Futuristic Scenarios of the Lithuanian General Education School

 

Tanaboon Poonphol PhD 246511002

Futuristic Scenarios of the Lithuanian General Education School

1. Research Title The research project is titled "Futuristic Scenarios of the Lithuanian General Education School". The paper that features the findings of this project is titled "Futuristic scenarios of the general education school: Lithuanian trajectories and implications".

2. Researcher & Institutional Affiliation

    ◦ Researchers: The authors of the paper, who conducted this research, are Lilija Duobliene, Simona Kontrimiene, Jogaila Vaitekaitis, Justina Garbauskaite-Jakimovska, and Sandra Kaire.

    ◦ Institutional Affiliation: All researchers are primarily affiliated with the Institute of Educational Sciences, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. Dr. Simona Kontrimiene also serves as Head of the Department of Research in Languages for Specific Purposes at the Institute of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Philology, Vilnius University, and is an Associate Professor of Quantitative Research Methods at the Institute of Educational Sciences.

    ◦ Academic Year/Project Duration: The project was carried out between 2020 and 2022. It received financial support from the Lithuanian Research Council from 2020 to 2023.

3. Research Objectives The primary objectives of this research project were to:

    ◦ Develop futuristic scenarios and extrapolate the most probable trajectories of school development.

    ◦ Capture (un)realistic and (un)preferable tendencies in the rapidly changing world, along with their implications and possible benefits.

    ◦ Address the need to predict future events in education and potentially adjust educational policy based on optimal future scenarios.

    ◦ Unravel the specificity of public imagination regarding the future of the general education school in Lithuania.

    ◦ Present the research method used for scenario creation and the resulting four scenarios, their benefits, and implications.

    ◦ Ultimately, such scenarios aim to challenge current ways of thinking, broaden decision-makers’ perspectives, and provide new ideas and directions for educational strategists. They also seek to offer insights into the educational community's views, convey innovations, check the applicability of strategic suggestions, propose ways to prepare for/manage educational crises, and provide solutions for negative scenarios.

4. Research Methodology The research methodology was informed by a broad literature overview and adjusted by recent global events like the pandemic, war, and climate change. It primarily employed the Delphi research method.

    ◦ 4.1) Sampling Design

        ▪ Target Population: The Delphi method requires experts in their field. For this study, the target population included experts in education, specifically academics, school administrators, teachers, and students.

        ▪ Sampling Techniques: Due to a limited number of experts in futuristic education research in Lithuania, the study used purposive and convenience sampling methods to select "arbitrary experts" with notable experience in education.

        ▪ Selection Criteria: Participants were chosen based on their experience in education.

        ▪ Participants: A total of 61 respondents participated in the study. This included 8 students (13.1%), 13 teachers (21.3%), 15 school administrators (24.6%), 12 researchers (19.7%), and 13 experts (21.3%) from major Lithuanian cities. Initially, the survey was sent to 20 individuals from each of the five groups (scientists, education experts, school leaders, teachers, students), with 10 more teachers and school leaders added later.

    ◦ 4.2) Measurement Design

        ▪ Instrument Development:

            • Began with an initial literature review.

            • Followed by six individual semi-structured interviews with diverse experts (astrophysicist-palaeontologist, botanist, philosopher, IT expert, sociologist, sociolinguist) to gather visions on the future of society and school.

            • Interview data were analyzed both deductively and inductively to construct preliminary questionnaire items capturing core dimensions of the Lithuanian general education school.

            • The content validity of these items was assessed by seven experts (school students, school leaders, school administrators, education experts).

            • Eight key focus areas were identified for the questionnaire: sociocultural context, information technologies and school, ecology and school, school culture (space and time), curriculum, the ratio between formal and non-formal education, relationships and communication between teachers and students, and the impact of new global crises.

        ▪ Measurement Tools & Data Collection Methods:

            • The main data collection tool was an online Delphi survey, conducted in Lithuanian on the eDelphi research platform.

            • The survey was administered in two rounds.

            • In each round, respondents answered open-ended questions and closed-ended items across two dimensions: probability and desirability.

            • The questionnaire was slightly modified after the first round, incorporating new items generated from respondents' open-ended answers.

            • After the Delphi survey, three focus group interviews were conducted with students, teachers, school leaders, and educational experts/researchers to evaluate the scenarios, provide insights, and suggest additions/corrections.

    ◦ 4.3) Statistical Design

        ▪ Software: Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21.0 and the Excel program.

        ▪ Data Analysis Approaches:

            • Descriptive statistics were analyzed.

            • Normality of distributions was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test.

            • Differences in means were examined with the Wilcoxon test.

            • Cluster analysis was performed on the data to form scenarios.

            • Results were considered statistically significant at p < .05.

            • The paper specifically presents the probable scenarios extracted from the cluster analysis in the second round.

5. Findings & Recommendations The cluster analysis resulted in the formation of four futuristic scenarios for the future of the Lithuanian general education school:

    ◦ Scenario 1: The School of Eco Care: With the planet: This school is shaped by global crises, prioritizing eco-justice alongside social justice. It emphasizes community cooperation, independent self-study via ICT, citizen science, integration of national security topics, and blurring boundaries between formal and non-formal education.

    ◦ Scenario 2: The School of Exclusion: With the Ingroup: This scenario predicts increased segregation due to ineffective integration policies, leading to diverse schools (monocultural, multicultural, elite private). It is characterized by competition, hierarchy, strict higher education admission, unequal access to modern ICT, minimal ecological concern, decontextualized traditional learning, and emerging underground "live" teaching groups.

    ◦ Scenario 3: The School for the Market: With the Capital: This school is driven by the country's economy, featuring flourishing partnerships with private companies that shape the curriculum and offer training. Education is often provided directly by companies, focusing on STEM, market-applicable competences, interdisciplinary learning, and project-based approaches. While inclusive of all social groups, it is largely virtual, with strong ICT control, leading to concerns about dehumanized education.

    ◦ Scenario 4: The School of Individual Meanings: With the Self: Driven by automation and robotization, human labor is less needed, and education becomes a quest for individual meanings. The traditional school becomes rare, replaced by multifunctional centers offering personalized, algorithm-driven learning based on interests and pace. AI replaces teachers, and time-bound elements like school years vanish. Emphasis is on spirituality, well-being, authenticity, and "slow learning," often hindering broader social relationships and communal aspirations.

6. Key Insights and Implications:

    ◦ Comparison of Probable vs. Desirable: Probable scenarios suggest multiculturalism is segregated into "social bubbles," while desirable scenarios link multiculturalism to market economy support. Desired spiritual education leans towards communalism, whereas probable Scenario 4 highlights individualism leading to asocial tendencies.

    ◦ Surprising Findings: The study found minimal attention paid to creativity and artistic education (except in Scenario 1) and little emphasis on imagination, indicating a practical view of the future among experts. Technologies dominate every scenario, often linked to control and inspiring fear among practitioners. Climate change, despite its global significance, did not rise to prominence in most scenarios.

    ◦ Lithuanian Policy Paradox: Current Lithuanian educational policy (Lithuania 2030 strategy) aligns with "The School of Eco Care." However, implementation plans and practices (e.g., forced streaming, Millennium Schools) show alignment with "The School of Exclusion," leading to concerns about segregation and elitism. This serves as a cautionary tale for policymakers.

    ◦ General Conclusions: The future school is envisioned with strengthened IT (though with apprehension), less interest in "green" schools or communality. School content is seen as decentralized with more relevance and choice. A blurring of formal and non-formal education is expected, with experiential education competing with virtual learning. Schools will become more flexible in terms of time and duration, though their physical existence will remain. The teacher's authority is expected to diminish, with teachers becoming facilitators, IT managers, or replaced by AI, making one-on-one live learning a luxury. A longing for spirituality is noted as a substitute for IT. Current crises (pandemic, war) have instilled a need for security, national defense education, and psychological help in schools.

7. Actionable Recommendations:

    ◦ Policymakers and strategists are encouraged to read and creatively rethink these scenarios themselves.

    ◦ This creative engagement can help them better respond to pressing contemporary issues such as ecological crises, democratic deficits, epistemological challenges, and the crisis of humanism.

    ◦ The scenarios are descriptive tools, inviting practitioners to use them creatively to identify unnoticed aspects and react in a timely manner, rather than providing direct instructions or prescriptions.

    ◦ It is crucial to allow imagination to escape existing confines of standard thinking to prepare for unexpected ideas in an uncertain world.

8. References for this Research The provided source is the research article itself. The references used within this research article, which support its methodology, theoretical background, and comparisons with other future studies, include:

    ◦ Delphi Method and Scenario Planning:

        ▪ Beiderbeck, D., Frevel, N., von der Gracht, H. A., et al. (2021).

        ▪ Markmann, C., Spickermann, A., von der Gracht, H. A., et al. (2020).

        ▪ Schulte, T. (2017).

        ▪ Nowack, M., Endrikat, J., & Guenther, E. (2011).

        ▪ Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., et al. (2005).

        ▪ Martelli, A. (2001).

        ▪ Millett, S. M. (2003).

        ▪ Varum, C. A., & Melo, C. (2010).

        ▪ Chermack, T. J., Freshwater, W. S., Hartig, L., et al. (2020).

        ▪ Van Der Heijden, K. (2000).

    ◦ Previous Future of Education Scenarios/Reports:

        ▪ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2006, 2020).

        ▪ UNESCO (2021).

        ▪ Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2010).

        ▪ Kesson, K. (2020).

        ▪ Ramos, J. (2020).

        ▪ Daffara, P. (2020).

        ▪ Sanborn, R., Santos, A., Montgomery, A. L., et al. (2005).

        ▪ White, J. (2020).

        ▪ Slaughter, R. A. (2003).

        ▪ Research on the Future of Lithuanian Science Scientific Lithuania 2030 (2012).

    ◦ Theoretical Frameworks (Posthumanism, New Materialism, Anthropocene, etc.):

        ▪ Aylesworth, G. (2015).

        ▪ Slattery, P. (2006).

        ▪ Jagodzinski, J. (2018).

        ▪ Wallin, J. J. (2014).

        ▪ Malone, K. (2018).

        ▪ Kouppanou, A. (2020).

        ▪ Latour, B. (2005).

        ▪ Tesar, M. (2021).

        ▪ Malone, K., Tesar, M., & Arndt, S. (2020).

        ▪ Žižek, S. (2020).

        ▪ Cole, D. R. (2022).

        ▪ Snaza, N. (2018).

        ▪ Somerville, M., & Powell, S. (2018).

    ◦ Lithuanian Policy Documents:

        ▪ Lithuania 2030 (retrieved from e-seimas.lrs.lt).

        ▪ Order on the implementation of the implementation plan of the Government Programme of the Republic of Lithuania (ŠMSM, 2022).

        ▪ Law on Education of the Republic of Lithuania (2022).