Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

An analytical quality framework for learning cities and regions

International Review of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is broad agreement that innovation, knowledge and learning have become the main source of wealth, employment and economic development of cities, regions and nations. Over the past two decades, the number of European cities and regions which label themselves as “learning city” or “learning region” has constantly grown. However, there are also pitfalls and constraints which not only hinder them in unlocking their full potential, but also significantly narrow their effects and their wider impact on society. Most prominently, learning cities and regions manifest serious difficulties in rendering transparent the surplus value they generate, which is vital for attracting investment into lifelong learning. While evaluation and quality management are still perceived as being a bureaucratic necessity rather than a lesson one could learn from or an investment in the future, it is also true that without evaluation and quality assurance local networks do not have the means to examine their strengths and weaknesses. In order to design strategies to maximise the strengths and effectively address the weaknesses it is necessary to understand the factors that contribute to success and those that pose challenges. This article proposes an analytical quality framework which is generic and can be used to promote a culture of quality in learning cities and regions. The proposed framework builds on the findings and results of the R3L+ project, part-funded by the European Commission under the Grundtvig (adult education) strand of the Lifelong Learning programme 2007–2013.

Résumé

Cadre d’analyse de la qualité pour les villes et régions apprenantes – Il règne un large consensus sur le fait que l’innovation, le savoir et l’apprentissage sont devenus les principales sources de richesse, d’emploi et de développement économique des villes, des régions et des nations. Au cours des vingt dernières années, le nombre de villes et de régions européennes qui se déclarent « ville apprenante » ou « région apprenante » a constamment augmenté. Mais elles rencontrent aussi des pièges et des contraintes, qui non seulement les empêchent de déployer tout leur potentiel, mais réduisent en outre sensiblement leur influence et leur impact plus large sur la société. En premier lieu, les villes et régions apprenantes connaissent de sérieuses difficultés à rendre transparente la plus-value qu’elles créent, ce qui est décisif pour susciter les investissements dans l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie. L’évaluation et la gestion de la qualité sont encore perçues comme une nécessité bureaucratique, au lieu d’un enseignement à tirer ou d’un investissement dans l’avenir. Il est pourtant vrai que sans évaluation ni assurance qualité, les réseaux locaux n’ont pas les moyens d’explorer leurs forces et leurs faiblesses. Pour concevoir des stratégies visant à maximiser les atouts et à traiter efficacement les points faibles, il convient de cerner les facteurs qui contribuent au succès et ceux qui posent des défis. Cet article propose un cadre analytique de la qualité, qui est générique et peut être utilisé pour promouvoir une culture de la qualité dans les villes et régions apprenantes. Il s’inspire des résultats et conclusions du projet R3L+, cofinancé par la Commission européenne dans le cadre du programme Grundtvig (éducation des adultes) du programme pour l’éducation et la formation tout au long de la vie 2007–2013.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schön differentiate between three basic modes of learning, along which the collective learning of organisations can be analysed. Single-loop learning follows the principle of local optimisation. Failures in learning are detected and corrected within the coordinates of existing learning strategies, while basic assumptions about learning, surrounding norms and values as well as educational practices and routines remain untouched. Double-loop learning occurs when errors are detected and corrected in such a way that it involves significant modifications of an organisation’s underlying norms, policies and objectives. Finally, deutero learning occurs when organisations reflect, in a systematic manner, on their collective mode of learning in the light of past reforms and policies of change (Argyris and Schön 1978, 1996).

  2. The acronym R3L+ reflects the fact that the project builds on prior experience of the European R3L (Regional networks in Lifelong Learning [LLL]) programme.

  3. The partnership comprised learning city/region initiatives from Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Romania, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland.

  4. Although the research literature comprises a wide range of notions associated with “learning culture”, three main directions can be discerned with respect to the topic of this publication. First of all, a functionalist approach, according to which “learning culture” describes the body of variables which influences the learning of individuals in a certain social, geographical or organisational context. This may cover expectations about and standards of learning, as well as operative aspects, such as support structures, learning incentives as well as formats and methods of learning. Second, sociocultural learning theories, which equate “learning culture” with the overall process of enculturation of learners into communities of practice/learning communities. Last but not least, from an ethnographic and semiotic point of view “learning cultures” can be associated with the symbolism of learning places. Rather than pre-existing factors influencing learning, “learning culture” in this context is understood as an active process of meaning-making, through which learners ascribe and decode signifiers to symbols making a learning place.

  5. A full set of criteria and indicators is described in Eckert et al. (2012).

  6. In terms of methodology, the quality framework criteria were developed on the basis of field research conducted in learning cities/regions in the eight countries, and later on tested for fitness jointly with key stakeholders and learning city/learning region practitioners in the same European countries.

References

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekema, F., Morgan, K., Bakkers, S., & Rutten, R. (2000). Knowledge, innovation and economic growth: The theory and practice of learning regions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buiskool, B. J., Grijpstra, D., Van Kan, C., Van Lakerveld, J., & Den Oudendammer, F. (2005). Developing local learning centres and learning partnerships as part of Member States’ targets for reaching the Lisbon goals in the field of education and training. A study of the current situation. Leiden: RvB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cara, S., & Ranson, S. (1998). Practice progress and value: Learning communities assessing the value they add. Developed for the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) and the Learning City Network. Suffolk: DfEE Publications.

  • EAEA (European Association for the Education of Adults). (2006). Adult education trends and issues in Europe. Documentation of activities. Brussels: EAEA.

  • Eckert, T., Preisinger-Kleine, R., Fartusnic, C., Houston, M., Jucevičienė, P., Dillon, B., et al. (2012). Quality in developing learning cities and regions: A guide for practitioners and stakeholders. Munich: Ludwig Maximilian University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geenhuizen, M., & Nijkamp, P. (2002). Lessons from Learning Regions: Policymaking in an evolutionary context. Research Memorandum 2002–34. Amsterdam: Free University of Amsterdam.

  • Goncalves, M. J. (2008). Cities and emerging networks of learning communities. In 7th Systems Science European Union Congress proceedings, 17–19 December, Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved 17 January 2012, from http://www.afscet.asso.fr/resSystemica/Lisboa08/goncalvesMJ.pdf.

  • Longworth, N. (2003). Lifelong learning in action: Transforming education in the 21st century. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longworth, N., & Osborne, M. (Eds.). (2010). Perspectives on learning cities and regions: Policies, practice and participation. Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE).

  • Lundvall, B.-Å., & Borras, S. (1999). The globalising learning economy: Implications for innovation policy. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. (2012). Knowledge Bases and the Geography of Innovation, PhD thesis. Lund: University of Lund.

  • Nyhan, B. (2007). Building learning regions for innovation in Europe: A challenge for education and training. In CEDEFOP, Learning together for local innovation: promoting learning regions (pp. 16–34). Thessaloniki: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP).

  • Preisinger-Kleine, R. (2002). Can organisations learn to learn? CEDEFOP European Journal of Vocational Education, 27, 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preisinger-Kleine, R (2006). Learning Regions—Providing support for networks (Germany). In DG Employment and Horizontal Affairs, Evaluation of the ESF contribution to employment, inclusion and education & training policies through the support to systems and structures (pp. 41–42). Brussels: European Commission.

  • Preisinger-Kleine, R. (2011). Ensuring quality in networks of vocational education & training—A best practice guide. Cracow: Cracow University of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, I. (2009). A Learning City Perspective, IFLL Sector Paper 5. Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randolph Preisinger-Kleine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Preisinger-Kleine, R. An analytical quality framework for learning cities and regions. Int Rev Educ 59, 521–538 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-013-9364-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-013-9364-2

Keywords

Navigation