O mercado global dos sistemas educacionais Web (WES, do inglês, Web Educational Systems) continua a mudar, crescer e evoluir em todo o mundo, impulsionado por diversos fatores, entre eles, pelas novas tendências em tecnologias emergentes e ferramentas que dão suporte aos WES e, ainda, ao papel crescente da aprendizagem social como prioridade para o processo de desenvolvimento de tais sistemas. Os Sistemas Educacionais baseados em Web Semântica (SWBES, do inglês Semantic Web-based Educational Systems) são plataformas educacionais Web desenvolvidas para resolver diversos problemas enfrentados pelos alunos e outros usuários, como dificuldades relacionadas à busca, compartilhamento e reutilização de recursos educacionais. SWBES têm sido frequentemente usados como motores de busca para plataformas MOOC e Sistemas Tutores Inteligentes (STI). Portanto, é necessário garantir a qualidade desses sistemas para possibilitar melhores experiências de ensino e aprendizagem. No entanto, a avaliação da qualidade dos SWBES é uma tarefa complexa, uma vez que requer um amplo conhecimento sobre as tecnologias da Web Semântica, Educação a Distância, Engenharia de Software, além das normas e padrões utilizados para a Avaliação da Qualidade de Software. O problema identificado foi a ausência de uma abordagem de avaliação de qualidade desses sistemas a partir dos elementos da arquitetura do sistema, ou seja, a atuação e estruturação dos agentes inteligentes, ontologias, objetos de aprendizagem, repositórios, metadados etc. Nesse contexto, o objetivo dessa tese foi desenvolver uma abordagem para a avaliação de qualidade de SWBES. Para atingir o objetivo proposto, foram necessários identificar os critérios de qualidade utilizados na avaliação de qualidade de software, de WES (incluindo recursos educacionais, tais como os objetos de aprendizagem), das tecnologias da Web Semântica (tais como ontologias). Esses critérios foram classificados, analisados e ajustados, com base nos requisitos de qualidade dos SWBES apontados na literatura. Em seguida, um conjunto de fatores de qualidade foi estabelecido, com subfatores e critérios que serão utilizados como diretriz geral para avaliar e comparar a qualidade de SWBES. Foram definidos os avaliadores responsáveis de acordo com os papéis que representam no sistema. Estabeleceu-se também quais os artefatos do SWBES que devem ser avaliados pela abordagem, de modo que o processo de avaliação seja simplificado. A abordagem foi automatizada em uma ferramenta Web e validada por meio de estudos de caso, por meio de especialistas no domínio da Web Semântica, Informática e Educação. Espera-se que a abordagem desenvolvida possa contribuir com profissionais, desenvolvedores e outros usuários (professores, educadores, alunos, mediadores, tutores e gestores) que desejam ou necessitam adquirir e utilizar SWBES, de forma que possam efetuar a aquisição adequada às suas necessidades e objetivos. Além disso, espera-se poder colaborar no processo de desenvolvimento de SWBES, a partir dos fatores de qualidade estabelecidos para a abordagem, e promover a garantia de qualidade desde o início do processo do desenvolvimento. Como trabalhos futuros, pretende-se ampliar os fatores de qualidade e estender a abordagem para permitir a avaliação de outros Sistemas baseados em Web Semântica, em outros domínios do conhecimento. / The Web education systems (WES) global community is in continuous change, growth and evolve all around the world, driven by several factors, including new trends in emerging technologies and tools that support WES, and even the growing role of social learning as a priority for the development process of such systems. Semantic Web-based Educational Systems (SWBES) are Web-based educational platforms designed to address a variety of problems faced by students and other users, such as difficulties in finding, sharing, and reusing educational resources. SWBES have often been used as search engines for MOOC platforms and Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). Therefore, ensuring the quality of these systems is necessary to enable better teaching and learning experiences. However, SWBES quality assessment is a complex task, since it requires extensive knowledge about Semantic Web technologies, Web Educational Systems, Software Engineering, and software quality assessment standards. The problem identified was the absence of a quality evaluation approach of these systems from the elements of the system architecture, ie, the role and structure of intelligent agents, ontologies, learning objects, repositories, metadata etc. In this context, the purpose of this thesis was to develop an approach for the quality evaluation of SWBES. In order to achieve the proposed objective, it was necessary to identify the quality criteria used in software quality assessment, WES (including educational resources, such as learning objects), Semantic Web technologies (such as ontologies). These criteria were classified, analyzed and adjusted, based on the quality requirements of SWBES in the literature and named as factors. Next, a set of quality factors was established, with subfactors and criteria that will be used as a general guideline to evaluate and compare the quality of SWBES. The evaluators designated to evaluate the SWBES were defined according to the role they represent in the systems. It was also established which SWBES artifacts should be evaluated by the approach, in order of making the evaluation process simplified. It was developed a Web tool to automate the approach developed which were validated through case studies by specialists in the related research fields. It is expected that the approach will contribute with professionals, developers and other users (teachers, educators, students, virtual tutors and managers) in acquiring and using SWBES, so that they can choose the appropriate system to fill out their needs and goals. In addition, it is expected to collaborate in the SWBES development process, based on the quality factors established, and promoting quality assurance since the beginning of the development process. As future work, it is intended to broaden the quality factors and extend the approach allowing the evaluation of other Semantic Web-based Systems in other knowledge domain.

25 Jahre nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion sind aus einem unitären Hochschulsystem 15 einzigartige nationale Systeme hervorgegangen. Deren Entwicklung wurde von je eigenen ökonomischen, kulturellen und politischen Kräften beeinflusst und geprägt, sowohl nationalen wie internationalen Ursprungs (Johnstone and Bain 2002). Die vorliegende Doktorarbeit untersucht die Veränderungen der Governance von Hochschulsystemen der drei postsowjetischen Staaten Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau über den Zeitraum von 1991 bis 2015, analysiert, zu welchem Grad diese Entwicklungen einem Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „globalen Modell“ oder einem „postsowjetischen Modell“ folgen und formuliert Hypothesen über die treibenden Kräfte und Pfadabhängigkeiten, welche auf nationalem, regionalen und globaler Ebene diese Entwicklungen befördert, gehemmt oder auf idiosynkratische Art und Weise geprägt haben. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass global propagierte Governanceinstrumente – wie z.B. Globalbudgets, erweiterte Befugnisse der Hochschulleitung, externe Qualitätssicherung, Stakeholdergovernancegremien – in allen drei untersuchten Ländern Verbreitung finden und ein Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „global Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance stattfindet. Gleichzeitig zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass die spezifischen Eigenarten der nationalen Governancearrangements durch die Einführung dieser neuen Instrumente in der Regel nicht ersetzt werden und dem Bestehenden stattdessen als zusätzliche Ebenen hinzugefügt werden. Wo die Logiken der neuen mit den alten Strukturen kollidieren, zeigt sich, dass sich die tradierten Strukturen und Prozesse in der Regel durchsetzen. Zudem zeigt sich, dass die Governancearrangements der drei untersuchten Länder eine große Zahl spezieller Eigenschaften teilen, durch die sie sich systematisch von jenem propagierten globalen Modell abheben. Jenes „Postsowjetische Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance zeichnet sich durch dominante Rolle des Staates, Hierarchie als primäre und legitime Form der Governance sowie einen geringen Grad an Vertrauen zwischen den zentralen Akteuren des Hochschulsystems aus. Zuletzt illustriert die Dissertation die Divergenzen und Besonderheiten der Governancemodelle in Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau. Die vorliegende Dissertation leistet somit einen Beitrag zum Verständnis der Entwicklung der Governance der Hochschulsysteme in einer sich dynamisch entwickelten Weltregion, welche in der akademischen Literatur bislang nur wenig Aufmerksamkeit erhalten hat.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336 / After 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries, the single Soviet model of higher education has evolved into fifteen unique national systems, shaped by economic, cul-tural, and political forces, both national and global (Johnstone and Bain 2002). International agencies such as the World Bank and the OECD have lobbied for a set of policies associated with the Washington Consensus (Neave, G. R. & van Vught, 1991). The Bologna Process has created isomorphic pressures, supported by EU policies and funding. Many post-Soviet States have responded to these influences, albeit with different motivations and unclear outcomes (Tomusk, 2011). Comparative research on these developments, however, is scarce and has primarily discussed them in terms of decentralization, mar-ketization and institutional autonomy (Heyneman 2010; Silova, 2011). This PhD thesis aims to 1) reconstruct the developments of governance of higher education systems, 2) analyze to what degree the developments represent a convergence towards a “global model” or a “Post-Soviet model” and 3) formulate hypotheses about driving forces and path dependencies at national, regional and global level which have driven or impeded these changes. Following work by Becher & Kogan (1992), Clark (1983), Jongbloed (2003), Paradeise (2009); Hood (2004); Dill (2010) and Dobbins et al. (2011), the research analyzes the object of analysis, the govern-ance of higher education systems, on five dimensions: 1. Educational Standards, quality assessment, and information provision; 2. Regulation of admissions to higher education; 3. Institutional structures, decision-making, and autonomy; 4. Higher education financing and incentive structures; and 5. The relationship of higher education and the state. Explanatory approaches draw upon perspectives of path dependence and models of institutional change drawing on work by North (1990), Steinmo (1992), Weick (1976), Pierson (2000) and Witte (2006). Three post-Soviet, non-EU, Bologna signatory states were selected to represent a diverse geographical sub-sample of the 15 post-Soviet States. The three countries studied in-depth are Russia, Moldova and Kazakhstan. The period of analysis comprises the changes taking place over a 25-year period between 1991 and 2015. Methodologically, the study rests on extensive literature analysis of previous academic publications, reports by international organizations such as the World Bank, OECD, and the EU, and national strategy papers. Building on this document analysis, over 60 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with representatives of State organizations, HEIs and other stakeholder groups engaged in the govern-ance of higher education. The outcomes of interviews were used to situate developments in the particular page 12 social-political and societal contexts and to triangulate policy documents with various stakeholder per-spectives, in order to reconstruct how and why specific policy changes came about, were implemented or abandoned. The results show a differentiated picture: The governance instruments promoted by OECD, WB and EU are clearly recognizable in the 2015 governance arrangements in all three case countries. On this instru-ments-level “surface”, a process of convergence towards the “global model” is clearly taking place. While these new instruments are being adopted, however, the specific national governance arrangements persist and continue to matter. Only in isolated instances are old instruments fully displaced. More com-monly, new structures are added as additional layers to existing governance arrangements. The three countries continue to share a number of unique characteristics which sets them apart from the Anglo-Saxon higher education systems, which have inspired the “global model”. The dominating con-trolling role of the state has remained in place in all countries. This is strongly reinforced by national-level institutions and mental models which affirm hierarchy as the legitimate principle in governance and a lack of trust between actors in the system. In all case countries, the mutual expectation of state and HEIs alike remains that the state should be steering the higher education sector. This it does (Russia and Kazakhstan) or attempts to do (Moldova). Clearly, the adoption of governance instruments which are inspired by the “global model” does in no way equate with a retreat of the state. While the elements of university autonomy and stakeholder governance are slowly expanded, even this very process of loosening the reigns of the state is in great measure overseen and steered by the state. Shared character-istics, such as centralized control over admission; a state claim to steer and, in many cases, control the system; a hierarchical, authoritarian, personalized style of governance, management, leadership, as well as accountability form the discernable core of a common “post-Soviet” model of HE governance. The shared institutional past of the Soviet era, as well as common challenges, have facilitated and maintained these commonalities. As time passes, however, these post-Soviet commonalities are getting weaker. Divergent national-level forces and actors are driving or impeding reforms: While in Moldova, political volatility and underfund-ing have repeatedly undermined substantial reforms, Russia and Kazakhstan have each adopted govern-ance and management practices from New Public Management in new idiosyncratic ways: Kazakhstan has embarked on an authoritarian-driven decentralization program. Russia has created a two-tier system of state steering through financial incentivization and evaluation on the one hand, and tight oversight, control and intervention on the other. This dissertation sheds light on the developments, driving forces and mechanisms behind the convergence and divergence of approaches to higher education governance in an under-studied region of the world.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336

This study has a twofold purpose. The first is to develop a systems approach to education that is based on the seven levels of existence which were identified by Clare W. Graves. The second is to project and forecast the development of the eighth level of existence and to develop an approach to education for this eighth level. In order to establish an understanding of Graves' theory of the levels of psychological existence, an extensive study was made of Graves' papers, both published and private. Based on Graves' theory and the research of others in the field, an approach to education was designed for each of eight levels of existence—reactive, tribalistic, egocentric, absolutistic, achievist, sociocentric, existential, and experientialistic—that complements and utilizes the unique characteristics of each level. The design of each educational approach includes learning system, motivational strategy, evaluation procedure, classroom management, and facility design. The issues of student grouping by level of existence, assessment of the individual levels of existence, and matching of instructor and students by level of existence are also addressed.

The multi-year gymnasium is a part of the Czech educational system for the long time. Those gymnasiums are one of the most discussed institutions in terms of usefulness. Various studies are made in dependence on that trying to find reasons for choosing multi-year gymnasiums (as thesis "Why Do Primary School Children Choose Multi-year Gymnasiums?", which preceded this work). The aim of this diploma thesis is already the next step: figuring out, if gymnasium met pupils' expectations, and also to receive feedback and evaluation of their parents. It focuses on pupils' academic self-concept, on problems associated with transfer to multi-year gymnasium and on positives, which the pupils would not probably meet at elementary school with. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

L’objet de cette recherche c’est de comprendre les traits essentiels de la représentation de l’enfant au sein des deux systèmes préscolaires particuliers, le chilien et le français. Pour bien saisir ces traits, nous avons a réalisé une démarche de type comparative qui essaie de percevoir l’évolution sociohistorique de la politique publique concernant le niveau préscolaire, et également les raisons d’être du préscolaire et les logiques culturelles, sous-jacentes, propres à chacun des pays. A ce propos, la parole des enseignants de chaque système devient révélatrice de l’intentionnalité de chacune des modèles ainsi que de la figure de l’enfant à éduquer. Le modèle chilien mis sur la continuité, à l’intérieur d’un système guidé par une logique de privatisation : continuité du statut d’enfant et continuité des modes de socialisation familiales. Bien que le système chilien s’intéresse aux apprentissages, la première mission de l’éducation parvularia est de former des individus de façon globale (holistique), c'est-à-dire, en prenant en considération tous les domaines du développement de l’enfant. L’enfant est toujours considéré comme un sujet « enfant » avec d’importantes potentialités à développer, tant qu’il reste dans des ambiances éducatives de qualité. Le modèle français, fondamentalement public, est guidé par une logique de type républicaine, ou les domaines du social et du privé restent écartés, représente plutôt une rupture. La transformation de l’enfant en élève devient l’acquisition des modes scolaires de socialisation au détriment d’autres modes de socialisation, surtout familiales. La maternelle devient la première étape de la préparation pour arriver au niveau élémentaire. Pour cela l’enfant doit devenir écolier pour assurer un départ scolaire le plus réussi possible. Ce que nous a révélé cette thèse comparative est que, malgré la « mondialisation », de plusieurs domaines de la vie humaine, les valeurs et les principes qu’on veut garder et transmettre aux générations futures, ne sont pas toujours les mêmes. De ce fait, chaque système éducatif construit une représentation de la figure de l’enfant qui est issue d’une accumulation des divers facteurs qui s’ajoutent ou s’empilent : l’évolution historique des pays, les modèles socio-économiques, les courants pédagogiques en vogue, les intentions idéologiques associées à l’objectivation de la fonction du scolaire, la vision de la famille, l’importance de l’école, entre autres. La combinaison de ces variables, permet d’élaborer collectivement une mission éducative qui s’accorde avec une représentation de l’enfant particulier. / The goal of this research is to comprehend essential attributes of children’s representation in two specific preschool systems, that of Chile and France. To properly understand these attributes, we attempted a comparative approach to unearth the socio-historic evolution of preschool public policy, preschooler’s rationale and latent cultural traits, specific to each country. In this respect, educator’s discourse in each system accordingly reveals model purposes and intended child figure. Within a system lead by a privatization rationale, the Chilean model is based on continuity, that is, continuity of children status and family socialization trends. Although Chile’s system pursues learning outcomes, the primary mission of its preschool education is to develop individuals in a holistic fashion, that is, to take under consideration all child development domains. The child is at all times regarded as a subject with great potential to be developed, as long as he stays at a quality learning environment. The French model, essentially public, rather represents a rupture lead by a republican logic where the public and private domains remain a part. The child transformation into student comes from the acquisition of school socialization fashion to the disadvantage of other socializations alternatives, particularly familial. Preschool stands as the first stage of preparation to reach primary school. For that purpose the child must become a schoolchild to ensure a successful school life beginning. What this comparative thesis reveals is that, despite globalization of various domains of human life, the values and principles that we want to preserve and transmit to future generations are not always the same. Hence, each educational system elaborates a representation of the child from the accumulation of a diversity of factors: historic evolution of the country, the socioeconomic model, the pedagogic trends, ideological intentions associated with objectivation of educator’s function, beliefs about family, the importance of schooling, among others. The combination of these variables enables a collective elaboration of an educational mission in agreement with a particular representation of the child.

No bojo das conflituosas transformações decorrentes de políticas neoliberais-privatistas estão as universidades e o Sistema de Educação Superior (SES). Ao longo da década de 2000, apesar de as políticas neoliberais-privatistas terem ganho repúdio de amplos setores da sociedade, o que contrastou com a defesa mais explícita desse modelo político em década anterior, subsistiram não poucas permanências e traços do privatismo, sobretudo na Educação Superior (ES). Tal como países em desenvolvimento, Brasil e Argentina vivem, em ritmos, formas e intensidades específicas, o paradoxo de ter o respectivo SES pressionado por políticas privatistas, ao mesmo tempo em que a esses sistemas se impõem desafios de expansão da cobertura de vagas e melhoria na qualidade da educação que permitam a efetiva democratização das oportunidades no nível superior do ensino. Em meio a complexos problemas, um dos direcionamentos que podem ser identificados é a articulação da expansão do ensino superior com o privatismo. Nessa linha, a presente pesquisa analisou os processos de expansão e privatismo da ES no Brasil e na Argentina, buscando investigar, do ponto de vista do desenvolvimento da esfera pública e privada, o progresso do ensino superior ocorrido entre 1989 e 2009. O período abordado na análise se justifica por contemplar o vigor do neoliberalismo nos dois países a partir do final dos anos 1980, bem como permanências e mudanças consumadas nos referidos SES, particularmente até a metade do mandato de Cristina Kirchner e o segundo Governo de Lula, no ano de 2009. Partindo de peculiaridades do ponto de vista original da universidade em cada país analisado, buscaram-se semelhanças e diferenças na evolução dos SES. O foco do acompanhamento do ensino superior brasileiro e argentino, em análise comparativa, centrou os eixos de abordagem nas categorias ES pública e ES privada. Tendo como unidade de análise o SES dos dois países, a metodologia utilizada recaiu sobre a educação comparada. Na análise dos processos de expansão e privatismo na ES, as variáveis observadas foram as seguintes: crescimento quantitativo das IES; matrícula e acesso nos estabelecimentos públicos e privados; terminalidade nos SES; financiamento público e alguns programas para a ES nos dois países. A pesquisa verificou, dentre os sistemas do Brasil e da Argentina, o ensino superior no âmbito de diferenças de formação histórica de cada SES e os respectivos ajustes, as mudanças na legislação e o potencial reordenamento dos estabelecimentos da ES em direção a uma lógica induzida pelo capital. A comparação da configuração histórica da universidade em ambos os países evidenciou a presença original da iniciativa privada na ES no Brasil muito mais dominante do que na Argentina, sinalizando o protagonismo de uma e outra natureza jurídica a pública e a privada , além de características mais elitistas ou massificadas nos respectivos SES. Na análise das variáveis comparadas, aferiu-se, em especial nos anos 1990, maior voracidade do privatismo na ES de ambos os países. Na década de 2000, apesar de alguns traços não suprimidos de permanências da situação anterior, evidenciou-se, na Argentina, maior ruptura com as políticas privatistas dos anos 1990. No Brasil, em que pese o incremento de políticas públicas quanto à expansão do acesso, observa-se, simultaneamente ao aumento numérico de IES públicas, a continuidade e intensificação do privatismo sob outras formas de estímulos. / In the midst of the conflicting arising changes given the neo-liberal privatist political model, stands the University and Higher Education Systems (HES). Throughout the 2000s, despite neo-liberal privatist policies won repudiation of broad sectors of society, which contrasted with the more explicit defense of this political model in the previous decade, more than a few traces of privatism and permanencies survived mainly in Higher Education (HE). Amid these complex problems, one of the directions that can be identified is the articulation between HE expansion and privatism. In this way, the present study examined the processes of expansion and privatism of HE in Brazil and Argentina in order to investigate, in view of the development of public and private spheres, the progress of higher education that occurred between 1989 and 2009. The period covered in this analysis is justified by contemplating the effect of neo-liberalism in both countries from the late 1980s, as well as continuities and changes in those consummated SES, particularly until the mid-term of Cristina Kirchner and the second government of Lula, in 2009. Assuming the peculiarities of the original point of view of the university in each country, similarities and differences were searched in the evolution of HES. The focus of HE tracking in Brazil and Argentina, in a comparative analysis, centered the approach axes in HE private and public categories. Having as analysis unit the HES of both countries, the methodology focused in comparative education. In the analysis of the expansion and privatism processes in HE, the observed variables were the quantitative growth of IES; the enrollment and access to public and private education establishments; the completion in the HES; the public funding and some programs for the HE in both countries. The research verified, in the systems of Brazil and Argentina, HE from the perspective of comparison in the framework of differences in each HES historical formation and their respective adjustments, changes in legislation and the potential redevelopment of HE establishments towards a logic induced by capital. The comparison of the historical configuration of the university in both countries showed the original presence of private enterprise in Brazils HE much more prevalent than in Argentina, signaling the role of one and another legal nature the public and the private , besides more elitist or massify characteristics in each HES. In the analysis of compared variables, it was measured up, particularly in the 1990s, most voracious privatism in the HE of both countries. In the 2000s, although some traits not suppressed of previous situation stays, there was, in Argentina, a greater rupture from the 1990s privatist policies. In Brazil, in spite of public policies growth regarding access expansion, it is observed, simultaneously to the increased number of public HES, the carrying and intensification of other privatism forms of stimuli.

In 1974 the Australian Government decided that from 1975 all education on its Territory of Christmas Island, Indian Ocean, would be integrated into a single service. It further decided that all schools would be staffed by Australian teachers from its recent1y established Commonwealth Teaching Service and would implement a curriculum closely reflecting those on the Australian mainland. These were decisive shifts from the previous system of separating the 'Asian' education system from the 'European' (Australian) system. This thesis sets out to find the reasons for these decisions and the expectations, or objectives, of those who made them. The changes to education had many Impacts on the Christmas Island community - both intended or unintended. These impacts are used to assist in evaluations of the policy objectives. The thesis uses the methodology of public policy analysis to examine the links between the government's education policy and its other broader policies regarding the Island. It thus examines operational decisions in the context of strategic considerations. The mid 1970s saw rapid changes in many Australian Government policies. Its new Christmas Island policies were responses to a range of complex, interrelated problems which emerged in the early 1970s - only 15 years after it assumed sovereignty. At the centre of these policy responses was Resettlement. The government's education decisions are examined in the light of the objectives and implications of its Resettlement policy as well as other inputs to the policy problem.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.