y la cultura escolar en España. Génesis, proceso constituyente y actualización de funciones. Aula 2019, 25, 59–89.
  • Hofer, S.I.; Holzberger, D.; Reiss, K. Evaluating school inspection effectiveness: A systematic research synthesis on 30 years of international research. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 65, 100864.
  • Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453.
  • Hutchings, M. Accountability, Social Justice and Educational Research. In Educational Research for Social Justice; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 45–78.
  • Instituto Nacional de Tecnologías Educativas y de Formación del Profesorado. Marco Común de Competencia Digital Docente. España: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. 2017. Available online: https://aprende.intef.es/mccdd (accessed on 24 September 2022).
  • Jones, K.L.; Tymms, P.; Kemethofer, D.; O’Hara, J.; McNamara, G.; Huber, S.; Myrberg, E.; Skedsmo, G.; Greger, D. The unintended consequences of school inspection: The prevalence of inspection side-effects in Austria, the Czech Republic, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2017, 43, 805–822.
  • Khanlou, N.; Khan, A.; Vazquez, L.M.; Zangeneh, M. Digital literacy, access to technology and inclusion for young adults with developmental disabilities. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 2021, 33, 1–25.
  • Kirini´c, V.; Mekovec, R.; Hrustek, N.Ž. Methodology of Transforming Digital Competence Framework to Curricula: Croatian e-Schools Project Example. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2018, 8, 880–888.
  • Kline, R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  • Kluzer, S.; Priego, L.P. DigComp into action: Get inspired, make it happen. In A User Guide to the European Digital Competence Framework (No. JRC110624); Joint Research Centre: Seville, Spain, 2018.
  • Lee, J.; Lee, M. Is “whole child” education obsolete? Public school principals’ educational goal priorities in the era of accountability. Educ. Adm. Quart. 2020, 56, 856–884.
  • Martínez Serrano, M.C. Análisis de la acción inspectora centrada en la mejora de los logros escolares: Diseño y validación de un cuestionario. Publicaciones 2020, 50, 245–263.
  • Martínez-Serrano, M.D.C. Las plataformas educativas de la Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía y el plan de Inspección Educativa. Av. En Supervisión Educ. 2019, 32, 68.
  • Moreno-Guerrero, A.J. Estudio bibliométrico de la Producción Científica sobre la Inspección Educativa. Rev. Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic. Y Cambio En Educ. 2019, 17, 23–40.
  • Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; López-Belmonte, J.; Rodríguez-Jiménez, C.; Ramos, M. Competencia digital de la inspección educativa en el tratamiento del Big Data. Informa. Tecnol. 2020, 31, 185–198.
  • Paufler, N.A.; Sloat, E.F. Using standards to evaluate accountability policy in context: School administrator and teacher perceptions of a teacher evaluation system. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 64, 100806.
  • Pelegrí, X. La participación en la escuela vista por los inspectores. Rev. De Sociol. De La Educ. 2016, 9, 346–358.
  • Penninckx, M.; Vanhoof, J.; De Maeyer, S.; Van Petegem, P. Effects and side effects of Flemish school inspection. Educ. Manag. Administ. Leader. 2016, 44, 728–744.
  • Redecker, C.; Punie, Y. Digital Competence of Educators DigCompEdu; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017.
  • Romero-García, M.A. La comunicación mediada por tecnología como base de la mejora de la actuación de la inspección educativa: El plan de inspección 2016-17 en andalucía. Av. En Superv. Educ. 2017, 27, 1–25.
  • Romero García, M.Á. Uso de las TIC por la inspección educativa en Andalucía. EDMETIC Rev. De Educ. Mediática Y TIC 2018, 7, 275–295.
  • Romero García, M.A.; Martínez -Serrano, M.C. Inclusión de los medios tecnológicos en el Plan de Inspección de Andalucía. RIITE. Rev. Interuniv. De Investig. En Tecnol. Educ. 2017.
  • Sarasúa, A. La Inspección de educación, un futuro incierto. Aula 2019, 25, 91–104.
  • Steiger, J.H.; Lind, J.C. Statistically Based Tests for the Number of Common Factors. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA, USA, 28 May 1980; Volume 758, pp. 424–453.
  • Stone, L.L.; Janssens, J.M.; Vermulst, A.A.; Van Der Maten, M.; Engels, R.C.; Otten, R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher version in children aged 4–7. BMC Psychol. 2015, 3, 1–12.
  • Thiel, C.; Bellmann, J. Rethinking Side Effects of Accountability in Education: Insights from a Multiple Methods Study in Four German School Systems. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2017, 25, 93.
  • Ventura-León, J.L. Es el final del alfa de Cronbach? Adicciones 2019, 31, 80–81.
  • Verger, A.; Prieto, M.; Pagès, M.; Villamor, P. Common standards, different stakes: A comparative and multi-scalar analysis of accountability reforms in the Spanish education context. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 2020, 19, 1–23.
  • Wagner, I. Effectiveness and perceived usefulness of follow-up classroom observations after school inspections in Northern Germany. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 67, 100913.
  • World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet