Revista Española de Educación Comparada: Announcements
The Revista Española de Educación Comparada (Spanish Journal of Comparative Education, REEC), came into being in the year 1995 with the mission of serving as the scientific mouthpiece for the research and work carried out by the educational comparativists integrated in the Sociedad Española de Educación Comparada (Spanish Society of Comparative Education, SEEC), who constitute its principal readers. The publication’s creation represented the realization of one of the primary scientific objectives expressed in articles 3 and 4 of the SEEC statutes, ratified in November of 1994. Since the founding of the journal, the Universidad Nacional de Educación Comparada (UNED) has provided editorial and infrastructure support for the REEC, assuming the role of co-editing institution. The essentially international nature of the discipline of Comparative Education along with the increasing affinity and overlapping of epistemological objectives and challenges of comparative academics at home and abroad – due to the phenomenon of globalization – have led to a decisive expansion of the initial objectives of the REEC, in terms of research and publishing, and of the publication’s target audience. As a result, this periodical does not focus solely or even preferentially on the analysis of comparative epistemology in the Spanish context, but rather it purports to study the construction of comparative knowledge on a European and world-wide scale. The REEC is therefore fully committed to welcoming studies by domestic and foreign researchers working in the comparative discipline, these researchers being recipients of our journal as well. While articles are occasionally published in French or Portuguese, the primary languages of the REEC are Spanish and English. The essential objective of the REEC is to contribute to the theoretical and practical development of the field of Comparative Education in a manner that is at once interdisciplinary, global, national and international. Its work focuses especially on the analytical analyses of epistemological developments in the complex comparativist science in our current era of globalization, governance, postmodernism and post-colonialism. The essential goal and ultimate aspiration of the academic and editorial work carried out by those involved in the REEC is the forging of a world society that may benefit from a democratized, inclusive, humanitarian and exacting education, one that achieves a balance between the constant technological innovations of a connected society, on the one hand, and, on the other, the strength and solidity afforded by a cultural wisdom accrued through tradition. It is also paramount that we find a balance between the demands of a global society and the as yet vital role of school cultures that are specifically national. The REEC wishes to offer its pages to, and invite contributions from, all those scholars who share these objectives and concerns and who would strive to perfect the theoretical and practical contributions that we can make to current world education and to a global society articulated around the ideas of solidarity, professionalism and morality. The REEC adheres to a proven editorial policy that is detailed in the Regulations of this journal. Some of its noteworthy elements are the joint efforts carried out by authors, editors and reviewers in assuring the smooth workings of the REEC; the editorial practice of the double-blind peer review; and a rigorous publishing ethic designed to detect and root out any possible editorial misconduct.
Call for Papers Monograph: Assessment of teachers´teaching quality
Monograph: Assessment of teachers´teaching quality Coordinators: Carmen-María Fernández- García (Universidad de Oviedo) Mercedes Inda-Caro (Universidad de Oviedo) Ridwan Maulana (Universidad de Groningen) In the 21st century, education is unarguably a cornerstone in the idea of a prosperous, more equitable, developed society. Achieving quality education is therefore one of the sustainable development goals established by the United Nations in its 2030 Agenda. Many different agents are involved in the education process, and analysing the results students achieve through those processes is complex, as they are affected by numerous factors. There is no doubt that students’ backgrounds, as well as various individual and environmental elements, along with organizational elements related to their schools, must be considered in order to properly interpret their achievements, difficulties, and learning. Despite current teaching processes focusing on promoting student autonomy and using all kinds of technological resources, neither of these goals is achievable without well-trained, competent, engaged teachers. Therefore, the teacher remains, and will continue to be, a key player in the design of teaching-learning processes and in delivering teaching that allows all types of students to be included, as well as the person responsible for shaping didactically effective, stimulating teaching environments that ensure equality of opportunity, in collaboration with other professionals (Cochran-Smith, 2002; Kaplan & Owings, 2002). The role of teachers in facilitating student learning is increasingly vital, encompassing responsibilities both within and beyond the classroom (Maulana et al., 2023b). Focusing specifically on what happens in the classroom in all stages of the formal education system, we can say that teachers’ initial and ongoing training may be more or less adequate in terms of mastery of the competencies they need to properly plan their various subjects, control their classrooms, and analyse the relationships that arise in them. To be a good teacher, therefore, it is not enough to know the subject one is teaching, one must also master the strategies to ensure that knowledge reaches the students in the best way possible (Darling – Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Kaplan & Owings, 2002; Maulana et al., 2023a; Reoyo et al., 2017). Throughout their working lives, teachers may need help and support (Conway & Clark, 2003; Kini & Podolsky, 2016; Panayiotis et al., 2011; Verástegui et al., 2022), be that from specialists or from colleagues, with whom they can develop strategies to effectively cope with the challenges that they face every day in the classroom. Making the most realistic possible assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in teaching competence, not to punish but rather to educate, is an interesting way of providing this support to teachers and their professional development. It is also an interesting dimension to consider as a reference in teachers’ initial and continued training, providing them with a disciplinary background against which they can consider their own teaching practice. Various different models and instruments have attempted to identify the teaching dimensions, in various educational settings, that may serve as a basis for this professional development and for reflection and evaluation of teaching quality (Maulana et al., 2023a). However, there is no consensus about how best to do this assessment, nor about the most relevant procedures for evaluating teaching activity. Some cases have opted for quantitative approaches (checklists, various types of questionnaire), others more qualitative (observation, group discussion, self-analysis diaries); some have used students as informants, others have used the teachers’ own opinions, those of the educational authorities, or student results as a reference. It is also open to question whether the results of these evaluations should have any kind of impact on professional promotion, salary, or choice of teaching post in some education systems. Although these evaluation systems are commonly used in some contexts (e.g. the USA, Singapore), in Spain—at least outside the university system—it is hard to find systematic evaluation procedures formally undertaken by competent authorities or recognised educational organizations with the aim of assessing teaching quality and evaluating teachers. There is no doubt, however, that proper assessment of teaching quality along with provision of sufficient resources and support from the social and educational policy arena will allow improvement of teaching-learning processes and achievement of much-desired quality education for all. Hence, suggested questions for the monograph include: What transnational, international, national, and local policies are there in relation to assessing teaching quality? How do educational policies determine teaching effectiveness and quality? What impact can evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness have on improving modern education? What differences are there at international and intranational level in relation to the different models for assessing teaching quality and effectiveness? What dimensions of teaching activity are considered for assessing teaching quality and effectiveness? What other dimensions may be important that are not sufficiently included? What cultural and contextual variables allow us to understand the approach and effects of these different models for assessing teaching quality and effectiveness? Articles for this monograph may make overall or partial comparison of elements (or all) of teaching quality assessment between different countries (international comparison), within a single country (intranational comparison), or between groups of countries (supranational comparison) referring to any educational stage. Papers are also welcome that are based on a theoretical or epistemological perspective on the concept of evaluation of teaching quality itself, or the state of the subject from a local (initiatives undertaken by local or regional educational authorities), national (policies enacted by education ministries or departments), or international perspective (European Union, UNESCO, Organization of Ibero-American States, etc.). References Cochran- Smith, M. (2002). Reporting on teacher quality. The politics of politics. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 379 – 382. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224870223739 Conway, P.F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: a re – examination of Fuller’s concerns – based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education,19, 465-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00046-5. Darling – Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: a national supply policy for education: the right way to meet the ‘highly qualified teacher’ challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 33(11), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n33.2003 Kaplan, L.S., & Owings, W.A. (2002). The Politics of teacher quality: implications for principals. NASP Bulletin, 86(633), 22 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1177/01926365020866330 Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness? A review of research. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Teaching_Experience_Report_June_2016.pdf Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Klassen, R. (Eds.) (2023a). Effective teaching around the world: Theoretical, empirical, methodological and practical insights. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4 Maulana, R., Kington, A., & Ko, J. (2023b). Editorial: Effective teaching: Measurements, antecedents, correlates, characteristics, and links with outcomes. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1170854. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1170854 Panayiotis, A., Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. (2011). Investigating the effectiveness of a dynamic integrated approach to teacher professional development. CEPS Journal, 1, 13-41. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.439 Reoyo, N., Carbonero, M.A., & Martín, L.J. (2017). Características de eficacia docente desde las perspectivas dl profesorado y futuro profesorado de secundaria. Revista de Educación, 376, 62-86. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2017-376-344 Verástegui, M., Úbeda, J., & Manso, J. (2022). Una revisión sobre programas de observación de la práctica educativa. Cuadernos de Investigación Educativa, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.18861/ cied.2022.13.2.3244. Deadline for submission of contributions (articles): January 15, 2026 Publication date: July 2026
Call for Papers Monograph: Socially sustainable universities and human rights education: A necessary binomial to face the challenges of the 2030 agenda
SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE UNIVERSITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION: A NECESSARY BINOMIAL TO FACE THE CHALLENGES OF THE 2030 AGENDA Editors: Esther Prieto Jiménez (UPO); Guillermo Domínguez Fernández (Cátedra Iberoamericana de Educación en DDHH) On the verge of the last five years established by the United Nations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals set out in the 2030 Agenda, it seems clear that, as none of the 17 global goals to eradicate poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all people (UN, 2015) have been fully achieved since they were first formulated in 2015, it will be difficult to respond to all of them in this last 5 years. Undoubtedly, during this decade, the 2030 Agenda has been established as a framework of reference, understanding sustainability both as an individual and global commitment in which different dimensions converge: environmental protection, sustainable and balanced economic development which leads to achieve a social well-being, with a shared awareness and commitment, including people in the most vulnerable situations in order to achieve justice and a greater equity and quality of life for everyone. Therefore, sustainability relates to social challenges, taking into consideration that they can only be addressed through systemic changes in social regimes (Loorbach et al, 2017). Stefania Giannini, UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Education, highlights the importance of education as a fundamental tool to promote a worldwide sustainable development. She states that Education for Sustainable Development is crucial to help people understand the interconnection between global and local challenges; and to provide the necessary skills and knowledge to face these challenges effectively at all levels of education. Finally, she calls on all stakeholders, including governments, civil society and private sector to collaborate in building a more sustainable and fair future for everyone (UNESCO, 2020). In this context in which all institutions need to assume their responsibility for Sustainable Development, several authors highlight the importance of universities as key agents of change due to their capacity to produce and promulgate knowledge, foster innovation and development and promote social transformation through education and research (Mendoza, 2016; Alba, 2017; Bohne et al, 2019). As centres of knowledge and training for current and future generations, universities have the responsibility to inculcate civic values and practices, expanding, renewing and adapting their work. Thus, they must not remain at the margin of their commitment to society but rather assume a key role in the whole process of sustainable development. Therefore, there is a strategic relevance of the University as a key agent of change, as it is responsible for training leaders and educators and due to its repercussions and high impact on society (Galdós et al., 2020) as a commitment to the formation of democratic and sustainable people (Novo, 2017). In the post-pandemic era, it has become visible the challenge that universities face in terms of equity and educational inclusion, highlighting everything that still needs to be addressed in promoting, respecting and upholding Human Rights (Pedró, 2020; Jiménez y Romero, 2022; Azorín y Martínez, 2023). The challenge, therefore, is to analyse what role universities play, or should play, as institutions of higher education that contribute to sustainability, social cohesion and a culture of peace and respect for the human rights of every individual (Leal-Filho et al., 2020). The responsibility of universities towards social sustainability and vulnerability must go even further. It needs to focus on development that favours the environmental component, equitable in economic terms and guarantees the rights of people (Escámez y Péris, 2021). To this end, it seems essential to identify the foundations upon which social sustainability needs to be built: equal rights, social justice, social and cultural diversity and shared responsibility (Sanz et al., 2018). In this regard, the Regional Conference on Higher Education (CRES, 2018) entrusts universities with the establishment of a series of actions within the framework of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda, including: Expanding access to higher education for historically marginalised and vulnerable groups. Ensuring the quality and relevance of higher education by promoting research and social innovation. Internationalising higher education by fostering cooperation between universities in the region and the world. Training competent teachers and professionals committed to society and environment. Promoting inclusion and equity in higher education, eliminating social, cultural and economic barriers. Strengthening the autonomy and democratic governance of universities, encouraging social participation in their management. Contributing actively to sustainable development and resolving the major social, economic and environmental challenges in the region. This monograph emerges in this scenario and considering the strategic moment to carry out a process of self-criticism and define new common global challenges, as well as to respond the following questions, among others: What role do universities currently play in educating, advocating and fighting for Human Rights and Socially Sustainable Development? What inspiring practices are being developed in universities to respond to the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda in education, research and transfer? What are the new challenges that universities must face to become more socially sustainable entities and to attend people in situations of vulnerability in the framework of Human Rights? What cooperation or internationalisation policies are being developed in higher education to favour the common commitment to face global challenges? Are universities prepared to respond to the arising socio-educational challenges, having Human Rights and Sustainable Development as a reference? How can Comparative Education and Supranational Education be the best ally to face this common and global social challenges? References Alba, D. (2017). Hacia una fundamentación de la sostenibilidad en la educación superior. Revista iberoamericana de educación, 73, 15-34. Azorín, C.; Martínez, C. (2023). Educación inclusiva en tiempos de pandemia. Revista Complutense de Educación, 34(1), 57-69. Bohne, A.C.; Bruckmann, M.; Martínez, A. (2019). El desarrollo sustentable en las instituciones de educación superior: un verdadero desafío. Revista Digital Universitaria, 20(5), 1-10. Conferencia Regional de Educación Superior. (2018). Declaración Final de la III Conferencia Regional de Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe. https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/2019/02/20/declaracion-final-de-la-iii-conferencia-regional-de-educacion-superior-en-america-latina-y-el-caribe-cres-2018/ Escámez Sanzhez, J. & Péris Cancio, J.A. (2021). La universidad del siglo XXI y la sostenibilidad social. Valencia: Tirant. Galdós, M.A.; Ramírez, M. y Villalobos, P. (2020). El Rol de las Universidades en la Era de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Instituto de Innovación Basado en Ciencia: Talca-Chile, 1, 1-4. Jiménez J. y Romero G. D. L. Á. (2022). Evaluación de Riesgos Psicosociales en docentes de Educación Básica, Media y Superior en el contexto de la Pandemia SARS-Cov-2. Multidisciplinary Health Research, 7(1). Leal-Filho, W.; Manolas, E. & Pace, P. (2020). The role of universities in promoting sustainability and environmental education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119-125. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65820-9 Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual review of environment and resources, 42, 599-626. Mendoza, Y. (2016). Sistemas de evaluación de la sustentabilidad en las Instituciones de Educación Superior. CienciaUAT, 11(1), 65-78. Novo, M. (2017). La educación ambiental. Bases éticas, conceptuales y metodológicas. Madrid: Universitas. ONU-Organización de Naciones Unidas. (2015). Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio: Informe 2015. Nueva York: ONU. Pedró, F. (2020). COVID-19 y educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe: efectos, impactos y recomendaciones políticas. Análisis Carolina, 36(1), 1-15. Sanz, R., Peris, J.A. y Escámez,J. (2018). The capabilities approach and values of sustainability: Towards an inclusive Pedagogy. Journal of Innovation & Knowlege, 3(2), 76-81. UNESCO. (2020). Educación para el Desarrollo Sostenible: Hoja de ruta. París: UNESCO. ___________________________ Deadline: July 15, 2025 Publication date: January 2026
Call for papers: Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation of the Global EdTech Industry: Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation of the Global EdTech Industry
SPECIAL ISSUE: Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation of the Global EdTech Industry Guest Editor: Geo Saura (Universitat de Barcelona) At present, technoscientific acceleration of capital’s advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital transformation is expanding across educational systems worldwide. This expansion of AI and digital transformation is beginning to spread through most countries following the technosolutionism of the global Covid-19 pandemic crisis. Over the last five years, these capital-driven advancements aimed at extending AI and digital transformation in education have been steadily increasing due to global education policies. Most critical analyses in education frame the acceleration of AI and digital transformation through a wide variety of terms and conceptualizations to suggest that a “new capitalist system” is being experienced. Primarily, notions such as “platform capitalism”, “surveillance capitalism”, “Big Tech capitalism”, “uberization”, “techno-feudalism”, etc., are used to argue that a new form of capitalism is emerging. Additionally, there is a significant body of critical studies that argue the current acceleration of AI and digital transformation is part of a new capitalism that contributes to the development of what they call “post-digital societies”. Conversely, critical analyses are beginning to proliferate, arguing that the acceleration of AI and digital transformation does not confirm the existence of a “new capitalist system”. These analyses, focusing on broader dynamics of capital, contend that the advances of AI and digital transformation in education should be framed under the term “capitalism in its digital era” or simply understood as part of the metabolic development of “contemporary capitalism” itself. However, regardless of the conceptualizations and terms used to examine capital advances concerning AI’s expansion and digital transformation in education, all critical studies agree on demonstrating significant analytical variations for research in education. These variations necessitate the updating of methods, conceptualizations, and analytical procedures in the interconnected fields of education policy, comparative education, and global studies in education. The notion of “Global EdTech Industry” constitutes an analytical category that structures some of the most significant elements for addressing a substantial part of the contemporary variations aimed at examining the capital advances concerning the AI’s acceleration and digital transformation in education. Seven elements that comprise the Global EdTech Industry are identified and described: digital commodities, policy actors, digital educational reforms, ideology, capital accumulation, digital governance, andactions in educational institutions. The description of these seven elements serves two main functions. The first function is to define each of the elements to understand what is encompassed by the Global EdTech Industry through their collective sum. The second function is to present conceptual and analytical arguments to update critical analyses in education policy, comparative education, and global education studies. Digital Commodities and Private Technologies of the Global EdTech Industry Digital platforms, cloud computing systems, software, hardware, apps, and all digital tools and technologies aimed at expanding AI, digitalization, datafication, Virtual Reality, the Metaverse are digital commodities and private digital technologies of the Global EdTech Industry. Currently, only tools and technologies from the private sector are proliferating across public educational systems. For this reason, it is an analytical error to refer to all these advancements in contemporary capitalism with common aseptic terms that attempt to depoliticize their materiality such as “EdTech”, “ICT” or “technological innovations”. Critical studies must emphasize their private nature; hence the need to refer to all these advancements in contemporary capitalism as “digital commodities” and “private digital technologies”. Policy Actors of the Global EdTech Industry Big Tech, Big EdTech, startups, EdTech unicorns, philanthropic foundations, international and supranational organizations, financial entities, philanthrocapitalism, venture capital, investment funds, and intelligent platforms in financial markets are some of the main policy actors in the Global EdTech Industry. It is essential to pay attention to both new and traditional policy actors that are central to the expansion of digital commodities for the incorporation of AI and digital transformation, as well as their role in shaping and designing of new educational reforms. Digital Educational Reforms of the Global EdTech Industry In most countries, new pro-privatization educational reforms are being orchestrated with the aim of transforming public educational systems through the incorporation of AI and digital transformation. This is generating a new global movement of Digital Educational Reforms (DER). This situation compels critical studies in education policy, comparative education, and global studies in education to update the more analogical analytical elements that have focused their attention on significant debates through the study of categories such as the Global Education Reform Movement and the dynamics of endoprivatization and exoprivatization. Ideology of the Global EdTech Industry The acceleration of digital commodities and private digital technologies to expand AI and digital transformation in DER materializes through sociotechnical imaginaries that are ideological in nature, as they obscure their true social relationships. These sociotechnical imaginaries are related to the configuration and design of technoscientific policies for AI and digital transformation. These sociotechnical imaginaries materialized to envision and project the future of education. Analyses of discourses, regulations, and policies must adhere to the study of sociotechnical imaginaries in education to examine the new ideological configuration regarding AI and transformation that are orchestrating the present and future of education. New Forms of Digital Governance of the Global EdTech Industry To expand the acceleration of AI and digital transformation within the global movement of DER, new forms of governance are emerging that interrelate public and private policy actors of the Global EdTech Industry. States act as a social relationship in which hybridization between public and private sectors manifest through terms such as “digital governance”, “policy networks”, or “digital governance of policy networks”. This compels global and comparative studies to update contemporary analyses of the State, democracy, public-private partnerships, policy networks, etc. Capital Accumulation and Economic Profit of the Global EdTech Industry Significant advancements are currently occurring regarding privatization, commercialization, private profit, and financialization in public educational systems due to the preeminence of the expansion of digital commodities and technologies aimed at accelerating AI and digital transformation. There is a capital increase in the private sector driven by product/commodity relationships, processes of primitive accumulation, and new dynamics of fictitious capital within the Global EdTech Industry. Critical analyses in education must provide new methods for analyzing economic data that demonstrate the capital expansion surrounding the integration of AI and digital transformation in global education policy. Global EdTech Industry within Educational Institutions New forms of digital privatization of education are being developed in schools and universities that alter teaching roles, management, teaching and learning processes, social relationships among teachers, relationships between teachers and families, and new processes for monitoring teaching work and student learning. Augmented bureaucracy, accountability, monitoring systems, datafication, assessments, quasi-digital markets, and control mechanisms through the implementation of digital commodities to facilitate teaching and learning processes surrounding AI and digital transformation, are some of the most representative variations of the actions of the Global EdTech Industry within educational institutions. This special issue of the REEC calls for a range of critical articles interested in analyzing the advances of contemporary capitalism in its digital era through the acceleration of AI and digital transformation within the Global EdTech Industry. This special issue welcomes conceptual, methodological, and empirical articles that can provide relevant contributions to analyses in education policy, comparative education, and global studies in education. Below are some possible topics: - Policy actors of the Global Edtech Industry in the acceleration of AI and digital transformation in global education policy (Big Tech, Big EdTech, Startups, EdTech unicorns, philanthropic foundations, international and supranational organizations, financial entities, philanthropic capitalists, venture capitalism, investment funds, financial market platforms, among others). - Privatization of education and the advances of contemporary capitalism in its digital era (e.g., but not exclusively: digital capitalism, platform capitalism, surveillance capitalism, uberization, and techno-feudalism). - Ideology and education in the technoscientific acceleration of contemporary capitalism regarding AI and digital transformation in education (sociotechnical imaginaries, technosolutionism, digital commodities fetishism, etc.). - Digital governance (the role of the state, governance, democracy, relations of power and policy networks of digital governance concerning the technoscientific acceleration AI ai and digital transformation in specific educational systems). - Edtech financialization in contemporary capitalism (fictitious capital, financial investments, assets, assetization, capitalization, and the economic profit of digital commodities and private digital technologies). - New dynamics of digital privatization in teaching work (augmented bureaucracy, accountability, assessments, digital platforms, datafication, monitoring, managerialism, and the role of teachers with digital commodities, AI and the Metaverse, etc.). - The history of AI and digital transformation, cybernetics, and pedagogical thought. - Digital sovereignty and new forms of resistance against the advances of capitalism within public educational systems. - November 15, 2024: Deadline for the submission of extended abstracts. Submission of title, abstract (250-500 words), references (not limited), and biographies (100-150 words) to geosaura@ub.edu. - November 25, 2024: Editor feedback on the extended abstract. - May 15, 2025: Deadline for the submission of full manuscripts in accordance with the Author Guidelines (https://revistas.uned.es/index.php/REEC/about/submissions). - June 15, 2025: Manuscript reviews. - Language: Spanish, English, Portuguese, and French.
EXPERIENCIAS INTERNACIONALES DE PROFESIONALIZACIÓN DOCENTE
Próximo Monográfico (Número 47) de la Revista Española de Educación Comparada sobre EXPERIENCIAS INTERNACIONALES DE PROFESIONALIZACIÓN DOCENTE Coordinadora del Monográfico: Dra. Inmaculada Egido Gálvez (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) ¿Es la docencia una profesión? Esta pregunta, sencilla en apariencia, ha sido objeto de múltiples debates desde hace tiempo, ya que admite respuestas diferentes en función de la perspectiva desde la que nos aproximemos a ella. Desde el punto de vista legal, en varios países, como es el caso de España, la enseñanza es una profesión y además una profesión regulada, lo que supone que sus condiciones de acceso y ejercicio están sujetas a una serie de normas y requisitos establecidos por la autoridad competente. Sin embargo, desde el enfoque de la sociología, se ha puesto de manifiesto reiteradamente que la enseñanza no puede ser considerada una profesión en el sentido estricto del término, sino que, a lo sumo, se trataría de una semiprofesión, ya que comparte algunos de los rasgos característicos de las profesiones, pero no otros (Ingerson y Collins, 2018). Aunque no contamos, por tanto, con un consenso de partida acerca del estatus profesional de la enseñanza, en los últimos años es posible detectar un acuerdo generalizado en la necesidad de avanzar hacia la profesionalización de la docencia, partiendo del supuesto de que se trata de la palanca esencial para la mejora de los sistemas educativos. De hecho, son muchos los países en todo el mundo que han emprendido proyectos y reformas destinadas a la “profesionalización docente”. Así, entre otras medidas, un buen número de sistemas han elevado la duración y el nivel formativo de la formación inicial, han aumentado las cualificaciones exigidas para la enseñanza o han introducido estándares profesionales para fomentar la profesionalidad del profesorado (European Commission, 2021). No obstante, un análisis detenido de los cambios a este respecto pone de manifiesto la existencia de contradicciones con otras medidas que también se han adoptado en diversos sistemas, como la exención de la exigencia de titulaciones específicas para ejercer la profesión o las rutas aceleradas de acceso a la misma. Siguiendo la tónica generalizada en las políticas educativas de nuestros días, los Organismos Internacionales se han hecho eco de la temática de la profesionalización docente, incentivando las reformas a este respecto y difundiendo su necesidad a través de un gran número de informes y recomendaciones que enfatizan la importancia de contar con un cuerpo profesional de enseñantes. Por citar únicamente algunas de las iniciativas relevantes más recientes, Naciones Unidas creó en 2022 el Grupo de Alto Nivel sobre la Profesión Docente, con la misión de elaborar un plan de acción claro para apoyar y transformar la docencia como profesión, alertando de que los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible están en peligro si no se aborda esta tarea. El informe que este grupo dio a conocer a los gobiernos es un llamamiento a la acción y recoge un conjunto de recomendaciones que deben ser aplicadas “para transformar la fuerza de trabajo docente en una profesión que goce de gran reconocimiento, altamente calificada, firmemente apoyada, debidamente remunerada y sumamente respetada” (Grupo de Alto Nivel sobre la Profesión Docente del Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas, 2024: 3). Por su parte, la OCDE, a través del CERI (Centro para la Investigación e Innovación Educativa), se ha embarcado desde el año 2020 en el proyecto Nuevo Profesionalismo y Futuro de la Enseñanza. El punto de partida de este proyecto es la creciente evidencia empírica que pone de relieve la importancia de contar con un profesorado de alta calidad y el hecho de que, a pesar de ella, aún quedan cuestiones cruciales por resolver en torno a la profesión docente. La misión de este proyecto es anticipar las necesidades futuras de la enseñanza, reforzar la identidad profesional del profesorado y apoyar la elaboración de políticas docentes proactivas. Para la OCDE existen argumentos sólidos para considerar la docencia como una profesión de pleno derecho, cuyo pilar es el conocimiento pedagógico del profesor (Ulferts, 2021). Estas dos iniciativas bastan para aproximarse a la relevancia que ambos Organismos Internacionales otorgan a la profesionalización del profesorado y para comprobar, indirectamente, que, al igual que en las reformas realizadas en la mayor parte de los países, se asume el hecho de que la docencia no ha completado su proceso de profesionalización, pero sería necesario que lo hiciera. Para ello, una estrategia a la que se alude con frecuencia, aunque no exenta de debate, es tomar el ejemplo del desarrollo de otros campos profesionales, especialmente la medicina (Egido, 2021). En todo caso, queda patente que la profesionalización de la docencia es un concepto mucho más amplio que la formación inicial o continua del profesorado, a la que esta revista dedicó un reciente número monográfico. Aunque la formación es muy importante, la profesionalización afecta también a dimensiones tan decisivas como los sistemas de acceso a la profesión, la responsabilidad y la autonomía en el trabajo, las políticas salariales, el prestigio percibido y la posición social de la profesión, por solo citar algunas de ellas. El marco para conceptualizar la profesionalización docente a partir de la revisión de la literatura abarca aspectos relativos a los dominios cognitivo, ético, social y legal, junto a factores de carácter contextual. En la práctica, al igual que en otras profesiones, el significado del concepto de profesionalización docente es dinámico y está ligado a los diferentes contextos sociales, históricos y políticos. Por este motivo, la investigación comparada sobre políticas de profesionalización docente resulta necesaria para comprender las diferencias transnacionales en la forma en que los distintos países interpretan los mensajes globales, identifican los problemas y desarrollan e implementan las reformas El enfoque comparado, que toma en cuenta cómo difieren las creencias, percepciones y conocimientos previos de diferentes entornos nacionales, regionales o locales, permite también apreciar las divergencias y las tensiones que existen bajo el aparente consenso global en la idea de profesionalización (Akiba, 2017). Este monográfico plantea abordar la profesionalización docente desde enfoques comparados que superen la temática de la formación inicial e invita a presentar artículos que aborden cuestiones como las siguientes: Desarrollo de los procesos de profesionalización docente en diferentes países o regiones del mundo. Reformas, contrarreformas y controversias en torno a los procesos de profesionalización de la docencia Análisis secundarios de bases de datos de estudios internacionales que puedan ampliar el conocimiento sobre esta temática Análisis de informes, recomendaciones y proyectos de Organismos Internacionales sobre la profesionalización docente Estudios comparados sobre prácticas, propuestas, debates y tensiones en torno a la profesionalización del profesorado en distintos contextos Fecha límite de recepción de trabajos: enero 2025 Publicación del Monográfico: julio 2025 Referencias Akiba, M. (2017). Understanding Cross-National Differences in Globalized Teacher Reforms. Educational Researcher, 46(4), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17711908 Egido, I. (2021). Los modelos médicos aplicados al profesorado: la propuesta del «MIR educativo» a la luz de las experiencias internacionales de iniciación a la profesión docente. Revista de Educación, 393, 207-229. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2021-393-491 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2021). Teachers in Europe: Careers, Development and Well-being. Eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2797/997402 Grupo de Alto Nivel sobre la Profesión Docente del Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas (2024). Transformar la profesión docente: Recomendaciones y resumen de las deliberaciones. Ginebra: Organización Internacional del Trabajo. https://www.ilo.org/es/publications/grupo-de-alto-nivel-sobre-la-profesion-docente-del-secretario-general-de Ingersoll, R.M. y Collins, G.J. (2018). The Status of Teaching as a Profession. En J. Ballantine, J. Spade y J. Stuber (eds.). Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education (pp. 199-213) 6th ed. CA: Pine Forge Press/Sage Publications. Ulferts, H. (ed.) (2021). Teaching as a Knowledge Profession: Studying Pedagogical Knowledge across Education Systems, OCDE Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/e823ef6e-en
Call for papers: Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation of the Global EdTech Industry: COMPARATIVE EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL VIEWS IN POSTMODERN TIMES
Call for papers: Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation of the Global EdTech Industry: Gender equality policies in higher education: Atlantic and african universities
Gender equality policies in higher education: Atlantic and african universities Editors: Inmaculada González Pérez (University of La Laguna), Carmen Ascanio Sánchez (University of La Laguna) and Sara García Cuesta (University of Valladolid) Call for papers Since the 1970s, international organisations have been working towards gender equality, as exemplified by the entry into force of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (1981) and the rise in equal opportunities policies since the adoption of the UN Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action(1995). These policies have also gained prominence in the field of education, as currently worldwide: “general or inclusive education laws under education ministry responsibility focus on people with disabilities in 79% of countries, linguistic minorities in 60%, gender equality in 50% and ethnic and indigenous groups in 49%” (UNESCO, 2020: 30). This clearly points to the increasing commitments of countries to gender equality in education, and to the commitment of states to meet Sustainable Development Goal 4 “Quality Education” and SDG 5 “Gender Equality”. Although there is consensus on achieving this goal, the fact is that the gender equality policies in education have a marked political focus that separates or distinguishes the international organisations that promote them. For example, the World Bank “… attaches great importance to women being productive and contributing their labour and skills to the economic well-being of the country, such that education becomes a powerful tool for increasing both women’s income and productivity” (Martínez, 2015: 65). The UNDP, a staunch defender of Human Development, proposes a “multi-faceted” education, where economy, participation and non-violence go hand in hand, requiring strong investment and commitment from states. The Gender Equality and Development (GED) approach, espoused by UNESCO, argues for the need to work with both men and women. It differs from the first approach by seeking to “generate human, social and sustainable development that is built by all, men and women, all with the same capacities, motivations, needs and fulfilment thereof” (Martínez, 2015: 65). From a more political and participatory perspective, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) pursues initiatives in five priority areas: 1) increasing women’s leadership and participation; 2) ending violence against women; 3) involving women in all aspects of peace and security processes; 4) enhancing women’s economic empowerment; and 5) making gender equality central to national development planning and budgeting (UNIFEM, 2021). These policy proposals, diverse in principle, are reflected in the practices implemented by states within their borders, which have produced mixed results. Thus, at the global level, there has been progress towards parity in overall gross enrolment rates, especially since the 1990s. But the same has not been true for completion rates at each stage, with huge disparities both by region and by country. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, improved primary completion rates have not brought parity, while in Northern Africa, progress in lower secondary completion rates has been eroded by the recent conflicts in this part of the world (GEM, 2021). Shifting the focus to higher education, female enrolment worldwide has tripled since 1995. In many countries, women are more likely to complete tertiary education than men (OECD, 2020), although in other areas parity has not been achieved. “In all regions except Central and Southern Asia that has achieved parity and in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 73 female students are enrolled for every 100 men, women are actually overrepresented at this level. This progress is commendable from a human rights, social justice and economic perspective, but the advantage stops there” (IESALC/UNESCO, 2021: 6). However, women are still under-represented in a significant number of countries. This is even more pronounced if we break it down by subject area: in more than 120 countries, the percentage of female students in higher education in engineering, manufacturing and construction or information and communication technology (ICT) is only 25 %. Women are also under-represented in mathematics. At postgraduate levels, the presence of women decreases: in all regions of the world except for Central Asia, women represent a lower proportion of master’s and doctoral students than of bachelor students (IESALC/UNESCO, 2021). This highlights the persistence of social roles that extend beyond the university sphere. Inequalities are also very noticeable in the field of teaching and research: “Women are under-represented as senior faculty and in higher education decision-making bodies in many countries, a signal of institutional cultures that are not inclusive or not geared towards broader social and cultural change for greater gender equality. Conventional faculty recruitment processes that reward linear, full-time, uninterrupted academic trajectories contribute to women’s under-representation in senior academia, even when they outnumber men as students. Women are more likely to be disadvantaged by norms that fail to recognize competing commitments, such as care responsibilities” (UNESCO, 2020:266). In 2018, women accounted for 43 % of teaching staff in tertiary education, compared to 66 % and 54 % in primary and secondary education, respectively. Other variables related to academic careers follow similar parameters: globally, only 30% of researchers are women (UNESCO, 2019b) and during the period 2014-2018, 62% of those who published in impact journals were men compared to 38% for women (IESALC/UNESCO, 2021). Inequalities are even reflected in the order of authorship (33.1 % of first authorships held by women). This has major repercussions in higher education, as this position in the authorship list is relevant not only for aspects related to the content of the article, but also for professional prestige, career status and eligibility for research funding (Bendels et al., 2018). Another relevant issue that requires immediate responses from rectors’ offices and other members of the academic community is violence against women on campus, where sexual harassment and assault is present in all regions of the world. Various instruments are being put in place to combat this issue, under the umbrella of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1994). However, they remain particularly scarce in low- and middle-income countries (UN Women, 2019). Recent interest focuses on violence against LGTBI people in higher education, providing insightful analysis (Scarpino and Johnson, 2021). All of the aforementioned inequalities have been exacerbated by the global pandemic. But while the impact has been global, studies show that Africa is the continent where the impact on research, teaching and management has been greatest (Marinoni, Van’t Land and Jensen, 2021), particularly because of difficulties in accessing technology and mobility. The gender perspective is not always apparent in these recent studies, but when it is the focus of attention, there is evidence of differential outcomes for women and men (Bugan, 2020; Czerniewicz, et al., 2020; IESAL/UNESCO, 2021). Overall, the negative effects on students, especially female students, in terms of enrolment, mobility, dropout rates, academic performance, etc., are evident. Many students have had to take care of children at home and do more housework, leaving them with little time to study. More importantly, there has been an increase in domestic violence worldwide, which has undoubtedly affected academic performance. For teachers, it has meant an increase in teaching commitments, as they have had to face the challenge of teaching face-to-face and/or online classes, depending on each circumstance. And as for research activity, it has led to the cancellation of countless international trips and the cancellation and postponement of congresses and scientific meetings. The impact has been greater on female researchers, as their research outputs declined significantly during lockdown, in contrast to the situation for male researchers (Marioni et al., 2020). In short, female researchers have suffered more than their male colleagues from the burdens caused by the closure of schools and elderly care facilities and the lack of support in household chores, inter alia. This special issue therefore seeks to publish research papers that address gender inequalities in the field of higher education. Proposals on equality policies currently being implemented in Atlantic and African universities will be particularly welcome, with a view to exploring and seeking answers to questions such as: what research experiences have been developed in different contexts around the world; what kind of methodologies have been applied; what participatory processes have been carried out; what kind of measures or policies have been implemented; what analysis has been carried out on issues such as work-life balance and sexual and sexist harassment; are there styles of university governance that influence equality policies beyond political discourse; have similarities and/or differences been identified depending on cultural, religious, economic, etc. contexts; have there been local experiences that have strengthened the role of universities in specific geographical contexts; what is the relationship between the development of equality policies in universities and democratic governance and the development of public policies in the states concerned? All these questions prompt an interest in learning about perspectives, approaches and research that have addressed these issues. We therefore encourage you to contribute your work to this monograph. References Bendels, Michael et al. (2018). “Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals”. PLoS ONE, 13(1). Retrieved 13 July 2023 from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136. Bugan, Daniel. “New Study Probes COVID-19 Impact on Women.” Stellenbosch University, 30 September 2020. Retrieved 13 July 2023 from http://www.sun.ac.za/english/Lists/news/DispForm.aspx?ID=7711. Czernowitz, Laura y et al. “A Wake-Up Call: Equity, Inequality and Covid-19 Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning.” Postdigital Science and Education, 23 September 2020, 1–22. Retrieved 13 July 2023 from https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020- 00187-4. GEM. (2021). #HerEducationOurFuture. Released at the 2021 Generation Equality Forum. An unfulfilled promise: 12 years of education for every girl. UNESCO DOC Biblioteca Digital. Retrieved 13 July 2023 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377997/PDF/377997eng.pdf.multi IESALC/UNESCO. (2021). IESALC/UNESCO (8 March 2021). Mujeres en la educación superior: ¿la ventaja femenina ha puesto fin a las desigualdades de género? Retrieved 10 July 2023 from https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Las-mujeres-en-la-educacio%CC%81n-superior_12-03-21.pdf Marinoni, Giorgio, Hilligje van’t Land and Trine Jensen. “The Impact of COVID-19 On Higher Education Around The World. International Association of Universities”, May 2020. Retrieved 13 July 2023 from https://www.iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau_covid19_ and_he_survey_report_final_may_2020.pdf. Martínez Usarralde, María Jesús. (2015). Equidad de género en las agendas supranacionales. evidencias educativas desde una lectura comparada. Revista BORDÓN, volumen 67. Nº 1. Retrieved 13 July 2023 from https://roderic.uv.es/bitstream/handle/10550/53935/100862.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y OCDE (OECD). (2020). Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators. OECD: Paris. Retrieved 13 July 2023 fromhttps://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en. ONU Mujeres. (2019). El progreso de las mujeres en el mundo 2019-2020. Familias en un mundo cambiante. Estados Unidos, ONU. Retrieved 13 July 2023 from https://www.refworld.org.es/pdfid/5d127c654.pdf Scarpino, Pascual and Maria Cecilia Johnson, (2021). “El lugar que nos venimos ganando: Narrativas y resistencias contra las violencias homo-lesbo-trans-bi/odiantes en la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina”. Revista de Investigaciones Feministas 12 (2), 413-424. UNESCO. (2019). Informe de seguimiento de la educación en el mundo 2019. Informe sobre género. Construyendo puentes para la igualdad de género. Digital Library: UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report. Retrieved 13 July 2023 from https://es.unesco.org/gem-report/node/2829 UNESCO. (2020). Informe de seguimiento de la educación en el mundo, 2020. Inclusión y educación - todos y todas sin excepción. Digital Library: UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report. Retrieved 13 July 2023 from https://es.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/inclusion UNIFEM (2021). Áreas prioritarias. Retrieved 13 July 2023 from https://ecuador.unwomen.org/es/conozcanos/acerca-de-onu-mujeres
Call for papers: Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation of the Global EdTech Industry: THE GLOBAL DIMENSIONS IN THE PROCESSES OF TRAINING AND PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE TEACHING FUNCTION. TOWARDS "REGIONAL" MODELS AND PROGRAMS FOR THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF TEACHERS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
Call for papers: Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation of the Global EdTech Industry: POSTCOLONIALISM AND EDUCATION
MONOGRÁFICO NÚMERO 43. POSTCOLONIALISMO Y EDUCACIÓN Coordinadores del monográfico: Dr.Gustavo Fishman y Dra. Iveta Silova. Universidad Estatal de Arizona The last several decades have seen a resurgence of academic engagement with decolonial, postcolonial, anti-colonial, and southern theory scholarship as an intellectual resource to confront the persisting colonial legacies in education (Pashby, da Costa, Stein & Andreotti, 2021; Silova, Rappleye, & You, 2020; Takayama, Sriprakash, & Connell, 2017; Takayama, Heimans, & Vegneskumar, 2016; Connell, 2007; Walsh et. al 2018; Muller & Ferreira, 2018). These academic efforts have made invaluable contributions to extending and deepening our understanding of colonialism not as “a monolithic structure with roots exclusively in historical bad action,” but rather as a set of contemporary and evolving ontological, epistemic, and land relations that are often maintained “by good intentions and even good deeds” (Liborion, 2021, p. 7). We situate this special issue within these ongoing theoretical exchanges and intellectual movements, calling for a continued collective (re)rethinking of the role of education - despite all of its good intentions and deeds - in reproducing the logic of coloniality and thus contributing to multiple, intersecting crises we currently face: structural inequality and injustice, institutionalized racism and patriarchy, accelerating climate crisis and ongoing threat of species extinction, among many others. Driven by the logic of modernity/coloniality, education is directly implicated in these crises. From competitive education league tables and global ranking exercises to education transfer of ‘best’ policies and practices, much of comparative education research has served to justify the Western modernist notions of progress and development, while displacing and sometimes purposefully erasing alternative worlds and worldviews. Today, schools and universities (especially in Western cultures) remain deeply rooted in the ideals of Western Enlightenment, perpetuating the logic of human exceptionalism and (neo)liberal individualism, while justifying the hierarchical order of being: White people of European descent over all people of color, men over women, perceived able bodies over disabled, and on and on (Martusewicz, 2018). Ultimately, the same logic of human exceptionalism sets apart all humans as superior to other living and non-living beings, justifying exploitation of nature by humans and threatening lives of everyone, everywhere. This special issue serves as a challenge to reexamine our current preoccupation with global education trends – student achievement tests, competitive education league tables, global ranking exercises, and “best practices” – and rearticulate our research agendas in more relational, ecologically attuned, and geopolitically equitable ways. Given that even some of the most critical scholarship runs the risk of reproducing colonial relationships (e.g., by privileging contributions from English-speaking and/or Western-based academics rather than engaging with the plurality of knowledges beyond dominant languages and academic traditions), this multilingual special issue will welcome articles in Spanish, Portuguese and English that will address the following: How should education respond to a world of shifting planetary boundaries, collapsing ecosystems, and deepening inequalities? How might we learn from this uncertain time to construct new comparative genres that extend beyond mere reruns of Western metaphysics? What education policies, practices, and pedagogies can help to advance for more equitable and sustainable relationships in the relational flow of life where everyone and everything – both human and non-human – are deeply interconnected? How can de- and anti-colonial scholarship be practiced in ways that enact more ethical modes of being in the world? Who benefits and who is punished by the colonial entanglements of knowledge production in comparative education? How can the professionals and scholars in the field generate more sustainable (trans)local research practices that act as epistemic disobedience against colonialism?
Call for papers: Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation of the Global EdTech Industry: POST COLONIALISM AND EDUCATION
Call for papers: Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation of the Global EdTech Industry: The Global Education Industry: Comparative Education Analyses
Monographic Coordinators: Antoni Verger (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona); Clara Fontdevila (University of Glasgow) y Mauro Moschetti (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) The participation of the private sector in education manifests itself in numerous ways and springs from diverse causes. Private schooling is the most well-established manifestation of the education privatization phenomenon, but it is far from being the most widespread or the most profitable. In the last decades, new forms of privatization, commercialization, and profit-making in education have emerged and spread. Originally coined by James Tooley (1999) to describe private education provision in developing countries, the concept of the "global education industry" (GEI) has more recently gained salience as a way to capture and make sense of a phenomenon that goes well beyond private schooling (Verger, Lubienski, & Steiner-Khamsi 2016; do Amaral, Steiner-Khamsi, & Thompson 2019). The education industry has expanded rapidly, both territorially and economically, in recent years. Investment advisors, such as GSV-Advisors and HolonIQ, calculated that the value of the global education market was $6.5 (USD) trillion in 2020 and that this would reach $10 trillion by 2030. Numerous product trends, innovations, rebranding, mergers and acquisitions between companies make the GEI a booming sector. However, the GEI has not only experienced a quantitative evolution but has also undergone a qualitative change. The evolution of the internet and teaching and learning technologies have widely facilitated the cross-border supply and the transnational nature of many GEI services. The GEI is thus a dynamic and rapidly changing sector, with an increasingly rich and heterogeneous portfolio of activities. The range of goods and services covered by GEI has only become more diverse with the passage of time – it includes now hardware, on-line e-learning and teaching platforms, analog and digital educational materials, test preparation and certification services, school/university management services, education-specific ERP and CRM software, learning analytics, edu-marketing services, students' recruitment services, private tutoring and supplemental education services, behavioral management applications, teacher training programs, school improvement and consultancy services, among many other. The GEI has also expanded its outreach, which has come to cover early childhood education and care, basic education, upper secondary, TVET, higher and continuing education, and non-formal education. Adding a further layer of complexity, the organizational profile of GEI is also notoriously diverse. As noted by Verger, Lubienski and Steiner-Khamsi (2016), the GEI field encompasses a wide range of edu-businesses in all shapes and sizes, from private school chains to consultancy firms and large education conglomerates. A process of hybridization between the public and corporate sectors has also been documented (Srivastava & Read, 2019), and there is evidence that a growing share of public schools and universities operate with a commercial rationale oriented at maximizing the the profitability of their investments (Thompson & Parreira do Amaral, 2019). The EdTech industry is without a doubt the faction of the GEI that has expanded further in the last years, and that with better growth prospects.[1] Technological giants such as Google, Apple, Windows, and Facebook have promoted their educational divisions and products at a global scale, but in some regions face competition from less well-known tech companies such as Tencent and Alibaba, both based in China. At the same time, better established and more conventional edu-businesses such as Pearson or McGraw Hill are also moving toward digital education. As part of their business strategies, many of these big companies are acquiring numerous startups and other small businesses in the sector (Bolea, 2020). Particularly since the boom of EdTech start-ups, market hierarchies within the GEI appear thus to become more complex and continue to evolve in unpredictable ways. Also, the irruption of EdTech has entailed the consolidation of new and intricate business models that are not always easy to decipher. An example of this are the personalized learning platforms, which allow for tailored instruction informed by assessment tools and related algorithms. In some cases, companies offering these products turn a profit by selling users’ data to third parties, or through advertising (Hogan, Sellar, & Lingard, 2016; Williamson & Hogan, 2020). As many have observed, the current salience enjoyed by EdTech and the GEI in general owes much to the massive school closures and general disruption triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, which have forced the adoption of online learning and other technology-focused crisis responses in numerous educational settings (Williamson & Hogan, 2020). Nonetheless, and while the COVID-19 crisis has proven a turning point, it needs to be understood as part of a broader trend that came from many years before the pandemic (Grek & Landri, 2021). These include economic factors, such as financial globalization and the growth of market forces (Verger et al., 2016), but also political factors that have turned many education systems into ‘business friendly’ environments conducive to the flourishing of GEI. Several advocacy networks including edu-businesses. philanthropic organizations and policy entrepreneurs, are very active in supporting the expansion of different factions of the GEI, the business strategy of specific corporations or, more broadly speaking, market-oriented reforms (Au & Lubienski 2016; Fontdevila, Verger & Avelar 2019). The expansion of the GEI reflects also broader contemporary trends in education – including increasing performance pressures for educational institutions and students; the datafication of educational governance; the integration of information and communication technologies for learning and assessment with instructional improvement strategies; or the increasing educational demand in most developing economies. Finally, the GEI has also benefited from rapid technological change, which constantly requires the re-skilling and up-skilling of the labor force. The emergence of the GEI has generated important educational debates. Those in favor of strengthening the participation of private interests in education see advantages to the rise of the GEI, such as educational expansion at a lower cost, the promotion of innovation in education and the possibility of individualizing education. On-line learning platforms are expected to contribute to bring supplementary education to socially disadvantaged households cost-efficiently, or support students with learning or sensorial disabilities. Especially in developing countries, EdTech solutions are increasingly seen as a cost-effective way to promote individualized learning in contexts where high student-teacher ratios prevail (Rodríguez-Segura, 2021). There are also those that consider EdTech solutions as a tool to hold teachers accountable and strengthen the control of educational delivery (Adelman et al., 2015). Conversely, other scholars consider that the professional autonomy of teachers could be undermined by the prescriptive and algorithm-based learning materials of the EdTech industry (Williamson & Hogan, 2020). Behind the apparent educational innovation associated with ICT products and learning platforms, strongly standardized pedagogical proposals and old-world behaviorist logics are frequently hidden. Critiques often refer to the challenges triggered by the emergence of the GEI in terms of democracy and accountability. To them, an increasing participation of large transnational corporations in the governance and delivery of education could entail the undermining of democratic control of public education, and runs the risk of subverting the orientation of education as a public good (Komljenovic & Robertson, 2016). Finally, there are those that highlight the data ownership and privacy issues of the GEI products, especially when teaching, learning or assessment services collect users’ data massively and do not provide sufficient data protection guarantees. Part of these data might be highly sensitive and violate students’ privacy by, for instance, allowing their surveillance, harming their reputation, or being used for predictive sorting purposes (Nemorin, 2017; Wyatt-Smith, Lingard, & Heck 2019). With this complex and unpredictable scenario in mind, this special issue will welcome research papers that address the phenomenon of the Global Education Industry from multiple angles. We will particularly welcome submissions that address the following topics and questions: The emergence and recontextualization of the GEI in specific territories: How does GEI’s penetration and manifestation vary across different world regions, education regulatory regimes or state-market complexes? How do the drivers or enabling factors behind the expansion of GEI differ? Unpacking the GEI landscape: How is the GEI structured and how has its composition and structure evolved over recent years? What are the new and changing patterns of cooperation, competition, hierarchization and hybridization with the public sector? In-depth analysis of specific GEI segments (such as EdTech, textbook publishers, school improvement products and services, assessment and certification industry, private tutoring), educational levels, or prominent or emerging players. Analyzing COVID-19 as a facilitator of GEI: Which has been the impact of the pandemic in the outreach of GEI, and its entrenchment with national education systems (especially in relation to processes of educational digitalization, but not only)? And, how has GEI itself been transformed/re-structured by the pandemic? (e.g., emergence of new players, change in market position, product portfolio diversification) The policy role of GEI actors, networks, and coalitions: How have GEI actors become influential in the formal and informal political and policy making spheres? Which influence and advocacy strategies do they deploy and to what end? Analyzing the effects of GEI penetration in terms of education quality and equity: Which are the impacts of GEI products in terms of segmentation, social stratification of schools and educational inequalities? Under which circumstances, and for whom, is the expansion of the GEI, including new forms of digitalized teaching and learning, more likely to translate into increased education quality or enhanced learning experience? Implications of the GEI in terms of teacher professional autonomy, democratic governance, and data privacy: How are schools, teachers and students coping with the GEI? Governance, regulation and monitoring strategies; “publification” and partnership attempts: How are governments coping with the GEI? Important dates: You have time to submit your 200-words abstract until February 21 2022. Abstracts can be written in Spanish, English, or Portuguese. A decision on accepted papers will be communicated to authors on March 1st 2022. Full papers (first draft) are expected by July 21st 2022. The special issue will be published in January 2023. References Adelman, M., M. P. Blimpo, D. Evans, A. Simbou, and N. Yarrow. 2015. “Can Information Technology Improve School Effectiveness in Haiti? Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Working Paper, Washington, DC: World Bank. Au, W., & Lubienski, C. (2016). The role of the Gates Foundation and the philanthropic sector in shaping the emerging education market. Lessons from the US on privatization of schools and education governance. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry (pp. 28–43). New York: Routledge. Ball, S. (2012). Global Education Inc: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London: Routledge. Bolea, P. (2020). The Ed-Tech industry after the pandemic. GEPS Working Paper. do Amaral, M. P., Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Thompson, C. (Eds.). (2019). Researching the global education industry: Commodification, the market and business involvement. Springer. Fontdevila, C., Verger, A., & Avelar, M. (2021). The business of policy: a review of the corporate sector’s emerging strategies in the promotion of education reform. Critical studies in education, 62(2), 131-146. Grek, S., & Landri, P. (2021). Editorial: Education in Europe and the COVID-19 Pandemic. European Educational Research Journal, 20(4), 393–402 Hogan, A., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2016). Commercialising comparison: Pearson puts the TLC in soft capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 31(3), 243-258. Komljenovic, J., & Robertson, S. (2016). The dynamics of ‘market-making’ in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 622–636. Nemorin, S. (2017). Post-panoptic pedagogies: The changing nature of school surveillance in the digital age. Surveillance and Society, 15(2), 239-253. Srivastava, P., & Read, R. (2019). Philanthropic and impact investors: private sector engagement, hybridity and the problem of definition. In N. Ridge & A. Terway (Eds.), Philanthropy in Education (pp. 15-36). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Rodriguez-Segura, D. (2021). EdTech in Developing Countries: A Review of the Evidence. The World Bank Research Observer. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab011 Thompson, C., & Parreira do Amaral, M. (2019). Introduction: Researching the Global Education Industry. In M. Parreira do Amaral, G. Steiner-Khamsi & C. Thompson (Eds.), Researching the global education industry: Commodification, the market and business involvement (pp. 1–21). Springer. Tooley, J. (1999) The Global Education Industry. Lessons from Private Education in Developing Countries. Washington DC: International Finance Corporation. Verger, A., Lubienski, C., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). The emergence and structuring of the global education industry: Towards an analytical framework. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry (pp. 3–24). New York: Routledge. Williamson, B. & Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19. Brussels: Education International Wyatt-Smith, C., Lingard, B., & Heck, E. (2019). Digital learning assessments and big data: Implications for teacher professionalism. UNESCO Education Research and Foresight Working Papers, 25. Yanguas, M. L. (2020). Technology and educational choices: Evidence from a one-laptop-per-child program. Economics of Education Review, 76, 101984. [1] See https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4986759/global-online-education-market-forecasts-from