- Email: [email protected]
University and Educational Innovation: Beyond the Bologna Plan Bureaucratization
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013
University and educational innovation: beyond the Bologna Plan bureaucratization Guillermo Domínguez Fernándeza *, Ana López Medialdeab, b
a Department of Social Science, University Pablo de Olavide, Crt. Utrera km1 edif.2.24 Sevilla cp/41013, Spain Department of Socail Science, University Pablo de Olavide, Crt. Utrera km1 edif.11.2.20 Sevilla cp/41013, Spain
Abstract Spanish universities, given they stand within the Bologna Process, are absorbed in a three-phase procedure: 1st Designing new programmes of studies (Verifica report); 2nd Implementing these and applying necessary readjustments for their better development (Modifica report); 3rd Consolidating Modifica reports, through evidence gathering, thus ensuring the qualifications accreditation process at the faculties.Our proposal has been implemented at the Social Sciences Faculty of the Pablo de Olavide University (Seville), 2009-2012. Its backbone is “professors’ participation channels”, based on the participative-collaborative model.
Selection peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Servet Bayram © 2013 Theand Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review undermanagement, responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. Keywords: Higher Education, innovation © 2013 The Authors. Published bymanagement, Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Higher Education, innovation
1. Introduction University bureaucratization is a consequence of the following: quality management procedures; the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation of Spain (ANECA); the new grado qualifications (bachelor's degree); the elaboration of the Verifica and Modifica reports; and the accreditation procedures. This bureaucratization adds an excessive workload to the professors’ educational work, leaving the actual teaching and, what is worse, communication with students at the bottom of their list. At the same time, as exposed at UNESCO conferences (Domínguez, Medialdea, and Cobos, 2012), students now need more than ever the professors’ support, as well as their academic, personal and vocational guidance. Restructuring the university sector, the universities internal structure crisis and the economic precariousness is not leaving enough space for the professors to participate in innovative processes. This means that any innovation project, other than its own value, must have an impact on accreditation; therefore, it becomes necessary to integrate innovation in the development processes of the institutional plans and the programmes of studies. This experience aims to introduce innovations in the programmes of studies. It is achieved by improving the professors’ daily work, using a support plan. This plan allows not only an institutional development of the programmes of studies not limited to a bureaucratic procedure, but also it takes into account the professors’ accreditation needs.
* Corresponding Author name. Guillermo Domíguez Fernández Tel.: 0034-954-34987 E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.927
4256
Guillermo Domínguez Fernández and Ana López Medialdea / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
2. Models of organization management for innovation at the university: different answers for innovation given a common situation of crisis and cutbacks To cite models of organization management for innovation means to approach the complex university culture and inner environment of the faculties. These are now epicenters of low spirits and low willingness of the professors, due to downsizing, bureaucratic requirements, higher workloads, lower salaries, and so on. According to Avargues, Borda and López (2010, p.14), these circumstances may entail episodes of stress at work and, therefore, professional exhaustion. This situation is creating a despondency culture for managers and professors. Within it, systems of quality assurance, new qualifications being placed and the change of the methodology-results framework coincide with the daily professors’ problems. In this regard, it is necessary to manage plans of professors’ support to address this situation with a certain degree of optimism and motivation, avoiding an institutional paralysis. 2.1. Model focused on directive and efficiency: managers are at the center of management and execution, the system is bureaucratic and the innovation control is excessive Managers are the source of innovation in this model. Professors do not participate; innovation is viewed as belonging to the directive team; therefore, professors are not interested in it. Results are the most important achievement: visible, appearing at institutional documents, external and tangible. Authors such as Mintzberg (1986); Owen (1983, 1991); Taylor (1911); Weber (1949) stand out. Currently, such a model could prevail as the universities official management model, within the economic crisis context. It would facilitate the sector and the universities readjustment at a lower cost, according to Narváez (2008) and Michavilla (2008, 2009). 2.2. Model focused on an organized anarchy and permissive managers: management as representativeness and directive team permissiveness to achieve innovation In this Napoleonic model according to Castro (2010, p.222) “the institutional power belongs to the professors”, named professional bureaucracy with classes’ features by Middlehurst (2004). Actions need the endorsement of all, through formal meetings (staff or faculty meetings). These are full of rites and liturgies, even if many of the agreements reached won’t be applied, because nobody is willing to becoming involved or working for innovation or changes; notwithstanding, the approval is necessary for the image shown and for the university perfect functioning representation. This model has been widespread for a long time at universities. It facilitates reforms at a low cost of opposition by managers and professors. It is rooted at the systemic trend by Bertalanffy (1957): organization is a living organism; the whole has an influence in the parts and vice versa. It was developed by March and Olsen (1982); Baldridge and Deal (1983); Weick (1985); Simon (1987). 2.3. Model focused on collaboration and participation: cultures of innovation and management as a deal or consensus Generally, directives and experts consider this model to be the perfect or ideal one for management. Organization is developed through negotiations, consensus, deals and agreements among ideologies, cultures or pressure groups. Currently, it is the base for the functioning of any university. Innovation requires such negotiations or agreements, but more is required to reach the professors’ involvement and participation, as a measure to facilitate innovation development and achievement. Within this model, named “micro politics”, innovation must start by having that innovative minority group, which forms a minority culture, being added to the other cultures, thus forming a majority “common culture”. This model dates back to the 1980s. It has also been named as political o socio-critical model. Authors such as Baldridge and Deal (1983); Ball (1993); Bates (1989); García Rubiano (2011); Greenfield (1993); Hoyle (1982); Morgan (1990); Tyler (1991), stand out.
Guillermo Domínguez Fernández and Ana López Medialdea / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
4257
3. Basis for the development of an innovation experience at the university: example applied at the Social Sciences Faculty at Pablo de Olavide University For the last three academic years (2009-2012), thanks to the Vicerrectorado de Convergencia (Vice-rectorship of Convergence) grants for Innovation Actions, grados have been established along with support measures for university professors as a training plan in a first place; innovative actions are part of a second phase, through the faculty’s strategic plan. 3.1. Aims or philosophy: everyone is involved; everyone’s interests are taken into account in the same process In today’s culture, an organized anarchy, the key was to involve professors in the development of the programmes of studies, within a procedure that is filled with never-ending bureaucratic requirements, such as the guías docentes (courses description). 3.2. Project phases following a collaborative-participative model 3.2.1. 1st Phase: Guías docentes elaboration for the development of the programmes of studies (academic years 2009-2011) The innovation aim was to create an instrument, professors being involved, which supported the guía docente elaboration and provided knowledge on the Verifica report (study plans). Thanks to the collaboration of external experts, the process finished with the elaboration of a computer application, useful for all degrees. It is still used. Thanks to it, the guía docente elaboration was faster. As for the participation, 60 professors out of 180 took part from the beginning; another 70 followed suit later on. 3.2.2. 2nd Phase: Guías docentes validation for experiences exchange; the design and application were compared to find maladjustments, for the Modifica report (academic year 2011-2012) The main objective was to motivate professors, so that they had their space as well as a basis structure for the experiences interchange and for improving the teaching practice. For this, maladjustments between the Verifica report (theoretical) and reality were analyzed. In this way, according to Bolivar (2000, p.26) it was “an organization learning as a community of past and present experiences – to process information, correct mistakes and solve problems in a creative or transformative way, not just in an accumulative or reproductive way”. This analysis would allow a gradual elaboration of the Modifica report, in a participative way. As a result of this phase’s success, professors felt involved. Real experiences only were used (not theoretical ones). In addition, the participating professors agreed to form learning communities (CPA); they were developed after Escudero (2009) and Karen Louis (2006) works and organized by degrees: Trabajo Social, Sociología, Educación Social and joint studies in Trabajo Social and Educación Social. Communities were coordinated by an expert leading the project, by using the virtual platform shared by professors. At the time this paper is read, this phase is almost finished. Hopefully, materials with all contributions will be elaborated in two lines: a) Guidelines to improve the study plans and good practices experiences b) Data validation to elaborate the Modifica reports, in order to guarantee accreditation 3.2.3. 3rd Phase: Competence-assessment instruments elaboration to improve subjects and study plans, as well as to gather evidences for the Acredita report (academic year 2013-2014) The aim of this phase is to elaborate a guide with competence-assessment instruments. It will allow the following: a better judgment regarding assessment; to inform the students on their improvements (especially during the practicum and the degree final paper); to readjust the study plans development; to modify the Verifica report; to elaborate the Modifica report; and to gather evidences for the Acredita report. It will also show the existing limitations. Thus, following Gutiérrez and De Pablos (2010) assessment will be used as another tool to guide the
4258
Guillermo Domínguez Fernández and Ana López Medialdea / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
student, not just as a results accreditation. What is more important, it will be a motivating experience that is boosted by the professors’ exchange of experiences and good practices. This phase ought to have begun on September, earlier this year. However, due to budgetary difficulties it has been postponed. The project won’t be cancelled, though. As many professors as possible are expected to participate. The next steps are the following: a) Instruments elaboration b) Instruments validation, through their implementation, the different degrees’ CPA and the coordination with the Commissions for this purpose, as well as the participation of experts.
Acknowledgements Vicerrectorado de Convergencia, Pablo de Olavide University Translator: M. I. Ávila Molero, Pablo de Olavide University 4. Conclusions The current economic crisis is also present at the Universities’ organization and internal structure, triggering events such as downsizing or the expanding of working hours. The consequence is the professors’ low motivation, innovation being left far from their priority interests, due to the non-paid hours it requires. In this university environment, where readjustments never stop, the management model is the “organized anarchy” model, even if guidelines given to government bodies are to impose a model focused on efficiency. These circumstances make professors’ participation in innovation projects even more difficult. The solution might be to involve professors following a collaborative-participative model that integrates study plans development, together with accreditation and innovation models. In this way, requests made in the Modifica and Acredita reports will be vital for the development of innovation processes, if accompanying actions are implemented, thus allowing the professors’ accreditation. A generalized participation in innovative actions will probably be unachievable. These actions are more likely to be isolated, promoted by a charismatic leadership of a minority group of participative professors. References Avarguez, M.L., Borda. M., y López, A. (2010). Condiciones de trabajo, burnout y síntomas de estrés en la Universidad: Validación de un modelo estructural sobre el efecto mediador de la competencia personal percibida. Psicología Conductual, 18(2), 317-341. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/927581165?accountid=14695 Baldridge, J.V., Deal, T.E. (1983). The Dynamics of Organizational change in education. Berkeley. McCutchan: Publishing Corporation. Bolivar, A. (2000). Los centros educativos como organizaciones que aprenden. Promesa y realidades. Madrid: La Muralla. Castro, D, Tomás, M. (2010). El desempeño de la dirección en la Universidad: El caso de los decanos y directores de departamento. Educación XXI,13(2), 217-239. Retrieved from http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=70617175010 Domínguez, G., Medialdea, A.L., y Cobos, D. (2012). La tutoría como valor añadido de la práctica docente: Una experiencia de Innovación Universitaria en el marco burocrático de Bolonia. Revista d´innovación educativa, 9, 61-70. Retrieved from http://ojs.uv.es/index.php/attic/index Escudero, J.M. (2009). Comunidades docentes del aprendizaje, formación del profesorado y mejora de la educación. Ágora para la educación Física y el Deporte, 10, 7-31. Retrieved from http://www5.uva.es/agora/revista/10/agora10_escuder.pdf. Gutierrez, S., De Pablos, C. (2010). Análisis y evaluación de la gestión por competencias en el ámbito empresarial y su aplicación a la universidad. Revista Complutense de Educación, 21(2), 323-343.
Guillermo Domínguez Fernández and Ana López Medialdea / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
4259
Louis, K.S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leardership, 16(5), 477-489. March, J.G., Olsen, P. (1982). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen:University Forlaget. Michavila, F., Ripollés, M. y Esteveve, F. (2011). El día después de Bolonia. Madrid:Tecnos. Mintzberg, H. (1986). Structure et dynamicque des organisations. París: d'Organisation. Owens, R.G. (1983). La escuela como organización. Madrid:Santillana. Owens, R.G. (1991). Organizational behavior in education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J:Prentice Hall. Simon, H. (1987). Getting to know schools in a democracy. The politics and process of evaluation. London:The Falmer Press. Taylor, F. (1911). The principies of scientific management. New York:Harper. Weber, M. (2005). Economía y sociedad. (9a reimpresión), México:Fondo de Cultura Económica. Weick, K.E. (1985). Sources of order in underorganized systems. Themes in recent organizational theory. In Y. S. Lincol, (Ed.), Organizational Theory and Inquiry. The paradigm revolution (pp. 106-135). London: Sage.
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013
University and educational innovation: beyond the Bologna Plan bureaucratization Guillermo Domínguez Fernándeza *, Ana López Medialdeab, b
a Department of Social Science, University Pablo de Olavide, Crt. Utrera km1 edif.2.24 Sevilla cp/41013, Spain Department of Socail Science, University Pablo de Olavide, Crt. Utrera km1 edif.11.2.20 Sevilla cp/41013, Spain
Abstract Spanish universities, given they stand within the Bologna Process, are absorbed in a three-phase procedure: 1st Designing new programmes of studies (Verifica report); 2nd Implementing these and applying necessary readjustments for their better development (Modifica report); 3rd Consolidating Modifica reports, through evidence gathering, thus ensuring the qualifications accreditation process at the faculties.Our proposal has been implemented at the Social Sciences Faculty of the Pablo de Olavide University (Seville), 2009-2012. Its backbone is “professors’ participation channels”, based on the participative-collaborative model.
Selection peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Servet Bayram © 2013 Theand Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review undermanagement, responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. Keywords: Higher Education, innovation © 2013 The Authors. Published bymanagement, Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Higher Education, innovation
1. Introduction University bureaucratization is a consequence of the following: quality management procedures; the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation of Spain (ANECA); the new grado qualifications (bachelor's degree); the elaboration of the Verifica and Modifica reports; and the accreditation procedures. This bureaucratization adds an excessive workload to the professors’ educational work, leaving the actual teaching and, what is worse, communication with students at the bottom of their list. At the same time, as exposed at UNESCO conferences (Domínguez, Medialdea, and Cobos, 2012), students now need more than ever the professors’ support, as well as their academic, personal and vocational guidance. Restructuring the university sector, the universities internal structure crisis and the economic precariousness is not leaving enough space for the professors to participate in innovative processes. This means that any innovation project, other than its own value, must have an impact on accreditation; therefore, it becomes necessary to integrate innovation in the development processes of the institutional plans and the programmes of studies. This experience aims to introduce innovations in the programmes of studies. It is achieved by improving the professors’ daily work, using a support plan. This plan allows not only an institutional development of the programmes of studies not limited to a bureaucratic procedure, but also it takes into account the professors’ accreditation needs.
* Corresponding Author name. Guillermo Domíguez Fernández Tel.: 0034-954-34987 E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.927
4256
Guillermo Domínguez Fernández and Ana López Medialdea / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
2. Models of organization management for innovation at the university: different answers for innovation given a common situation of crisis and cutbacks To cite models of organization management for innovation means to approach the complex university culture and inner environment of the faculties. These are now epicenters of low spirits and low willingness of the professors, due to downsizing, bureaucratic requirements, higher workloads, lower salaries, and so on. According to Avargues, Borda and López (2010, p.14), these circumstances may entail episodes of stress at work and, therefore, professional exhaustion. This situation is creating a despondency culture for managers and professors. Within it, systems of quality assurance, new qualifications being placed and the change of the methodology-results framework coincide with the daily professors’ problems. In this regard, it is necessary to manage plans of professors’ support to address this situation with a certain degree of optimism and motivation, avoiding an institutional paralysis. 2.1. Model focused on directive and efficiency: managers are at the center of management and execution, the system is bureaucratic and the innovation control is excessive Managers are the source of innovation in this model. Professors do not participate; innovation is viewed as belonging to the directive team; therefore, professors are not interested in it. Results are the most important achievement: visible, appearing at institutional documents, external and tangible. Authors such as Mintzberg (1986); Owen (1983, 1991); Taylor (1911); Weber (1949) stand out. Currently, such a model could prevail as the universities official management model, within the economic crisis context. It would facilitate the sector and the universities readjustment at a lower cost, according to Narváez (2008) and Michavilla (2008, 2009). 2.2. Model focused on an organized anarchy and permissive managers: management as representativeness and directive team permissiveness to achieve innovation In this Napoleonic model according to Castro (2010, p.222) “the institutional power belongs to the professors”, named professional bureaucracy with classes’ features by Middlehurst (2004). Actions need the endorsement of all, through formal meetings (staff or faculty meetings). These are full of rites and liturgies, even if many of the agreements reached won’t be applied, because nobody is willing to becoming involved or working for innovation or changes; notwithstanding, the approval is necessary for the image shown and for the university perfect functioning representation. This model has been widespread for a long time at universities. It facilitates reforms at a low cost of opposition by managers and professors. It is rooted at the systemic trend by Bertalanffy (1957): organization is a living organism; the whole has an influence in the parts and vice versa. It was developed by March and Olsen (1982); Baldridge and Deal (1983); Weick (1985); Simon (1987). 2.3. Model focused on collaboration and participation: cultures of innovation and management as a deal or consensus Generally, directives and experts consider this model to be the perfect or ideal one for management. Organization is developed through negotiations, consensus, deals and agreements among ideologies, cultures or pressure groups. Currently, it is the base for the functioning of any university. Innovation requires such negotiations or agreements, but more is required to reach the professors’ involvement and participation, as a measure to facilitate innovation development and achievement. Within this model, named “micro politics”, innovation must start by having that innovative minority group, which forms a minority culture, being added to the other cultures, thus forming a majority “common culture”. This model dates back to the 1980s. It has also been named as political o socio-critical model. Authors such as Baldridge and Deal (1983); Ball (1993); Bates (1989); García Rubiano (2011); Greenfield (1993); Hoyle (1982); Morgan (1990); Tyler (1991), stand out.
Guillermo Domínguez Fernández and Ana López Medialdea / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
4257
3. Basis for the development of an innovation experience at the university: example applied at the Social Sciences Faculty at Pablo de Olavide University For the last three academic years (2009-2012), thanks to the Vicerrectorado de Convergencia (Vice-rectorship of Convergence) grants for Innovation Actions, grados have been established along with support measures for university professors as a training plan in a first place; innovative actions are part of a second phase, through the faculty’s strategic plan. 3.1. Aims or philosophy: everyone is involved; everyone’s interests are taken into account in the same process In today’s culture, an organized anarchy, the key was to involve professors in the development of the programmes of studies, within a procedure that is filled with never-ending bureaucratic requirements, such as the guías docentes (courses description). 3.2. Project phases following a collaborative-participative model 3.2.1. 1st Phase: Guías docentes elaboration for the development of the programmes of studies (academic years 2009-2011) The innovation aim was to create an instrument, professors being involved, which supported the guía docente elaboration and provided knowledge on the Verifica report (study plans). Thanks to the collaboration of external experts, the process finished with the elaboration of a computer application, useful for all degrees. It is still used. Thanks to it, the guía docente elaboration was faster. As for the participation, 60 professors out of 180 took part from the beginning; another 70 followed suit later on. 3.2.2. 2nd Phase: Guías docentes validation for experiences exchange; the design and application were compared to find maladjustments, for the Modifica report (academic year 2011-2012) The main objective was to motivate professors, so that they had their space as well as a basis structure for the experiences interchange and for improving the teaching practice. For this, maladjustments between the Verifica report (theoretical) and reality were analyzed. In this way, according to Bolivar (2000, p.26) it was “an organization learning as a community of past and present experiences – to process information, correct mistakes and solve problems in a creative or transformative way, not just in an accumulative or reproductive way”. This analysis would allow a gradual elaboration of the Modifica report, in a participative way. As a result of this phase’s success, professors felt involved. Real experiences only were used (not theoretical ones). In addition, the participating professors agreed to form learning communities (CPA); they were developed after Escudero (2009) and Karen Louis (2006) works and organized by degrees: Trabajo Social, Sociología, Educación Social and joint studies in Trabajo Social and Educación Social. Communities were coordinated by an expert leading the project, by using the virtual platform shared by professors. At the time this paper is read, this phase is almost finished. Hopefully, materials with all contributions will be elaborated in two lines: a) Guidelines to improve the study plans and good practices experiences b) Data validation to elaborate the Modifica reports, in order to guarantee accreditation 3.2.3. 3rd Phase: Competence-assessment instruments elaboration to improve subjects and study plans, as well as to gather evidences for the Acredita report (academic year 2013-2014) The aim of this phase is to elaborate a guide with competence-assessment instruments. It will allow the following: a better judgment regarding assessment; to inform the students on their improvements (especially during the practicum and the degree final paper); to readjust the study plans development; to modify the Verifica report; to elaborate the Modifica report; and to gather evidences for the Acredita report. It will also show the existing limitations. Thus, following Gutiérrez and De Pablos (2010) assessment will be used as another tool to guide the
4258
Guillermo Domínguez Fernández and Ana López Medialdea / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
student, not just as a results accreditation. What is more important, it will be a motivating experience that is boosted by the professors’ exchange of experiences and good practices. This phase ought to have begun on September, earlier this year. However, due to budgetary difficulties it has been postponed. The project won’t be cancelled, though. As many professors as possible are expected to participate. The next steps are the following: a) Instruments elaboration b) Instruments validation, through their implementation, the different degrees’ CPA and the coordination with the Commissions for this purpose, as well as the participation of experts.
Acknowledgements Vicerrectorado de Convergencia, Pablo de Olavide University Translator: M. I. Ávila Molero, Pablo de Olavide University 4. Conclusions The current economic crisis is also present at the Universities’ organization and internal structure, triggering events such as downsizing or the expanding of working hours. The consequence is the professors’ low motivation, innovation being left far from their priority interests, due to the non-paid hours it requires. In this university environment, where readjustments never stop, the management model is the “organized anarchy” model, even if guidelines given to government bodies are to impose a model focused on efficiency. These circumstances make professors’ participation in innovation projects even more difficult. The solution might be to involve professors following a collaborative-participative model that integrates study plans development, together with accreditation and innovation models. In this way, requests made in the Modifica and Acredita reports will be vital for the development of innovation processes, if accompanying actions are implemented, thus allowing the professors’ accreditation. A generalized participation in innovative actions will probably be unachievable. These actions are more likely to be isolated, promoted by a charismatic leadership of a minority group of participative professors. References Avarguez, M.L., Borda. M., y López, A. (2010). Condiciones de trabajo, burnout y síntomas de estrés en la Universidad: Validación de un modelo estructural sobre el efecto mediador de la competencia personal percibida. Psicología Conductual, 18(2), 317-341. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/927581165?accountid=14695 Baldridge, J.V., Deal, T.E. (1983). The Dynamics of Organizational change in education. Berkeley. McCutchan: Publishing Corporation. Bolivar, A. (2000). Los centros educativos como organizaciones que aprenden. Promesa y realidades. Madrid: La Muralla. Castro, D, Tomás, M. (2010). El desempeño de la dirección en la Universidad: El caso de los decanos y directores de departamento. Educación XXI,13(2), 217-239. Retrieved from http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=70617175010 Domínguez, G., Medialdea, A.L., y Cobos, D. (2012). La tutoría como valor añadido de la práctica docente: Una experiencia de Innovación Universitaria en el marco burocrático de Bolonia. Revista d´innovación educativa, 9, 61-70. Retrieved from http://ojs.uv.es/index.php/attic/index Escudero, J.M. (2009). Comunidades docentes del aprendizaje, formación del profesorado y mejora de la educación. Ágora para la educación Física y el Deporte, 10, 7-31. Retrieved from http://www5.uva.es/agora/revista/10/agora10_escuder.pdf. Gutierrez, S., De Pablos, C. (2010). Análisis y evaluación de la gestión por competencias en el ámbito empresarial y su aplicación a la universidad. Revista Complutense de Educación, 21(2), 323-343.
Guillermo Domínguez Fernández and Ana López Medialdea / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4255 – 4259
4259
Louis, K.S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leardership, 16(5), 477-489. March, J.G., Olsen, P. (1982). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen:University Forlaget. Michavila, F., Ripollés, M. y Esteveve, F. (2011). El día después de Bolonia. Madrid:Tecnos. Mintzberg, H. (1986). Structure et dynamicque des organisations. París: d'Organisation. Owens, R.G. (1983). La escuela como organización. Madrid:Santillana. Owens, R.G. (1991). Organizational behavior in education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J:Prentice Hall. Simon, H. (1987). Getting to know schools in a democracy. The politics and process of evaluation. London:The Falmer Press. Taylor, F. (1911). The principies of scientific management. New York:Harper. Weber, M. (2005). Economía y sociedad. (9a reimpresión), México:Fondo de Cultura Económica. Weick, K.E. (1985). Sources of order in underorganized systems. Themes in recent organizational theory. In Y. S. Lincol, (Ed.), Organizational Theory and Inquiry. The paradigm revolution (pp. 106-135). London: Sage.