Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 411–436 | Cite as

Large scale pedagogical transformation as widespread cultural change in Mexican public schools

  • Santiago Rincón-Gallardo
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article examines how and under what conditions a new pedagogy can spread at scale using the Learning Community Project (LCP) in Mexico as a case study. Started as a small-scale, grassroots pedagogical change initiative in a handful of public schools, LCP evolved over an 8-year period into a national policy that spread its pedagogy of tutorial relationships to 9000 schools. The author conceptualizes large scale pedagogical transformation as a process of widespread cultural change that occurs when a new pedagogy developed by a critical community is adopted by movements who disseminate it in three arenas: the social, political, and pedagogical arenas. The author examines the scale reached by LCP relative to the dimensions of spread, depth, ownership, and sustainability proposed by Coburn (Educ Res 32(6):3–12, 2003). It then extracts seven principles to change pedagogy at scale: 1) Turn ‘disadvantage’ into possibility; 2) Establish a clear purpose centered on student learning and a compelling vision of effective pedagogy; 3) Directly change the instructional core; 4) Create multiple opportunities to observe, practice, and refine the new pedagogy; 5) Attract the support of system leaders, or become one; 6) Change the surrounding institutional environment from the inside out; and 7) Keep a strong link between design and execution.

Keywords

Pedagogical change Instructional change Large-scale change Cultural change Instructional core Instructional innovation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Apple, M. W. (2013). Education and power. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Azuma, A. (2016). Avances y Logros de la Telesecundaria en México. Report prepared for the Deputy Minister of Basic Education, Mimeo.Google Scholar
  3. Cámara, G. (2003). Learning for life in Mexican rural communities. Mexico City: The CONAFE Post-primary Centers, CONAFE.Google Scholar
  4. Cámara, G. (Ed.). (2006). Enseñar y Aprender con Interés: Logros y testimonios en escuelas públicas. México: Siglo XXI Editores.Google Scholar
  5. Cámara, G. (Ed.). (2008). Otra educación básica es posible. México: Siglo XXI Editores.Google Scholar
  6. Cámara, G. (2013). The small origins of large-scale school reform in Mexico. In H. Malone (Ed.), Leading educational change: Global issues, challenges, and lessons on whole system reform. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cámara, G., Rincón-Gallardo, S., López, D., Domínguez, E., & Castillo, A. (2003). Comunidad de Aprendizaje: Cómo hacer de la educación básica un bien valioso y compartido. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores.Google Scholar
  8. Carvajal, E. (2003). Una mirada a las aulas de telesecundaria: Reconstrucción del modelo pedagógico en el caso de las matemáticas. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 31(3), 151–157.Google Scholar
  9. City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  10. City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., & Lynch, D. (2012). Redefining education: The future of learning is not the future of schooling. In J. Mehta, R. B. Schwartz, & F. M. Hess (Eds.), The futures of school reform (pp. 151–176). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms (1890–1980). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Dirección General de Desarrollo de la Gestión e Innovación Educativa (DGDGIE). (2012). Análisis de impacto del PEMLE en secundarias: Resultados prueba ENLACE. Mexico: Mimeo.Google Scholar
  14. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic Work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elmore, R. F. (1979/1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616.Google Scholar
  16. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  18. Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Gladwell, M. (2013). David and Goliath: Underdogs, misfits, and the art of battling giants. New York/Boston/London: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  21. Grindle, M. S. (2004). Despite the odds. The contentious politics of education reform. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Grossman, F. (2010). Dissent from within: How educational insiders use protest to create policy change. Educational Policy, 24(4), 655–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hawkins, D. (1974). I, Thou, and It. In The Informed (Ed.), Vision: Essays on learning and human nature (pp. 49–62). New York: Agathon Books.Google Scholar
  25. Holt, J. (1991). How children learn. City of Westminster: Penguin Education.Google Scholar
  26. Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE). (2006). El Aprendizaje del Español y las Matemáticas en México: Sexto de primaria y tercero de secundaria. México: INEE.Google Scholar
  28. Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE). (2007). PISA 2006 en México. México: INEE.Google Scholar
  29. Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE). (2008). El Aprendizaje en tercero de secundaria en México. Informe sobre los resultados de Excale 09, Aplicación 2008. México: INEE.Google Scholar
  30. Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE). (2014). Cifras Básicas: Educación Básica y Media Superior. México: INEE.Google Scholar
  31. Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE). (2015). Panorama Educativo de México: Indicadores del Sistema Educativo Nacional 2014. INEE: Educación Básica y Media Superior. México.Google Scholar
  32. Leadbeater, C. (2012). Innovation in education: Lessons from pioneers around the world. Qatar: Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. López, D., & Rincón Gallardo, S. (2003). La capacitación artesanal y la profesionalización de la labor docente en Posprimaria. México: CONAFE.Google Scholar
  34. Mehta, J., Schwartz, R. B., & Hess, F. M. (2012). The futures of school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  35. November, A. (2012). Who owns the learning? Preparing students for success in the digital age. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  36. Rincón Gallardo, S., Cámara, G., Santos, A., Domínguez, E., & López, D. (2009). Valoración de la Puesta en Marcha de un Modelo Alternativo para Telsecundarias Unitarias y Bidocentes.” In PREAL. Reformas Pendientes en la Educación Secundaria. Santiago, Chile: Programa de Promoción de la Reforma Educativa en América Latina y el Caribe - Fondo de Investigaciones Educativas.Google Scholar
  37. Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2012). La tutoría para el aprendizaje independiente como práctica y principio rector del cambio educativo en escuelas públicas mexicanas. Revista DIDAC, 61, 58–64.Google Scholar
  38. Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2013) Educational change as a social, political, and instructional movement: Learning and expanding a countercultural practice in mexican public middle-schools. Doctoral thesis, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  39. Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2015). Bringing a counter-hegemonic pedagogy to scale in Mexican public schools. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 28–54.Google Scholar
  40. Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Elmore, R. (2012). Transforming teaching and learning through social movement in Mexican public middle schools. Harvard Educational Review, 82(4), 471–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rochon, T. R. (1998). Culture moves: Ideas, activism, and changing values (p. 1998). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Salinas, D., & Fraser, P. (2011). Educational opportunity and contentious politics: Emergence and development of the chilean student movement. Paper submitted to the Berkeley Review of Education. Presented at the 56th annual conference of the comparative and international education society, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
  43. Santos, A. (2001). Oportunidades educativas en telesecundaria y factores que las condicionan. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 31(3) (July–September), 11–52.Google Scholar
  44. Santos, A., & Carvajal, E. (2001). Operación de la Telesecundaria en zonas rurales marginadas de México. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 21(2), 69–96.Google Scholar
  45. Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  46. Stein, E., Tomassi, M., Echebarría, K., Lora, E., & Payne, M. (2005). The politics of policies. Economic and social progress in Latin America. Cambridge, MA: David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies and Harvard University.Google Scholar
  47. Unidad de Planeación y Evaluación de Políticas Educativas (UPEPE). (2012). Análisis del Impacto del Programa para la Mejora del Logro Educativo en las Escuelas Secundarias. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  48. Vidal, Rafael, & Díaz, M. A. (2004). Resultados de las Pruebas PISA 2000 y 2003 en México. México: Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options