Call for Papers: Upper secondary school graduation as a critical point in education

CALL FOR PAPERS: Special IssueUpper secondary school graduation as a critical point in educationEditors: Petr Novotný & Claudia Schuchart27:4, 2022

The Studia paedagogica journal is indexed in SCOPUS.

The upcoming thematic issue of the journal Studia paedagogica will focus on upper secondary education (ISCED 3) final examinations as an important part of the life courses and educational careers of young people. We consider it appropriate to deal with this topic. We ask the question “What are the consequences – at individual, institutional, and societal levels – of how the final examination is managed in various educational systems?”

The topic defined here opens a space for the application of various theoretical assumptions and for presentations of empirical research. The list provided here is certainly not exhaustive, but it may serve to inspire authors.

We are interested in how success or failure is initiated in the final exam. The causes of success or failure in upper secondary school are found in individual and family contexts (Quin, 2017). The causes can also be and increasingly are sought in the characteristics of the school and in teacher attitudes on a scale between academic optimism (Hoy, 2012) and academic futility (Van Houtte & Vantieghem, 2020).

We are also interested in the circumstances, functions, course, and completion of studies at the level of secondary general (ISCED 3A) and secondary vocational education (ISCED 3B), including the question of whether high-stakes testing policies affect student learning (Amrein & Berliner, 2002). The ideology behind the exam setup is a matter of discussion (Nylund, Rosvall, & Ledman, 2017). A comparative perspective may be applied.

The results of final exams, called variously maturita, matura, school-leaving exams, general certificate of secondary education, baccalaureate, etc., play an important role in the future study and life path of the graduate. In some education systems, graduation is a necessary condition for access to higher education. Failure to graduate presents a barrier to further study or work. Not completing secondary school often entails an increased risk of social exclusion for failing students and indicates a risk of not fitting into the labor market (Piopiunik, Schwerdt & Wößmann, 2014). In some countries, alternative pathways from non-academic school types to higher education are provided (Schuchart & Schimke, 2019). The effect of the metaphorically open or closed doors of the university may be examined.

Based on this brief overview, we offer the following examples of possible topics of the texts: 

  • Comparison of the functions of final examinations in education systems
  • Decision-making on the entry into higher education and planning of the educational path of students
  • Difficulty of graduation from upper secondary education as perceived by students, parents, and other actors
  • Graduation from upper secondary education from the perspective of teachers
  • Success and failure in the final exam and its interpretation
  • The results of the final exam and the future educational path: continuity or discontinuity
  • The results of the final exam and future careers, including economic effects for individuals and society
  • Perception of graduation by educational policy actors
  • The informative value of testing as the final stage of upper secondary education

This thematic issue will be published in English in December 2022. The deadline for submission of abstracts is December 31, 2021; the deadline for submission of full texts is April 30, 2022. Both abstracts and full texts are to be sent to the e-mail address Articles should be written in English and meet the requirements set out in the instructions for authors on the journal’s website. Manuscripts will be submitted to a peer-review process that will enable the editors to select papers for publication.

The editors of this issue are Petr Novotný (Masaryk University, Czech Republic) and Claudia Schuchart (University of Wuppertal, Germany). You can find more information at


Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1-74.

Hoy, W. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A 40-year odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 76-97.

Nylund, M., Rosvall, P., & Ledman, K. (2017). The vocational–academic divide in neoliberal upper secondary curricula: The Swedish case. Journal of Education Policy, 32(6), 788-808.

Piopiunik, M., Schwerdt, G., & Wößmann, L. (2014). Central school-leaving exams, signaling effects of grades and labor-market outcomes in Germany. [Zentrale Abschlussprüfungen, Signalwirkung von Abiturnoten und Arbeitsmarkterfolg in Deutschland] Zeitschrift Fur Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(1), 35-60.

Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between Teacher–Student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 345-387.

Schuchart, C., & Schimke, B. (2019). Is it worth catching up on a higher school-leaving certificate? Alternative pathways to university entrance qualifications and their labour market returns. [Lohnt sich das Nachholen eines Schulabschlusses? Alternative Wege zur Hochschulreife und ihre Arbeitsmarkterträge] Kolner Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 71(2), 237-273.

Van Houtte, M., & Vantieghem, W. (2020). Do girls make boys study? Gender composition, gender role culture, and sense of futility in Flemish secondary schools. Youth and Society, 52(2), 229-250.

PDF version.

Call for Papers: Interactions and Meanings in Social Networks

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia paedagogica26:2, 2021

Special Issue: Interactions and Meanings in Social Networks

Editors: Jennifer M. Langer-Osuna & Zuzana Šalamounová

The Studia paedagogica journal is indexed in SCOPUS.


The June 2021 issue of Studia paedagogica will focus on the social networks in educational processes. Educational research continues to deepen the current understanding of educational processes in order to improve their quality and ensure equal opportunities for everyone, no matter their race, sociocultural or socioeconomic background, gender, or language. Current research frequently focuses on individual actors (mostly students and teachers) and their independent actions related to learning and teaching processes. Another focus of research has been the examination of processes between educational actors from the perspective of their mutual relationships. The importance of relationships between (educational) actors has become even more important as schools and other institutions are closing down all over the world. This brings us to a key term: social networks, which we understand to describe configurations of social relationships between individual or corporate actors (White, 1992) and whose role in educational processes we would like to explore in the special issue of Studia paedagogica.

Social networks are understood as a construct with two levels (Fuhse, 2009; White, 1992). The first level concerns interaction, which is represented by communicative processes and mediates what is happening between single or corporate actors in a social network. The second level concerns individually or socially constructed meanings. It deals with the ways in which interactions between single or corporate actors proceed, the positioning of the individual actors, and the expectations of those actors. In the June 2021 issue, we would like to include studies that examine the interactions between educational actors and/or their meanings while grounding these processes in the context of social networks.

We believe that such studies can lead to an increased understanding of many research areas. The first among these relates to learning processes that take place between educational actors and learning opportunities that are distributed between the actors. For example, research studies have shown that the nature of student participation in classroom discourse is shaped by their position among their peers (Engle, Langer-Osuna, & McKinney de Royston (2014) and also that learning opportunities of students are affected by their social relationships and the nature of their ties with others. This means that some students have greater opportunities to participate in classroom discourse while others can be marginalized (Esmonde & Langer-Osuna, 2013; Langer-Osuna, 2011). This understanding raises several questions:

  • How are learning opportunities distributed within social networks in homogenous / heterogenous classes?
  • How does meaning evolve in interactions within specific configurations of students?
  • How do social networks in homogenous / heterogenous classes affect attempts to ensure equality in classes?

If we aim to understand educational processes on a deeper level, then we also need to take into account how processes of (self)positioning proceed in networks and how social and learning identities are constructed (Wortham, 2006). To that end, we can find inspiration in the study by Karam, Kibler, Johnson, & Elreda (2019) on the positioning of a student by the teacher and by the student; this positioning further contextualizes the evolving position of the student in the social networks of peers. Since the study also illustrates how the clash of the positions ascribed to students by their teachers and by the students themselves, prospective papers can also examine the following questions:

  • How does the process of (self)positioning occur in a social network of peers and how does it change during the different forms of classroom discourse?
  • How are learning identities formed in interactions within the classroom?
  • How are teaching identities formed in classroom interactions with students? How are teaching identities formed in staffroom interactions?

Another line of research shows that students’ belonging to particular networks has a long-term influence on their degree of engagement (Kindermann, 2007); this is also influenced by the characteristics of individual social networks (such as their size, gender distribution, etc., Johnson, Vollet & Kindermann, 2018) and by the involvement of teachers and parents (Kindermann & Vollet, 2014). This raises the following questions:

  • Which attributes of social networks in the classrooms influence teaching processes and learning and in what ways?
  • How do social bonds between students’ homes and schools’ practices affect student learning?
  • How do social relationships between schools and local communities affect educational processes?

Finally, papers can also examine questions related to theoretical and methodological frameworks used in the study of social networks in educational processes. Even though this mostly concerns interactional/positioning approaches or social network analysis, these are only very rarely used in combination (see Karam, Kibler, Johnson, & Elreda, 2019). Studies can therefore inquire:

  • How do interactional/positioning approaches and social network analytical procedures speak to one another theoretically and/or analytically?
  • What other methodological approaches can help us examine the role of social networks in educational processes?

This list of topical areas does not cover the entire scope of acceptable topics, but we hope that it will inspire authors to contribute empirical, theoretical, or methodological papers on social networks in educational processes.

Important dates:

This monothematic issue will be published in English in July 2021. The deadline for abstracts is June 30, 2020; the deadline for full texts is October 30, 2020. Both abstracts and full texts are to be sent to the e-mail address Articles should be written in English and meet the requirements mentioned in the instructions for authors on the journal’s website. Manuscripts will be submitted to a peer-review process that will enable the editors to select papers for publication.

The editors of this issue are Jennifer M. Langer-Osuna (Stanford University, California, United States of America), and Zuzana Šalamounová (Masaryk University, Czech Republic). You can find more information at


Engle, R. A., J. M. Langer-Osuna, and M. McKinney de Royston (2014). Toward a Model of Influence in Persuasive Discussions: Negotiating Quality, Authority, Privilege, and Access within a Student-Led Argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23(2), 245–268. 

Esmonde, I., & Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2013). Power in numbers: Student participation in mathematical discussions in heterogeneous spaces. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 44, 288–315.

Fuhse, J. A. (2009). The Meaning Structure of Social Networks. Sociological Theory 27(1), 51-73.

Johnson, P. M., Justin W Vollet, J. W., & Kindermann, T. A. (2013). Are there dangers to being central in a social network? Poster presented on The Biannual Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development (SRCD).

Karam, F. J., Kibler, A. K., Johnson, H. E., & Molloy Elreda, L. (2019). Identity, Positionality, and Peer Social Networks: A Case Study of an Adolescent Refugee Background Student. Journal of Language, Identity & Education.

Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of Naturally-existing Peer Groups on Changes in Academic Engagement in a Cohort of Sixth Graders. Child Development 78, 1186–1203.

Kindermann, T. A. & Vollet, J. (2014). Social networks within classroom ecologies: peer effects on students’ engagement in the context of relationships with teachers and parents. Erziehungswiss 17(5), 135-151.

Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2011). How Brianna Became Bossy and Kofi Came Out Smart: Understanding the Differentially Mediated Identity and Engagement of Two Group Leaders in a Project-based Mathematics Classroom. The Canadian Journal for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education 11, 207–225.

White, H. C. (1992). Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action. Princeton University Press.

Wortham, S. (2006). Learning Identity: The Joint Emergence of Social Identification and Academic Learning. Cambridge University Press.


PDF version.

Call for Papers: Teaching and Learning In Higher Education

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia paedagogica27:2, 2022

Special Issue: Teaching and Learning In Higher Education

Editors: Kari Smith & Karla Brücknerová 

The Studia paedagogica journal is indexed in SCOPUS.


The June 2022 issue of Studia paedagogica will focus on the core educational processes in higher education: teaching and learning. The issue aims to explore these processes during the changes that higher education has faced in the last decades and, even more pressingly, in the last year.

Teaching in higher education takes place in various arenas and contexts. Teaching takes place in physical and virtual settings in the forms of lectures for hundreds of students, seminars and small group sessions, and one-on-one tutorials. The number of instructional methods in higher education is continually increasing. Innovations in recent years have introduced blended learning, flipped classrooms, mobile learning, and gamified learning, to mention a few (Dziuban et al., 2018; Subhash et al., 2018; Long, 2017). Nevertheless, the continuously expanding heterogeneity of instructional and technological possibilities in higher education are not always translated into practice in the study programs or in the professional development programs for higher education faculty (Shum et al., 2020; Cochran-Smith et al., 2019). Rapidly changing technological and institutional demands might shadow core questions about higher education teachers’ aims, teaching beliefs, and even motivation to care for teaching (McCune, 2019; Smith & Flores, 2019). Teaching in higher education might, therefore, raise the following questions:

  • What does high-quality teaching in higher education mean in different settings?
  • What competencies are needed to ensure quality teaching in higher education?
  • What development opportunities are available to higher education teachers?
  • What is the current knowledge about new instructional methods and designs in higher education?
  • Is there any shift in teaching conceptions due to contemporary changes and
  • demands?

For this special issue, we also invite contributions on learning in higher education in all three cycles of tertiary education (bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels). How do students approach learning and engage with learning, what are their experiences and achievements, and what are the conditions and contexts for their learning (Entwistle &  Peterson, 2004)? We specifically invite contributions discussing particular aspects of learning, such as self-regulated learning, peer learning, learning in learning management systems, and informal learning (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Cerezo, 2015).

Moreover, learning in higher education goes beyond student learning, and we encourage papers examining the learning processes of higher education teachers and supervisors. Accordingly, we invite contributions examining questions such as: 

  • What are essential aspects of learning in higher education for various actors?
  • What variables, indicators, and measures are used to describe learning in higher education?
  • What are the actual learning outcomes of higher education for different groups of students at different levels?
  • How does informal learning happen in higher education?
  • How and what do teachers and supervisors learn from interactions with their
  • students?

Crucial questions arise of how these processes, teaching and learning, are interwoven (Nugent, et al., 2019).

  • What are the characteristics of teaching that matter in particular learning settings?
  • What aspects of learning are sensitive to what aspects of teaching? In what settings?

More questions will certainly arise, and we hope that the above suggestions will inspire authors to contribute empirical, theoretical, or methodological papers.

Important dates

This monothematic issue will be published in English in July 2022. The deadline for abstract submission is June 30, 2021; the deadline for full texts is October 31, 2021. Papers should be written in English, meet the requirements listed in the manuscript submission section on the journal’s website, and be submitted via the journal’s website. Manuscripts will be submitted to a peer-review process that will enable the editors to select papers for publication.

The editors of this issue are Kari Smith (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) and Karla Brücknerová (Masaryk University, Czech Republic).


Cerezo, R., Sánchez-Santillán, M., Paule-Ruiz, M. P., & Núñez, J. C. (2016). Students’ LMS interaction patterns and their relationship with achievement: A case study in higher education. Computers & Education, 96(2016), 42–54.

Cochran-Smith, M., Grudnoff, L., Orland-Barak, L., & Smith, K. (2019). Educating Teacher Educators: International Perspectives, The New Educator, 16(1), 5–24.

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.

Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(3), 1-16.

Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 407–428.

Long, T., Cummins, J., & Waugh, M. (2017). Use of the flipped classroom instructional model in higher education: instructors’ perspectives. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(2), 179–200.

McCune, V. (2019). Academic identities in contemporary higher education: sustaining identities that value teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(1), 20–35.

Nugent, A, Lodge, J, Carroll, A, et al. (2019) Higher education learning framework: An evidence informed model for university learning. Report, Science of Learning Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Australia. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27887.53925

Shum, A., Lau, P., & Fryer, L. (2020). From learner to teacher:(re) training graduate teaching assistants’ teaching approaches and developing self-efficacy for and interest in teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, (online first) 1–18.

Smith, K. & Flores, M. A. (2019). The Janus faced teacher educator. European Journal of Teacher Education,42(4), 433–446.

Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2018), 192–206.

PDF version.

Call for Papers: Professional Decision-Making in Education

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia paedagogica26:4, 2021

Special Issue: Professional Decision-Making in Education

Editors: Kristin Vanlommel & Milan Pol

The Studia paedagogica journal is indexed in SCOPUS.


This special issue will focus on research, policy, and practice that explores and explains how teachers, school leaders, students, parents, governors, or other stakeholders can make informed decisions in education. Teachers make many decisions that affect students’ educational trajectories, such as formative and summative assessment, tracking and grouping students, retention, or promotion. At school level, school leaders make decisions related to, for example, recruitment, school improvement actions, capacity building, or ethics. Often, there are many expectations related to students’ involvement in decision-making. Parents or governors can be involved in decisions about a school´s direction and many individual aspects of its operation, and the decisions of policy makers at different levels can sometimes have fatal consequences for formal education provision.

In general, the quality of educational decisions has an important impact on school policy and practice. It influences the extent to which improvement actions lead to sustainable change (Hargreaves, Lieberman, Fullan & Hopkins, 2014) or the extent to which education can provide equal and fair educational opportunities for all students (Datnow & Park, 2015). Therefore, it is important that all stakeholders strive to make professional decisions and prevent decision bias. However, this is not an easy endeavor, and it is often influenced by multiple factors (Schildkamp & Poortman & Handelzalts, 2016; Mandinach & Gummer, 2016; Vanlommel, Van Gasse, Vanhoof & Van Petegem, 2018).

In this special issue we welcome texts that focus on different aspects of and frameworks for decision-making in education. Our aim is to produce an issue that offers insight into educational decision-making, showing how it happens and ways in which it can shape research, policy, professional development, and future practice.

Topics might include the following:

Understanding educational decision-making from different perspectives:

- What are the aspects of decision-making in education?

- What is the interplay between data use and expertise?

- What is the role of explicit and hidden purposes in decision-making?

- How can we understand individual and collective processes of decision-making?

- How can we understand, explain, and support the decision-making of teachers, school leaders, student, parents, governors, or other stakeholders?

- …


The outcomes of decision-making:

- How can we evaluate the effectiveness of educational decision-making?

- How can we evaluate the validity of educational decisions?

- What are ‘good’ educational decisions?

- How can we understand and prevent decision bias (stereotyping, self-fulfilling prophecies, etc.)?

- How can approaches (comparative judgement, formative assessment, etc.) strengthen the quality of decisions?

- ….


The importance of professional decision-making in relation to different topics (educational change, equity, etc.):

- Which processes of decision-making are needed for sustainable change?

- What are the enablers and barriers?

- What is the relation between decision-making, judgement and equity?

- …


Enhancing professional decision-making in education:

- What is the involvement of different actors in decision-making at different levels, and with what consequences? And how effective is it? 

- How can we build capacity for professional decision-making in education?

- What are the enabling and hindering factors?

- …

Important dates:

This monothematic issue will be published in English in December 2021. The deadline for submission of abstracts is December 31, 2020; the deadline for submission of full texts is April 30, 2021. Both abstracts and full texts are to be sent to the e-mail address Articles should be written in English and meet the requirements set out in the instructions for authors on the journal’s website. Manuscripts will be submitted to a peer-review process that will enable the editors to select papers for publication.

The editors of this issue are Kristin Vanlommel (University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands), and Milan Pol (Masaryk University, Czech Republic). You can find more information at



Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2015). Data Use--For Equity. Educational Leadership, 72(5), 48-54.

Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. W. (Eds.). (2014). International Handbook of Educational Change: Part Two (Vol. 5). Springer.

Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: Laying out the skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 366-376.

Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Data teams for school improvement. School effectiveness and school improvement, 27(2), 228-254.

Vanlommel, K., Van Gasse, R., Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2018). Teachers high-stakes decision making. How teaching approaches affect rational and intuitive data collection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 108-119.


PDF version.

Call for Papers: Issue Topic – Non-Traditional Students in Tertiary Education

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia paedagogica25:4, 2020

Issue Topic: Non-Traditional Students in Tertiary Education

Editors: Petr Novotný, Milada Rabušicová, Maria Slowey

The Studia paedagogica journal is indexed in SCOPUS.

The theme of the forthcoming issue of Studia paedagogica is Non-Traditional Students in Tertiary Education[1].

The number of students not reflecting the ‘standard’ profile of students in tertiary education has been steadily increasing in many countries. Often referred to as ‘non-traditional’ students, for purposes of international comparison, Schuetze and Slowey (2002) identify three distinguishing criteria: educational biography, mode of study and entry routes.

However, the criteria do not have to be connected only to the educational system, but also to the life and career of an individual. Within this context, an interrupted or discontinued educational biography can be a key issue. Some people may have acquired knowledge and skills from important 'out-of-study' experiences prior to deciding to return to the tertiary educational system on a part- time or full- time basis (for example from parenthood, employment, volunteer work or travelling). Here, the notion of ‘postponed studies’ offers one conceptual approach to interpreting such discontinuation of the educational biography (Souto-Otero & Whitworth, 2017).

Nevertheless, the term ‘non-traditional students’ can have many other meanings. It can refer to groups of students who come to universities from disadvantaged social-economic conditions (lower socio-economic status, minority ethnic), who suffer from a long-term health handicap, or who are threatened by study failure for some reason (Gilardi & Guglielmetti, 2011; Read, Archer, & Leathwood, 2003; Leathwood & O'connell, 2003). In connection with non-traditional studies, women (Leathwood & O'connell, 2003) in traditionally male fields and vice versa are often mentioned as well.

Non-traditional students can also be determined by age – most often on the basis that they may be, for example, older than 25 years of age when they enter tertiary education (for example Jinkens, 2009). Age is, of course, also connected with other socio-economic factors, such as financial independence, employment, care for dependent family members or a variety of other social roles (Daiva, 2017). Other denotations of non-traditional student include mature students or life-long learners (Schuetze, 2014).

As Schuetze (2014) further states, non-traditional students no longer represent a marginal group; on the contrary, we can speak of an ‘adultification’ of tertiary education[2]. Within this meaning, non-traditional students become typical bringers of changes in life and educational biographies, which tend to be losing the traditional form, characterized by the linearity of transfers between the phases of education, work and family and retirement. Tertiary education institutions are challenged to become more responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse groups of learners and adult and other non-traditional students might potentially act as forces for change and reform in teaching and learning, the curriculum and research.

The uniqueness of this group of students in the tertiary education system is clear and their potential to affect this system has important implications for research, policy and practice. Their position can be viewed from the individual level of their life and educational biography, but also from the institutional and social level of tertiary education. The proposed monothematic issue of this journal shall be focused on these and related topics. For example, theoretical and empirical works can be inspired by these sets of questions:

  • How can non-traditional students be understood in different tertiary systems? What are their specifics in comparison to the ‘traditional students’?
  • How do non-traditional students study? How do they choose their studies? With which motivations do they enter their studies and what obstacles do they have to overcome? What is their study behaviour and way of learning?
  • In what manner does the presence of non-traditional students in tertiary education transform/affect the institutions from the standpoint of management, forms, modes of studies and the offered programmes?
  • Which types of tertiary education institutions are more open to non-traditional students? Do these institutions tend to be private? Are these programme-specific institutions?
  • Are there some programmes which are especially attractive to non-traditional students? Could pedagogical programmes represent such cases, for example?
  • What are the existing non-traditional student support policies? How are they supported on the national level and on the level of specific tertiary institutions? Is this support somehow projected into the acceptance procedures? Into the financial and other support of non-traditional students?

In theoretical and empirical studies, it is appropriate to take into consideration the terminological variety and the diversity of discussions in relation to non-traditional students. Where papers are focused on a specific situation in one country, it is important to provide some national context, so that the discussion will be accessible to an international readership.


Important dates

This issue will be published in English in December, 2020. The deadline for abstracts is 29 February, 2020, and the deadline for full texts is 31 May, 2020. Both abstracts and full texts are to be sent to the e-mail address Articles should be written in English and they should meet the requirements mentioned in the instructions for authors on the journal’s website. The articles will be submitted to a peer-review process that will allow the editors to select articles for publication. Petr Novotný (Masaryk University), Milada Rabušicová (Masaryk University), and Maria Slowey (Dublin City University) are the editors of this issue.

You can find more information at:


Abrahamsson, K. (Ed.) (1987). Implementing Recurrent Education in Sweden: On Reform Strategies of Swedish Adult Education. A Selection of Papers from International Conference Serving the Adult Learner: New Roles and Changing Relationships of Adult and Higher Education. Stockholm, Sweden, May 20-22.

Daiva, T. (2017). The Concept of Nontraditional Student. Vocational Training: Research and Realities, 28(1), 40-60.

Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University life of non-traditional students: Engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33-53.

Jinkens, R. C. (2009). Nontraditional students: Who are they? College Student Journal, 43(4), 979-987.

Leathwood, C., & O'Connell, P. (2003). ‘It's a struggle’: the construction of the ‘new student’ in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 18(6), 597-615.

Read, B., Archer, L., & Leathwood, C. (2003). Challenging cultures? Student conceptions of belonging and isolation at a post-1992 university. Studies in higher education, 28(3), 261-277.

Schuetze, H. G. (2014). From adults to non-traditional students to lifelong learners in higher education: Changing contexts and perspectives. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 20(2), 37-55.

Schuetze, H. G. & Slowey, M. (2002). Participation and exclusion: A comparative analysis of non-traditional students and lifelong learners in higher education. Higher education, 44(3-4), 309-327.

Souto-Otero, M. & Whitworth, A. (2017). Adult participation in higher education and the ‘knowledge economy’: a cross-national analysis of patterns of delayed participation in HE across 15 European countries. British Journal of Sociology of Education 38(6), 763-781.

[1] Tertiary Education is based on OECD definition of Tertiary-type A programmes (ISCED 5A) and Tertiary-type B programmes (ISCED 5B).

[2] The term “adultification“ was used firstly by Abrahamsson (1987).


PDF version.

Call for Papers: Issue Topic – The Changing Status of the Teaching Profession

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia paedagogica25:2, 2020

Issue Topic: The Changing Status of the Teaching Profession

Editors: Adam Lefstein, Stanislav Štech, and Klára Šeďová

The journal Studia paedagogica is indexed in SCOPUS.

The theme of the forthcoming monothematic issue of Studia paedagogica is the changing status of the teaching profession. The aim of the issue is to explore current developments in this field in different countries. Though many education systems around the world are facing similar concerns regarding teacher professionalism, there are important differences in the local manifestations of this state of affairs and in the different ways that policy actors and teachers address it.

The character of the teaching profession is changing in many respects (Guerriero and Révai, 2017): new routes to teacher certification; growing accountability pressures and administrative loads; increasingly diverse multicultural classrooms with varying student learning needs; changing relationships with students and their parents; the emergence of new curricular areas, competencies, and literacies (social-emotional, financial, digital, global citizenship, etc.).

Teachers’ social status is also in a state of flux. This process is not straightforward; rather, two contradictory tendencies shape the status of the profession. On the one hand, public trust in teachers and in traditional teacher education programs has eroded (Goepel, 2012). What counted as adequate teaching a generation ago is currently viewed by policymakers and the public as inadequate and a target of necessary reform. On the other hand, teachers are seen as the key lever of educational improvement and the agents of change (Day, 2002). As such, demands on their professionalism are growing (Schleicher, 2018). This situation, in which teachers are both undervalued and called upon to take on additional responsibilities, is confusing and stressful for teachers. The rate of teacher attrition in many countries has risen, and the teaching staff is aging. Moreover, in many countries, teachers are dissatisfied with their professional status, working conditions, pay, and other material benefits (Price and Weatherby, 2018).

This brief survey raises the question: What is happening to the teaching profession and why? We are interested in contributions that bring theory and/or empirical findings to bear on this question. We welcome case studies of the state of the teaching profession in different systems, of policies and programs that seek to strengthen teacher professionalism, and of how teachers are responding and proactively working to improve their lot.

The component questions could be:

What does high-quality teaching mean today? What competencies do teachers need to be able to ensure this? What is an adequate system of teacher education and teacher development for quality teaching?

Are we facing an erosion of public trust in teachers, in traditional teacher education programs, and in traditional teacher roles? What are the reasons for this?

Is there a relationship between the professional characteristics of the teachers and their students’ results? What data are available to answer this question?

How do teachers value their profession? What are the reasons for teacher satisfaction or dissatisfaction in their profession? What are the reasons for teacher attrition? Is it possible to increase satisfaction and decrease attrition?

How do teachers cope with the demands of their professional role? What are the most effective strategies for preventing stress and burnout?

Important dates

This monothematic issue will be published in English in July 2020. The deadline for abstracts is August 31, 2019; the deadline for full texts is October 30, 2019. Both abstracts and full texts are to be sent to the e-mail address Articles should be written in English and meet the requirements mentioned in the instructions for authors on the the journal’s website. Manuscripts will be submitted to a peer-review process that will enable the editors to select papers for publication. The editors of this issue are Adam Lefstein (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel), Stanislav Štech (Charles University, Czech Republic), and Klára Šeďová (Masaryk University, Czech Republic). You can find more information at



Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 677-692.

Goepel, J. (2012) Upholding public trust: An examination of teacher professionalism and the use of Teachers' Standards in England. Teacher Development, 16(4), 489-505.

Guerriero, S., & Révai, N. (2017). Knowledge-based teaching and the evolution of a profession. In Guerriero, S. (ed.), Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession(pp. 253-269). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Price, H. E., & Weatherby, K. (2018). The global teaching profession: how treating teachers as knowledge workers improves the esteem of the teaching profession. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(1), 113-149.

Schleicher, A. (2018). Valuing our Teachers and Raising their Status: How Communities Can Help. Paris: OECD Publishing.


PDF version.

Call for Papers: Issue Topic – Better Learning through Argumentation

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia paedagogica4/2019

Issue Topic: Better Learning through Argumentation

Editors: Roman Švaříček and Alina Reznitskaya

The journal Studia paedagogica is indexed in SCOPUS.


The theme of the forthcoming monothematic issue of Studia paedagogica is Better Learning through Argumentation. Contemporary scholars believe that engaging students in argumentation can help to address many pressing educational priorities, including helping students to acquire a deep understanding of subject matter knowledge (Zimmerman, 2007; Osborne, 2010; Lehesvuori et al., 2017), developing students’ metacognitive skills (Kuhn et al., 2013), preparing students for active participation in democratic societies (Alexander, 2008; Segal et al., 2017; Schuitema et al., 2017), and providing students with “new survival skills” for the 21st century (Wagner, 2008). Despite these ambitious educational goals, we still lack theoretical models and empirical evidence that clearly account for the processes of engaging in argumentation in a classroom and explain the related learning outcomes for students. Furthermore, we need additional studies that reveal instructional approaches that support teachers in fostering students’ argumentation skills across various topics and subject domains. 

To address these gaps in knowledge, we are interested in contributions that engage with questions from the four topical areas listed below. The areas do not cover the entire scope of acceptable topics, but we hope that they will help to inspire authors to contribute empirical, theoretical, or methodological papers on argumentation.


1. Theory of argumentation

What are the challenges for teaching and learning through argumentation in a ‘post-truth’ world?

Which theoretical perspectives can support rigorous argumentation about moral and socio-scientific topics?

How should issues of equity and accessibility be addressed when teaching through argumentation?

In which ways should argumentation be considered domain-specific vs. domain-general?

How do different types of argumentation (e.g. persuasion vs. inquiry) relate to different learning outcomes?


2. Teacher education and professional development in argumentation

What should teachers in different subject areas know about argumentation?

How can teacher learning of argumentation best be supported?

Which aspects of argumentation are more and less difficult for teachers to learn and use in their classes?

How can instructional tools (e.g. argumentation schemes, critical questions, diagrams) support teaching and learning argumentation?

How can teachers be helped to integrate oral argumentation with reading and writing?


3. Emotions and argumentation

What is the role of emotions in argumentation?

In which ways do emotions support or conflict with productive engagement in argumentation?

What pedagogical approaches and strategies promote productive discussions of emotionally charged topics in a classroom?

How can teachers best engage with students who have deep-seated emotional commitments to ideas that are factually wrong or morally reprehensible? 


4. Methodological issues in research on argumentation

How can new technologies help improve research on argumentation in education?

How should we go beyond ‘coding and counting’ in measuring argumentation quality?

How do we define and measure ‘progress’ in an argumentative discussion of controversial issues?

What methodological approaches can help us examine the impact of argumentation on student learning?


Important dates

This monothematic issue will be published in English in December 2019. The deadline for abstracts is 30 April, 2019, and the deadline for full texts is 30 June, 2019. Both abstracts and full texts are to be sent to Articles should be written in English and meet the requirements mentioned in the instructions for authors on the journal’s website. Papers will be submitted to a peer-review process that will enable the editors to select papers for publication. You can find more information at:



Alexander, R. 2008. Essays on Pedagogy. London: Routledge.

Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496.

Lehesvuori, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., Jokiranta, K., Nieminen, P., Hiltunen, J., & Viiri, J. (2018). Enhancing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and science. Studia Paedagogica, 22(4), 55–76.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

Segal, A., Pollak, I., & Lefstein, A. (2017). Democracy, voice and dialogic pedagogy: The struggle to be heard and heeded. Language and Education, 31(1), 6–25.

Schuitema, J., Radstake, H., van de Pol, J., & Veugelers, W. (2017). Guiding classroom discussions for democratic citizenship education. Educational Studies, 44(4) 1–31.

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills our children need and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.

Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223.


PDF version.

Call for Papers: Issue Topic – Transitions in Educational Contexts

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia paedagogica24:2, 2019

Issue Topic: Transitions in Educational Contexts

Editors: Markus P. Neuenschwander and Petr Hlaďo

The journal Studia paedagogica is indexed in SCOPUS. 

The theme of forthcoming monothematic issue of Studia paedagogica is Transitions in Educational Contexts. This significant and multidisciplinary topic can be seen from the perspective of a number of scientific fields (such as education, psychology, sociology, economy, anthropology, ethnography), theoretical frameworks, and methodological approaches.

One of the characteristics of the current world is that all things are in constant movement and subject to rapid change. All occurrences consist of fragments and individual episodes. They are short-lived and pliable. In this context, expected and unexpected transition points, tasks, and decisions are inextricably linked with education and students’ journeys through the educational system and life at school. Some transitions are developmental, resulting from the aging process and marked by considerable individual physical, intellectual, and emotional change. Others are systemic, systematically built into the typical structure of the public school system (Anderson, Jacobs, Schramm, & Splittgerber, 2000). It turns out that transitions in education are demanding to such an extent that students across cultures are not capable of dealing with them. Even though the decisions that need to be made are not irreversible, reversing them calls for a considerable investment of effort. An erroneous decision is always accompanied by risks and losses on multiple levels. Such a decision can negatively influence the previously positive development of a student’s personality, social relationships, motivation, school-related goals, academic performance, and school attendance and can even result in dropping out (Akos & Galassi, 2004; Zeedyk et al., 2003). Therefore, it is understandable that researchers and theoreticians are interested in transitions in education.

The next monothematic issue of Studia paedagogica will welcome empirical, theoretical, and methodological contributions coming not solely from the field of education. Papers with a multidisciplinary view on various aspects of transitions in education and education systems in different countries are welcomed.

Transitions in education can be approached from various perspectives. On a vertical level, we are interested in various aspects of children entering kindergartens, the start of compulsory education, transfers to general upper-secondary education, vocational education and training (VET), apprenticeships, tertiary education, further education, and the school-to-work transition. Non-normative transitions such as repeating a school year, skipping a class, or taking intermediated gap years through educational pathways are likewise relevant. Possible contributions can also explore decisions related to choices of school type, training, field of study, or educational institution and coping with challenges or stress before and after transitions. Transitions are also connected to various rituals and organizational and academic changes, such as a new school environment, new teachers, unfamiliar fellow students, different rules, new methods of school work, higher expectations regarding academic performance, and increased competitiveness and responsibility. (Briggs, Clark, & Hall, 2012). Transitions in education also have a significant effect on the reproduction of inequalities in education (Pietsch & Stubbe, 2007; Hanuschek & Wößmann, 2006) and dropping out (Gasper, DeLuca, & Estacion, 2012). On a horizontal level, transitions into a new classroom or a new school are also suitable topics for contributions. Furthermore, transitions in education can be perceived through the eyes of other participants: students, parents, teachers, school or career counselors, school management, and others (Akos & Galassi, 2004). Transitions affect educational and counseling institutions along with school policy. These matters can be approached from either inside or outside.

We are interested in the following questions that possible contributions could answer with the support of empirical findings or theory:

What vertical and horizontal transitions must individuals in various countries deal with? How do such transitions take place and what changes accompany them? Are such transitions connected to rituals?

What demands are placed on individuals who are about to make a decision? What critical moments, hurdles, and problems related to transitions in education are encountered by students, parents, teachers, counselors, school leaders, and other involved individuals? What are their causes?

How do students fare when dealing with transitions in education and what strategies do they employ? On what do they base their decisions? Who supports or influences them?

What indicates a successful transition from the perspectives of teachers, students, and parents? What are the causes of unsuccessful transitions in education? What are the attributes of individuals at risk who have difficulties with transitions? How do students cope with the stress that accompanies transition situations?

On the other side, what makes transitioning easier? What types of preparation and support are needed for successful transitions in education? What types of preparation and support are individuals actually provided with? How effective are they?

What takes place at the level of institutional management and school or educational policy? How does the organization of school transitions indicate quality in educational structures?

What are the short- or long-term effects of transitions in education on individuals and educational institutions, and how do school transitions affect education and/or school policy?

The aforementioned areas do not cover the entire scope of the topic. Still, we hope they will help inspire authors to submit original papers of an empirical, theoretical, or methodological nature for publication.

Important dates

This monothematic issue will be published in English in July 2019. The deadline for abstracts is August 31, 2018, the deadline for full texts is October 30, 2018. Both abstracts and full texts are to be sent to the e-mail address Articles should be written in English and meet the requirements mentioned in the instructions for authors on the journal’s website. Papers will be submitted to a peer-review process that will enable the editors to select papers for publication. The editors of this issue are Markus P. Neuenschwander (University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland) and Petr Hlaďo (Masaryk University). You can find more information at:


Akos, P., & Galassi, J. P. (2004). Middle and high school transitions as viewed by students, parents and teachers. Professional School Counseling, 7(4), 212–221.

Anderson, L. W., Jacobs, J., Schramm, S., & Splittgerber, F. (2000). School transitions: beginning of the end or a new beginning? International Journal of Educational Research, 33(4), 325–339.

Briggs, A. R. J., Clark, J., & Hall, I. (2012). Building bridges: Understanding student transition to university. Quality in Higher Education, 18(1), 3–21.

Gasper, J., DeLuca, S., & Estacion, A. (2012). Switching schools: Revisiting the relationship between school mobility and high school dropout. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 487–519.

Hanuschek, E. A., & Wößmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences- in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), c63–c76.

Pietsch, M, & Stubbe, T. C. (2007). Inequality in the transition from primary to secondary school: School choices and educational disparities in Germany. European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 424–445.

Zeedyk, M. S., Gallacher, J., Henderson, M., Hope, G., Husband, B., & Lindsay, K. (2003). Negotiating the transition from primary to secondary school. School Psychology International, 24(1), 67–79.

PDF version.

Call for Papers: Issue Topic – Digital youth and their ways of learning

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia Paedagogica23:4, 2018

Issue Topic: Digital youth and their ways of learning

Editors: Ola Erstad and Jiří Zounek

The journal Studia Paedagogica is indexed in SCOPUS. 

The forthcoming monothematic issue of Studia Paedagogica will focus on the opportunities and challenges of digital technology and youth learning in various contexts and learning environments. In relation to education, this theme can be perceived from many different perspectives and treated using many theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches. Hence, this monothematic issue of Studia Paedagogica welcomes contributions from various fields of pedagogical research along with contributions from a multidisciplinary perspective, even though it will focus primarily on the following theoretical areas:

1) Youth in the era of digital technology

Young people today have grown up in an environment in which digital technology is commonly accessible and practically all-pervasive. Digital technology is one of the essentials of everyday life for today’s youth. In fact, some researchers describe young people today as “digital youth” (Ito, 2010) and contemporary learners as “learners in the digital era” (Gallardo Echenique, 2015). In relation to the use of digital technology, other researchers write of changes represented by new literacies (Knobel & Lankshear, 2014). One example of this new understanding of literacy is so-called digital literacy. This term refers not only to the ability to master various technologies, but perhaps more precisely to a broad range of skills necessary for gaining, analysing, and evaluating sources and information, construction of new knowledge, creation of media messages/products and communication with others. Nonetheless, many aspects of the lives of young people in today’s digital age have not been given due theoretical attention nor empirical examination. Therefore, we are interested not only in how young people understand digital technology and use it in various life situations (Erstad, 2012), but also in what it means to be digitally literate. We also think that it is necessary to consider how these new (digital) literacies are created (or formed), whether they are transferable, and if they can be applied across a range of various environments and contexts, and in young people’s everyday activities.

2) Learning with digital technology and overcoming the “classroom-as-container” discourse

The prevailing discourse on the use of digital technology in education focuses mostly on ways to improve already existing approaches to learning in school education. Digital technology is thus often understood as a mere didactic tool for application in the classroom. Some authors use the term “classroom-as-container” as a way to describe this discourse (Leander, Phillips & Taylor, 2010). It is natural for young people today to inhabit both the physical and the virtual world, however. They use digital technology for a number of social purposes (such as learning, communication and spending time with each other) which are not necessarily encompassed by the space of the school or the classroom. It is therefore fitting to consider the importance of digital technology for young people today both inside and outside of school. How do young people use digital technology in their free time and during their extra-curricular activities, which include ways of learning? What is the relation between the use of digital technology for entertainment and its use for learning? To what extent do young people use skills and competences in the use of technology learned inside school for learning which takes place outside of it? Conversely, how do they use informally acquired knowledge and skills in their school education? How can this complex interrelationship of formal and informal learning be theoretically grounded with the use of digital technology?

3) Family and peer influence on the use of digital technology in learning

Results of extensive international studies (ICILS, EU Kids Online etc.) show that school plays a significant role in the acquisition of knowledge and skills relevant to the use of digital technology. They also clearly posit that family environment and informal learning play a similarly irreplaceable role. This observation is also relevant for peer and other social groups. Furthermore, today’s children start to use digital technology at an ever earlier age, which in turn increases the influence of family, home environment, and peer groups on the use of digital technology among children and young people. It is therefore vital to consider the influence of the family on the use of digital technology as part of learning. Further, how is young people’s use of digital technology influenced by their relationship with peers, and how does the family environment influence their learning supported by digital technology? How do family environment and peer group influence the development of digital competences? Which other social groups influence young people’s use of digital technology and their digital literacy?

The above-mentioned questions cannot cover the whole scope of the topic. Still, we hope they will help inspire authors to submit for publication original papers of an empirical, theoretical or methodological nature.

Important dates

This monothematic issue of Studia Paedagogica will be published in English in December 2018. The deadline for abstracts is 28th February 2018. Full texts are to be sent to the e-mail address no later than 30th April 2018. Articles should be written in English and meet the requirements mentioned in the instructions for authors on the journal’s web page. Papers will be submitted to a peer-review process which will enable the staff to select papers for publication. The editors of this issue are Ola Erstad (University of Oslo) and Jiří Zounek (Masaryk University). You can find more information at:


Arnseth, H., Erstad, O., Juhaňák, L. & Zounek, J. (2016). Pedagogika a nové výzvy výzkumu ICT: role digitálních technologií v každodenním životě a učení mládeže. [Pedagogy and New Challenges in ICT Research: On the Role of Digital Technologies in Everyday Life and Youth Learning]. Studia Paedagogica, 21(1), 87–110.

Erstad, O. (2012). The learning lives of digital youth—beyond the formal and informal. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 25–43.

Gallardo Echenique, E. (2015). An integrative review of literature on learners in the digital era. Studia Paedagogica, 19(4), 161–184.

Ito, M. et al. (2010). Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying New Literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97–101.

Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C. & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329–394.

PDF version.

Call for Papers: Issue Topic – Teacher Education and Educational Research

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia Paedagogica22:4, 2017

Issue Topic: Teacher Education and Educational Research

Editors: Klára Šeďová, Sami Lehesvuori

Monothematic issue of the journal Studia Paedagogica will be focused on teacher education and professional development and their relationship to educational research.

On the one hand, we may consider the ways in which research results are used in teacher education. The fact that teacher education should draw on current scientific knowledge and should reflect the latest findings of educational research is commonly emphasized. Such a situation presupposes a symbiotic relationship between academics at universities who produce knowledge and disseminate it towards teachers and teachers themselves who put this knowledge into practice and thus validate it. However, this presumption has been repeatedly problematized. Traditionally, a gap between two worlds (Smagorinsky et al., 2004) – the world of research and universities, on the one hand, and the world of real practice on the other hand – has been identified. The representatives of academic knowledge have been criticising some aspects of real teaching at schools (e.g. transmissive teaching and authoritative classroom discourse) in the long term and have been offering theory and research-based alternatives (such as constructivist instruction and dialogic teaching). Complaints about these academic concepts having a limited impact on real practice are ever present. The issue can be also viewed from the perspective of the other side. Teachers often see educational science as detached from reality. In their opinion, academic concepts are difficult to apply, because they are too idealized and disregard the institutional conditions at school. Similarly, the education offered to teachers may be seen as impractical and insufficiently sensitive to teacher needs (Lefstein, Snell, 2011).

On the other hand, we may look at how teacher education itself is becoming an object of research. The topics of teacher education and development have been continuously discussed in the educational sciences. They are understood as a path to ensuring quality of teaching and learning and at the same time seen as a key to promoting educational innovations or reforms. The issue of what form and content educational programmes for teachers should have is a widely debated one. The effectiveness of teacher education is, however, often called into question. (Van den Bergh, et al. 2015).  It has been suggested that pre-service teachers’ perceptions of teaching are based strongly on their own experiences of school as a student (Abell, 2000), and that such entrenched beliefs can persist throughout teacher education and into teaching service (Fajet, Bello, Leftwich, Mesler & Shaver, 2005). As for in-service teachers, it is often held that professional development programmes have a limited potential to change the style of teaching a teacher has established (Abell, 2000). As the above propositions suggest, different types of educational and development activities designed for teachers need to be carefully examined and their impact needs to be monitored. As Wilson (2013) points out, it is necessary to identify the underlying mechanisms that render some programmes more effective than others.

The questions that arise in the field thus delimited are numerous.

  • Does educational science produce concepts and theories that are applicable in practice? Is this knowledge useful in the sense that it has a potential to improve educational and learning processes?
  • How is scientific knowledge transferred into educational programmes? How are these programmes designed and implemented? In what ways is their quality inspected? Can the characteristics of a good educational programme be identified?
  • Does teacher education conceived in this way have any impact on practice? Are there any examples of successful educational programmes evidencing transferability of academic concepts and theories into real world of school classes?
  • If teacher education is actually not effective and does not have any noticeable impact on the work of teachers, what are the causes of this state? Can barriers standing in the way of transfer of academic knowledge into practice be identified?
  • What are the relationships between teachers, researchers and educators? Can we see collegial collaboration or rather rivalry of different professional visions (Goodwin, 1994) amongst them? Do differing professional visions bring problems that need to be addressed? Can their confrontation be also in some way beneficial?
  • Do the impulses received by researchers from teachers in some way stimulate scientific inquiry? Can teachers be seen as "clients" of research orders? Can teachers themselves produce scientific knowledge or participate in its production?

Any papers dealing with application of scientific knowledge in pre-service teacher education as well as in-service teacher development activities and programmes are welcome. We would like to focus on all levels of schools, ranging from kindergarten to higher-education level.

This monothematic issue of Studia Paedagogica will be published in English. Empirical articles as well as theoretical studies are welcome.

The deadline for abstracts is 30 April, 2017, the deadline for full texts is 30 June, 2017, at The articles should be written in English and meet the requirements mentioned in the instructions for authors on the journal’s web page, see below. Papers will be submitted to a peer-review process which will enable the staff to select papers for publication. The monothematic issue Teacher Education and Educational Research will be published in December 2017.


Abell, S. K. (Ed.) 2000. Science teacher education: An international perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Fajet, W., Bello, M., Leftwich, S. A., Mesler, J. L. & Shaver, A. N. 2005. Preservice teachers’ perceptions in beginning education classes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 717–727.

Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Professional vision and the politics of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 505–514.

Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Moore, C., Jackson, A. Y., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach. Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 8–24.

Van den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2015). Teacher learning in the context of continuing professional development programme: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 142–150.

Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340(6130), 310–313.

PDF version.

Call for Papers: Issue Topic – Learning and Work

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia Paedagogica23:2, 2018

Issue Topic: Learning and Work
Editors: Karen Evans, Petr Novotný
The journal Studia Paedagogica is indexed in SCOPUS.

We want to dedicate the single-topic Studia Paedagogica issue to revealing the diverse relationships between learning and work. We are doing this aware that the relationship between learning and work has become somewhat more complicated in the world of today. A career comprising the separated phases of preparation for life, work, then relaxation (in that order) has become the exception. Learning and working are two social processes that combine at various phases of life and inter-connect over the course of the lives of people living in the 21st century.

We aim not only to acknowledge contextual issues within the topical profile of this journal issue, but also to debate them. We want to know how transformations of society and economics, including the transfer of the workforce between economic sectors, machines replacing human labour and the use of information technology are reflected in the relationship between learning and work. And we do not want to confine ourselves to Europe, but we are also looking for authors who can show differences between learning/work relationships within different cultural contexts throughout the world.

The diversity of what we call work, from manual labour to intellectual work, from individual work to teamwork, from routine work to creative work, from unqualified work to work with high added knowledge value, means that we want to open up the volume to a variety of discourses on learning and work. Learning and work encounter each other in discussions on vocational education and training where vocation is a reference point on the one hand, and in discussions on professional development which refer to professions, on the other. If any group of workers move from the vocations category to the professions category, does this bring both discourses together, or do they remain separate? And finally, learning and work come together at the workplace. Thus we want to know what is happening within workplace learning. And we also welcome endeavours to compare, contrast and perhaps bring together theoretically various discourses.

Updated, maybe even new, theoretical and empirical reflections are needed to develop fresh perspectives on the curriculum of vocational education and training and professional development, learning designs, education and training methods, learning to work and work to learning transitions, learning related systems and policies. Furthermore, new insights are needed into the core of the issue, which is the nature of learning of learning for work and through work. When we discuss learning knowledge, do we want to interpret learning for work as transfer of knowledge, or as recontextualizing of knowledge? Can we find an appropriate interpretation for all the diverse forms of knowledge (tacit, explicit, process, content etc.)? And do we also have an appropriate interpretation for learning skills?

It is obvious that one field is not enough in interpreting all these topics (and perhaps others too). As such, we anticipate papers from various disciplines (educational sciences, psychology, sociology, economics and others), as well as interdisciplinary studies reflecting different assumptions and paradigms. We anticipate papers focusing at the micro and macro level, looking at learning at an individual, task or organisational level, looking at issues of individual or collective agency, and also papers focused on wider issues over relations between institutions and society, economics and the labour market.

Studia Paedagogica is a peer reviewed journal published by Masaryk University and publishes papers on education, upbringing and learning from all spheres of social life. The papers are theoretical, but mainly empirical as the journal publishes research undertaken in the Czech Republic and abroad. The journal publishes only original research papers and is open to both experienced and early researchers. Early researchers can publish their papers in the section Emerging Researchers of the journal and are offered intensive editorial support.

The journal is interdisciplinary - it covers current topics in educational research while at the same time providing scope for studies grounded in other social sciences. The journal publishes four issues per year, two issues are dedicated to general interest articles and are in Czech, two issues are on a single topic and are in English. This monothematic issue of Studia Paedagogica will be published in English. Empirical articles (alternatively, theoretical studies) are welcome.

Important Dates

Abstracts of articles proposed for publication are accepted by 31 August 2017, full texts by 30 October 2017, both at The articles should be written in English and meet the requirements mentioned in the instructions for authors on the journal’s web page, see below. Papers will be submitted to a peer-review process which will enable the staff to select papers for publication. The monothematic issue Learning and Work will be published in July 2018.

PDF version.

Call for Papers: Issue Topic: Trust and Control in Education

 CALL FOR PAPERSStudia Paedagogica22:2, 2017

Issue Topic: Trust and Control in Education

Editors: Jan Vanhoof, Milan Pol

Monothematic issue the journal Studia Paedagogica will be focused on one of the traditional dichotomies in education: trust and control.

Education is considered to be a process in which success depends very much on the trust invested. At the same time, processes and results in education are always checked, especially if institutional involvement has its say. So one of the delicate tasks of education and its management is to balance trust (or autonomy) and control.

The dualistic approach to education is an eternal theme at all levels of education. Dealing with trust and control extends from individual education in families and schools all the way up to relationships among representatives of educational institutions, parents and teachers, and, as the case may be, among various school levels within one educational system. At the micro level, for instance, there is emphasis on the development of innate talents: education should evolve the potential of an individual independent of social interference and pressure. On the other hand, there is the view that education should overcome innate inclinations and replace them by habits. In this view, the unpreparedness of children requires protective care and control. At the meso and macro levels, references to quality assurance in education often urge a complementary and integrated relation between trust and control-oriented evaluation of schools. Yet there is still the question of the role that should, or could, be played by internal evaluation (trust/autonomy-oriented) in relation to external control-oriented evaluation. Are the arguments for the integration of both overly positive? The question of whether accountability and school improvement are reconcilable is indeed a complex one, and it requires a carefully qualified answer. 

Trust and control are culturally and historically changeable. They can be understood as methodologically elusive, multileveled, context-dependent phenomena of both individual and collective nature. Their mutual relation is noticeable: trust often stems from effective control and incentive systems.

This monothematic issue of Studia Paedagogica is open to authors of articles focused on any of the levels at which trust or control in education are applied on a significant scale. Articles on carriers and objects of trust or control in educational situations will also be of interest. We are interested in accompanying phenomena as well, such as dilemmas, challenges and consequences of applying, or not applying, trust and/or control in education in various extents.

Articles related to various settings in which education takes place are welcome as well as ones dealing with adult education and life-long learning in the broadest sense of the terms. We are concerned with situations in which trust and control are balanced so that those being educated are successful in their learning, but we will also appreciate articles on situations in which questions of trust and control are addressed in view of external priorities, as distinct from the concerns of a learning individual.

There may be numerous questions to focus on, so here are a few examples from a potentially long list. We may ask, for instance: 

  • Is obligatory education in nursery schools a sign of that trust in parents is lacking? What are the situations in which trust is (not) given to pupils or parents? What is typical about discourse on trust and control and what impact does this discourse have on education?
  • Can we leave it up to parents or pupils to decide about the results of education? How is this projected in practices such as home education?
  • How much trust can be expected in the teacher-parent relationship? Whom in the school do parents trust? Does the school give parents a chance to trust? How does the school win parents’ trust and how do parents win trust from the school? Is there a place for control in the school-parent relationship? How can parents control the school? Which opportunities for control do parents use?
  • Is teaching a helping profession even where situations of control prevail? After all, teachers work with those who do not attend school voluntarily so they must often use compulsion; there is obligation, and many situations in the school feature control.
  • How is trust and control among various educational levels manifested? What is the future of entrance examinations between schools of two different levels? And how about the relation between university and practice, particularly in the field of education/schooling? What influences this relation, and how is this projected in trust and control?
  • How can we work sensitively with trust and control at a time when the prevailing discourse emphasizes accountability, efficiency and evaluation? What is the function of control in, for instance, in-service teacher training? And how can we approach the professionalism of teachers and education leaders?
  • Under which conditions can self-evaluation of an institution be a basis for the development of schools and/or pupils? Can accountability and school improvement be reconciled as two functions of school inspection? What alternatives to a stereotyped approach to school inspection can be developed? Can school inspection play the role of helper if control is its primary function?
  • What is the point of applying control in leisure activities, e.g. with adults?
  • How can trust and control be combined? When is it better to apply trust and when is control almost exclusively the point? Does control exclude trust? Is control a proof of the fact that we do not trust people/institutions?

This monothematic issue of Studia Paedagogica will be published in English. Empirical articles (alternatively, theoretical studies) are welcome.

Abstracts of articles proposed for publication are accepted by 21 October, 2016, full texts by 16 December, 2016, both at The articles should be written in English and meet the requirements mentioned in the instructions for authors on the journal’s web page, see below. Papers will be submitted to a peer-review process which will enable the staff to select papers for publication. The monothematic issue Trust and Control in Education will be published in April 2017.


PDF version. 

Call for Papers: Issue Topic: Childhood

 Studia paedagogica4/2016

Issue Topic: Childhood

Editors: Francesca Gobbo, Roman Švaříček

We are opening the next English-language issue of Studia paedagogica to contributions dealing with childhood. Childhood long ago stopped being perceived as a marginalized social phenomenon in a world focused on adults and has become a significant domain worthy of social science inquiry. Nevertheless, we believe that if we enlarged the scale of the map of childhood, we would see many blank spaces. Therefore, we would like to devote the next monothematic issue of Studia paedagogica to mapping these still-unexplored areas using an ethnographic micro-perspective.

The issue is open to contributors engaged within the fields of education, psychology, sociology, and anthropology who would focus on childhood in the European region. Childhood as a social category and an area of educational policy and practice may be examined from many different perspectives, using various theoretical frames focusing on diverse aspects. However, we would like to concentrate in particular on the following four areas.

1)      Metamorphoses of childhood

The conceptualization of childhood is considerably influenced by the contemporary globalizing world and the technological and economic changes taking place in it. Childhood is such an integral part of society that it is literally connected with the complex nature of the world. Globalization makes it possible to spread universal concepts and helps to create new constructs of childhood. Within these constructs, children are seen as subjects actively participating in the social world, though childhood has also been treated as preparation for life, especially in the Western world. Technological and economic accents blur the boundary between childhood and adulthood; therefore, we often we hear of the disappearance of childhood (Postman), the prolongation of childhood (Prout), the enterprising subject (Rose), and the child as a customer (Castenada). Despite this, we are interested in, for example, whether the idea of an innocent childhood, where a child has to be protected from the adult world, still reflects the original concept or whether it has new content.

In connection with the changes that the concept of childhood is undergoing, the nature of parenthood, which is strongly influenced by the media discourse, is also changing. Before we can say how parenting is changing, we should first know how the everyday life of a child looks. There is a lot of room for the application of ethnographic research methods because our goal is to get a true and vivid picture of a child’s ordinary day. What role do parents, schools, and peers play in it? How do today’s parents raise their children? What are the roles and functions of childcare institutions? Do these institutions contribute to the debate about carer gender and, in more general terms, to the role of fathers in relation to childhood? As some authors write about superchildren (Eisenberg), can we analogously speak about superparents? Do any of Qvortrup’s (1995) nine paradoxes, for example postulating that parents think that it is good to be with their children, but spend more and more time each day without their children, still hold?

2)      Socialization

The society shapes the child, and the child, in turn, naturally shapes the society through the formation of interpersonal relationships. The human body is at birth neither biologically nor socially completed (Shilling). The individual is thus integrated in a society that they are actively forming themselves, especially in the family environment (Corsaro). The maintenance of relationships in the family, where the child is familiarized with the patterns of social relationships, is traditionally viewed as the basis of successful socialization. We are interested in how a child perceives the relationship level of its primary social environment. How does it represent these relationships? What language does it use to speak about them?

Parents and significant others mediate the social world to the child (Berger, Luckmann). By internalization, the child receives social reality, or a version of reality mediated by adults, as part of the primary socialization. Therefore, parents serve as mediators between the society and the child; we are interested in how this learning takes place. The child is able to follow normal interpersonal interactions and communication patterns within its environment. How do children learn values, relationships, and the world? Are we really obsessed with the problems of children (Ariés)?

3)      The body and disciplining practices

The institution of family is based on a number of particular communication practices which are seen as normal and natural in the school environment. These communication practices take place both verbally, on the level of discourse, i.e. in language, and non-verbally, on the level of the body. The body is viewed as a source and product of social and cultural processes, but above all, we are interested in how the body is experienced, interpreted, and completed during childhood. The culture of adults and their own body experiences certainly strongly affects how the body is represented, and lived, for the child.

One of the central questions is how the body is formed through disciplining techniques. How does education on the one hand, along with nutrition, hygiene, and exercise, co-create for the child the sense of its own body? How do children in today’s society, influenced by media discourses, perceive their own bodies? How does the school oversee corporeality through regulatory practices? How do, on the other hand, children learn to use their bodies to resist the disciplining practices of the adult world?

We wonder how it is possible to approach the materiality of the body. What discourses affect our cognition of the body, and in what ways, if we maintain Foucault’s assumption that social phenomena are constructed from within discourses?

4)      Methodological issues of childhood research

Current research of childhood is often poetically referred to as a step away from modernity (Prout), since there has been a change in the conceptual understanding and interpretation of childhood. The biologizing view (Darwin) of childhood, emphasizing nature, was replaced by the social constructivist view (Vygotsky), giving way to the attempts of many authors to synthesize the separating dualistic view (Prout). Is it possible to overcome the separating dualism? Which new methodological questions emerge in the research of children? What new challenges do researchers face in dealing with childhood? Will the new experimental paradigms in the humanities help better respond to the old research questions? What new ethical consequences does research on childhood inevitably bring? 

These questions cannot cover the whole scope of the field. Still, we hope they will help to inspire authors to submit their original empirical and/or theoretical papers for publication.The deadline for full texts is 30 June 2016. All contributions will be peer reviewed before being accepted for publication. The issue of the journal will be published in English in December 2016. The editors of the Childhood issue are Francesca Gobbo and Roman Švaříček. You can find more information as well as more detailed author guidelines at:

Call for Papers: Monothematic Issue Intergenerational Learning

CALL FOR PAPERSStudia paedagogica21:2, 2016

Monothematic Issue Intergenerational Learning

The 2016 monothematic issue of
Studia paedagogica will focus on intergenerational learning.

This theme has been chosen on the premise that intergenerational learning naturally accompanies us through all stages of life. Consequently, it is relevant to inquire under which conditions and circumstances intergenerational learning takes place and what its benefits are. Understanding this shapes our definition of intergenerational learning. EAGLE (European Approaches to Inter-Generational Lifelong Learning) defines intergenerational learning as “a process through which individuals of all ages acquire skills and knowledge, but also attitudes and values, from daily experience, from all available resources and from all influences in their own ‘life worlds’.”1 If we think of intergenerational learning as a set of specifically created activities, then we can use Fischer’s definition2 viewing intergenerational learning as “a practice that aimed to bring people together in purposeful, mutually beneficial activities, which promoted greater understanding and respect between generations and could contribute to building more cohesive communities.”

Thematic areas:

These definitions help us to identify thematic areas relevant to intergenerational learning. We offer authors the following areas for possible topics.

Social consequences: How do demographic changes related to ageing populations influence intergenerational communication and learning? What space does society offer intergenerational learning within the framework of lifelong and lifewide learning? How are the processes of intergenerational learning influenced by the speed of (not only technological) changes? How do changes in family structures and alternative lifestyles shape the circumstances for intergenerational learning in the family?

Related concepts: Is intergenerational solidarity decreasing or, conversely, is intergenerational conflict increasing? How can this be prevented? Can intergenerational communication, support, understanding, and sharing play a role in this? What opportunities does the concept of active ageing offer seniors? Can the senior stage of life be considered the “crown of life”? In other words, can it be understood as the freest part of life because the choice of activities is up to the seniors, no matter whether the activities are related to work, education, or volunteering?

Participants in intergenerational learning: Who teaches us? Who are taught by other generations? Are they parents, grandparents, or adult children? Are they experienced professionals or mentors? Are they inducing teachers?

Environment of intergenerational learning and learning situations: What intergenerational learning processes take place in the family? How do the experiences of older employees and innovations of younger employees influence learning at work? Under what conditions can we think of intergenerational learning in communities? Under what conditions can we think of intergenerational learning between teachers at schools?

Conditions, contents, and directions of intergenerational learning: Which conditions support intergenerational learning and which prevent it? What exactly is being transmitted in the processes of intergenerational learning? Is it knowledge, skill, values, or tradition? Is such learning social, cognitive, sensomotoric, or affective? What role does intention in learning, relationships, and recipient acceptance have?

Benefits and risks of intergenerational learning: For whom is intergenerational learning beneficial and for whom is it risky? Is it accompanied by the risks or concerns of its participants?

Theoretical framework: Which theoretical concepts enable thinking about intergenerational learning? Are there various theories of learning and education of adults? For example, is it possible to use Jack Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, Peter Jarvis’s understanding of learning as an existential process based on specific experiences, or the three-dimensional model of learning developed by Knud Illeris? Alternatively, can any other theory be used for this purpose?

While the staff of Studia paedagogica perceives the above areas in the light of pedagogical and andragogical perspectives, we realise that they are open to interdisciplinary inquiry and approaches. Consequently, we would like these areas to be understood as an inspiration for authors who would shape them with their own authorial interests and with lesser or higher degree of specificity. Studia paedagogica welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers.

This monothematic issue of Studia paedagogica will be published in English. Abstracts between 200 and 400 words should be sent to by 15 October 2015. The deadline for full texts is 15 December 2015. Papers will be submitted to a peer-review process which will enable the staff to select papers for publication. This monothematic issue will be published in July 2016, edited by Milada Rabušicová and Petr Novotný. Further information can be found at the Studia paedagogica web page:

Hatton-Yeo, A. (2008). The EAGLE Toolkit for Intergenerational Activities. Erlangen: University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, p. 3.

Fischer, T. (Ed.) (2008). Intergenerational Learning in Europe – Policies, Programmes, Practical Guidance. Erlangen: University of Elangen-Nuremberg, p. 8.


Výzva pro autory: Akce!

časopis Studia paedagogica
ročník 20, číslo 2, rok 2015
Téma: Akce!

Připravované číslo Studia paedagogica jsme nazvali Akce! Rádi bychom v něm otevřeli prostor příspěvkům, které z různých úhlů pohledu zkoumají změny, akce, zásahy a reformy ve výchově a vzdělávání. Pedagogické vědy se mimo jiné odlišují od ostatních sociálních věd tím, že se při svém zkoumání účelového vztahu mezi cíli a prostředky výchovy vždy nějakým způsobem zabývají ideální podobou výchovy a vzdělávání.

Naše představa o nejlepší možné výchově a nejlepším možném vzdělávání se někdy může lišit od toho, čeho jsme jako vědci či účastníci výchovně vzdělávacích procesů svědky. Tento rozpor mezi realitou a ideální představou často ústí ve snahy realitu změnit. Proto hodláme naši pozornost věnovat tomu, jak je možné dosáhnout změny různých procesů a jevů v oblasti výchovy a vzdělávání. Ačkoliv je téma nazváno Akce!, nezajímá nás jen samotná intervence do praxe, ale také to, jak je změna plánována a kým, jak je realizována a sledována a jak se o ní diskutuje. Vedle samotné akce čili změny nás zajímá také způsob zkoumání a hodnocení daného zásahu, čili metodologie akčního výzkumu.

Kurt Lewin, který jako první použil termín akční výzkum, popisoval výzkumný postup v rámci tohoto designu následovně: nejdříve se zmapuje problém, posléze se navrhne řešení, které je testováno v praxi, poté dochází k reflektování toho, zda bylo řešení úspěšné a následně se celý spirálovitý proces opakuje. Cílem akčního výzkumu je změna praxe, která povede ke zlepšení původní situace, a to v souladu s požadavky kladenými na vědeckost celého postupu (s ohledem na validitu, reliabilitu, rigoróznost a etická kritéria). Lewinem identifikované fáze výzkumu jsou pro naše uvažování o změně a akci v pedagogických vědách stěžejní. Leitmotivem hodným promýšlení je pro nás také problematický vztah pedagogické teorie a praxe. Jakým způsobem může teorie přispět k utváření praxe? Je dobrá teorie nejlepším nástrojem pro zlepšování pedagogické reality?

V připravovaném monotematickém čísle bychom se zaprvé chtěli věnovat tomu, které problémy současné pedagogické praxe jsou hodny řešení, protože buď odporují naší ideální představě, nebo  se samotná praxe ukazuje být v nějakém ohledu deficitní. Zajímá nás, které reálné jevy si zaslouží změnit a také to, jakým způsobem pracují pedagogické vědy na tom, aby navrhly řešení známých problémů.

Které pedagogické jevy si zaslouží změnu? Jakým způsobem jsou objevovány problémy? Které vědy a kteří vědci udávají tón v pojmenování problémů pedagogické praxe? Jakým způsobem hovoří pedagogická praxe o problémech hodných řešení? Objevují učitelé či jiní aktéři nové problémy, nebo můžeme hovořit o stále stejných opakujících se jevech? Můžeme hovořit o módních vlnách při vymezování problémů? Existují problémy specifické pro pedagogickou praxi? Potřebujeme zlepšení, nebo spíše reformu současné praxe?

Zadruhé nás zajímá, jaká zjištění přinášejí výzkumy využívající metodologický aparát akčního výzkumu. Chceme se zaobírat tím, jakým způsobem je změna zaváděna a jak se testuje úspěšnost nově navržené teorie řešící praktické problémy. Souběžně s tím bychom rádi upřeli pozornost na metodologickou diskusi v akčním výzkumu a na to, jak je řešeno jeho epistemologické pozadí, jaké postupy jsou využívány při zkoumání změny, z jakého rámce se přitom vychází a kdo se na tom podílí.

Jaké výsledky plodí výzkumy sledující implementaci změny? Jaké jsou přínosy akčního výzkumu pro teorii a praxi? Jaké jsou reálné výhody v používání smíšeného výzkumného přístupu v pedagogice? Kdo jsou aktivisté poukazující na kritické jevy ve školství?

Jaké jsou současné objevy na poli metodologie akčního výzkumu? Co se sebou přináší intervence do komplexního sociálního světa? Jak probíhá samotná implementace změny? Jakou roli hrají ve výzkumu emoce a soukromé teorie výzkumníka? Co s sebou nese rovnocenné postavení výzkumníka a ostatních aktérů?

Jaké jsou limity akčního výzkumu? Kdo určuje, co je úspěšnost v empirickém výzkumu s akčním designem? Kterými kritérii kvality jsou nově poměřovány sociální vědy v případě snahy ovlivnit praxi?

Uvedené otázky samozřejmě ani zdaleka nepokrývají šířku pole, které se při zkoumání akce a nabízí. Přesto doufáme, že poslouží jako inspirační impulz pro autory, kteří nám mohou k publikaci nabízet původní empirické či teoretické studie.   

Abstrakty (v délce 200 – 400 slov) přijímáme do 15. října 2014 na emailové adrese Uzávěrka pro plné texty je 15. prosince 2014. Všechny příspěvky projdou recenzním řízením, na jehož základě redakce rozhodne o přijetí textu k publikaci. Abstrakt v českém a anglickém jazyce bude součástí textu uveřejněného v časopise.

Časopis vyjde v červenci 2015. Editory čísla Akce! jsou Roman Švaříček a Klára Šeďová.

Výzva pro autory: Mimo hlavní proud

časopis Studia paedagogica
ročník 19 / čísla 2 / rok 2014
Téma: Mimo hlavní proud

Inspiraci pro monotematické číslo Studia paedagogica s názvem Mimo hlavní proud jsme našli v jednom z možných vymezení sociální pedagogiky jako pedagogické disciplíny, která se zabývá výchovou a vzděláváním rizikových a sociálně znevýhodněných dětí i dospělých, tj. jedinců, kteří se ocitají mimo hlavní proud. Mimo hlavní proud se v duchu tohoto vymezení ocitají všichni, kteří se svým chováním, názory, postoji nebo způsobem života odchylují od existujících sociálních norem.

O tématu Mimo hlavní proud uvažujeme ve třech rovinách. První rovina je zakotvena v kvantitativním (statisticky vymezeném) úhlu pohledu. Definici hlavního proudu v tomto případě odvíjíme od toho, co je obvyklé a odpovídá normálnímu rozložení. Mimo hlavní proud se tak ocitá vše, čeho je v porovnání s ostatním příliš málo nebo nadměrně mnoho, co je příliš intenzivní, nebo naopak slabé a podobně.

Proto klademe otázky: Co a proč je považováno za alternativní, výjimečné či unikátní? Jak můžeme zkoumat výjimečnost, jedinečnost, ojedinělost? Jak se obvykle popisují (interpretují) jevy, které z hlediska intenzity nebo frekvence stojí na okraji? Kolik je nezaměstnaných, nemocných, imigrantů? Jaké metodologické postupy jsou typické pro zkoumání lidí, skupin a komunit, kteří se ocitli mimo hlavní proud? Kteří lidé (skupiny) mimo hlavní proud se zkoumají zřídka nebo naopak příliš? Kdo žije v ghettech?

Druhá rovina uvažování vychází z vymezení sociálních norem jako pravidel, která mají být jednotlivci dodržována, respektována, nebo jejichž dodržování je společností očekáváno. Sociální normy mohou být výsledkem přesných procedurálních pravidel a v těchto případech bývá jejich dodržování spojeno s institucemi. Normy ale vznikají také neformálně podle skutečného vlivu jednotlivců nebo konkrétních sociálních skupin a jejich dodržování bývá otázkou sociální kontroly. Takto nahlížené sociální normy jsou sociokulturně a dobově podmíněny a hlavní proud je určován existujícími morálními normami, tabu nebo také módou.

 V této rovině uvažování nás zajímá například: Co musí jedinec či skupina udělat, aby porušili normu, a co dělá jejich okolí pro to, aby se tito jednotlivci či skupiny ocitli mimo hlavní proud? Jak se formují a působí na své okolí subkultury mládeže? Jak vznikají a působí sekty či nová náboženská hnutí? Jak probíhá výchova v rodinách s odlišným, alternativním životním stylem? Jak jsou vzdělávány dlouhodobě nemocné děti? Kdo a proč je exkludován či naopak zůstává v hlavním proudu? Kdo je IN a kdo je OUT? Co ženy přivedlo do armády a co se stalo, že muži-učitelé vydrželi ve školství a zůstávají řadovými učiteli? Co jednotlivce, skupiny či komunity vede k tomu, že chtějí zůstat mimo hlavní proud? Ocitají se ti, kteří vychovávají a vzdělávají jedince žijící mimo hlavní proud, také mimo hlavní proud? Jak to, že někteří lidé dokončili pouze základní vzdělání? Proč žáci porušují školní řád?

Třetí rovina uvažování je o napětí mezi existencí norem a jejich porušováním. Toto napětí může mít z hlediska fungování společnosti i pozitivní funkci a to v udržování sociální stability ve společnosti. Nedodržování norem má stabilizační význam všude tam, kde za porušováním norem stojí zájmy, hodnoty nebo potenciály, které dosud nebyly ve společnosti oceněny nebo zhodnoceny. Z tohoto úhlu pohledu lze výchovu, vzdělávání i poradenství nahlížet jako nástroje, kterými na jedné straně můžeme zmírnit nebo dokonce eliminovat rozdíly mezi jednotlivci, skupinami či komunitami, a podpořit tak sociální integraci. Z opačného úhlu pohledu ale mohou představovat nástroje, které pomáhají v odhalování nových a dosud nepoznaných kvalit. V této rovině uvažování nám jde o to, jak výchova, vzdělávání a poradenství přispívají k sociální stabilitě a jak naopak hlavní proud kodifikují.

Ptáme se například: Jak zastánci alternativních norem nahlížejí na své vrstevníky, rodiče, učitele? Co nového do vymezování mimo hlavní proud mohou přinášet koncepty celoživotního učení a celoživotního poradenství? Jakou pomoc oceňují lidé mimo hlavní proud? Jaké strategie volí lidé mimo hlavní proud, aby se integrovali nebo naopak zůstali mimo hlavní proud?

Uvedenou strukturací tématu Mimo hlavní proud signalizujeme, že hodláme otevřít prostor všem – zkušeným výzkumníkům, renomovaným autorům, začínajícím vědcům i doktorským studentům, které tato výzva oslovila. Těšíme se tedy na původní teoretické statě nebo empirická sdělení, které budou zakotveny v oborovém zaměření časopisu Studia paedagogica, a současně uvítáme příspěvky, které budou překračovat hranice pedagogiky směrem k multidisciplinárnímu vědeckému diskurzu, v němž nebude chybět psychologický, antropologický, filozofický, sociologický a řada dalších pohledů.


Abstrakty v délce 200-400 slov přijímáme do 15. září 2013 na emailové adrese Uzávěrka pro plné texty je 15. prosince 2013.

Všechny texty procházejí recenzním řízením, na jehož základě redakce rozhodne o přijetí textu k publikaci. Abstrakt v českém a anglickém jazyce bude součástí textu uveřejněného v časopise. Editorkami čísla Mimo hlavní proud jsou Lenka Hloušková a Dana Knotová. Další informace a pokyny pro autory je možné nalézt na webové stránce časopisu Studia paedagogica

Výzva pro autory: Monotematické číslo Dobro a zlo ve výchově

ročník 18 / číslo 1 / rok 2013

Připravované číslo Studia paedagogica jsme nazvali Dobro a zlo ve výchově. Pedagogické vědy zažívají v posledních letech nebývalý rozmach a rozšiřuje se spektrum jevů, na které se zaměřují, a to jsou důvody, proč se domníváme, že je na místě pozastavit se u základních otázek výchovy. Zamýšlíme tak volně navázat na předchozí monotematická čísla časopisuStudia paedagogica, která byla zaměřena na prostor, vztahy a čas ve výchově a řeč školy, a učinit krok směrem k hodnotícímu posuzování některých fenoménů současné výchovy. Rádi bychom v připravovaném čísle otevřeli prostor polemickým příspěvkům, které z různých úhlů pohledu zkoumají dobro a zlo ve výchově. Pojem dobro chápeme jako základní kategorii morální filosofie označující to, co je prospěšné, příjemné a dokonalé. Ačkoliv je dobro v dějinách filozofie pojímáno různě, například jako nejvyšší idea (Platón) či jako transcendentálie prostupující všechny kategorie podobně jako jsoucno, pravda a krásno, naším záměrem je použít kategorie dobra a zla metaforicky a nahlédnout skrze ně na základní výchovné procesy.

Dobro a zlo můžeme posuzovat v subjektivní rovině, to znamená zaměřit se na jednotlivce a klást si otázku, co nás těší a je nám příjemné. Můžeme se například ptát:

Co je příjemné a co nepříjemné ve výchově? Jaká přání a jaké touhy mají dnešní žáci a studenti? Jaký typ vztahů s učiteli preferují žáci? Které způsoby udržování kázně ve třídě jim vadí? Jaké pracovní podmínky vnímají učitelé jako příjemné? Co je pro učitele přitažlivé a co jim vadí na dalším vzdělávání? Jaké formy komunikace se školou vyhovují rodičům? Jaké formy vzdělávání by uvítali senioři?

Dobro a zlo lze pochopitelně vztáhnout také ke společnosti (objektivní rovina) a tázat se po prospěšnosti.

Co je ve výchově prospěšné a co škodlivé? Jaký je vztah mezi vzděláváním a ekonomickým užitkem? Co znamená usilovat o efektivní školu? Jaké pozitivní (či negativní) efekty lze očekávat od plošného testování znalostí žáků? K čemu je dobré zvyšování počtu studentů v terciárním sektoru vzdělávání? Je rodičovské vzdělávání užitečné? Je profesionální pěstounská péče pro děti lepší než ústavní výchova? Co vlastně přinášejí apely na celoživotní učení?

A konečně lze jako referenční bod dobrého a zlého zvolit rovinu transcendentní a hledat odpovědi na otázku, co je morální a slouží ke cti.

Co je ve výchově morálně dobré a co morálně špatné? Co znamená poslání učitele? Jaké hodnoty by škola měla žákům předávat? Je škola „institucionalizovaným muzeem lidských ctností“? Jak se chová spravedlivý učitel? Je třeba výchovu liberalizovat, nebo naopak znovu restaurovat učitelskou a rodičovskou autoritu? Jakými vlastnostmi se vyznačuje dobrý rodič?

Uvítáme polemické a kritické pozastavení se nad klíčovými otázkami výchovy a vzdělávání. Řadu fenoménů, které se dnes ve výchově objevují, lze nahlížet nejednoznačně či rozporuplně. Dobro a zlo může být často relativní, a proto je vhodné uvažovat o tom, co vytváří jejich referenční rámec – to znamená, pro koho a z jakého důvodu je něco dobré.

Odráží se ve škole celospolečenské problémy? Zrcadlí se ve škole „střet generací“? Pro které školy je výhodné zavedení státních maturit? Jaké efekty přináší existence víceletých gymnázií nadaným dětem a co znamená pro ty, kteří se vzdělávají na základní škole? Kdo získá a kdo ztratí na zavedení školného na veřejných vysokých školách? Kdo si přeje a kdo si nepřeje sexuální výchovu ve škole? Kterým skupinám rodičů je příjemná intenzivní komunikace se školou? Kteří dospělí mají prospěch z nabídky neformálních vzdělávacích aktivit?

Zajímá nás mimo jiné i to, jak můžeme skrze nástroje pedagogického výzkumu nahlížet na dobré a špatné ve výchově, ať už na úrovni jednotlivých aktérů, na úrovni školy či na úrovni školského, respektive vzdělávacího systému.

Otázky naznačené výše samozřejmě ani zdaleka nepokrývají šíři pole, které se při zkoumání „dobra a zla ve výchově“ nabízí, přesto doufáme, že poslouží jako inspirační impulz pro autory.

Rádi přijmeme jak teoretické stati, tak empiricky pojaté příspěvky. Abstrakty (v délce 200 – 400 slov) přijímáme do 15. září 2012 na emailové adrese Uzávěrka pro plné texty je 15. prosince 2012. Všechny příspěvky procházejí recenzním řízením, na jehož základě redakce rozhodne o přijetí textu k publikaci. Abstrakt v českém a anglickém jazyce bude součástí textu uveřejněného v časopise.

Číslo časopisu vyjde v červenci 2013 v tištěné podobě a s půlročním odstupem bude v plné verzi dostupné on-line. Editory čísla Dobro a zlo ve výchově jsou Milan Pol a Roman Švaříček. Další informace i podrobnější pokyny pro autory je možné nalézt na adrese


Stáhnout výzvu pro autory v PDF.

Výzva pro autory

ročník 17 / číslo 2 / rok 2012
Druhé číslo roku 2012 připravujeme již tradičně bez užšího monotematického vymezení. Do recenzního řízení přijímáme statě teoretického i empirického charakteru. Přivítáme rovněž recenzní texty.

Své příspěvky můžete zasílat do 15. 6. 2012 elektronicky na adresu

Detailnější pokyny pro autory lze nalézt na

Výzva pro autory: Monotematické číslo Vzdělávat dospělé

Monotematické číslo Studia paedagogica pojmenované Vzdělávat dospělé otevírá prostor pro několik rovin uvažování o tomto tématu. Vzdělávat dospělé znamená předně věnovat se těm, kteří toto vzdělávání poskytují či jakýmkoli způsobem se na něm podílejí. Jedná se o vzdělavatele dospělých, ať už jsou označováni jako lektoři, kouči, konzultanti, trenéři, poradci či ještě jinak. Všechny je spojuje práce v oblasti široce definovaného vzdělávání a učení se dospělých. Druhou rovinu tvoří samotní účastníci vzdělávání dospělých coby aktivní spolutvůrci a spoluaktéři svého vzdělávání. A konečně, je to široký společenský kontext, v němž se vzdělávání dospělých odehrává a jež zahrnuje vzdělávací politiku v této oblasti, ale i konkrétní podmínky, jež jsou pro vzdělávání dospělých vytvářeny na úrovni organizací a institucí.

Současný rozvoj vzdělávání dospělých vede ke zvyšování nároků na předpoklady, odbornost a profesní zdatnost lidí, kteří pracují v oblasti vzdělávání dospělých, plánují ho, organizují, realizují a vyhodnocují. Značný podíl požadavků na profesní zdatnost je směřován k lidem zapojeným v procesech vzdělávání v první linii, tedy k těm, kteří vstupují do přímé pedagogické interakce s účastníky vzdělávání. Právě lektoři a další lidé realizující vzdělávací aktivity obvykle nesou největší díl zodpovědnosti za procesy vzdělávání dospělých a také největší díl pracovní zátěže.

Otázky, které se v těchto souvislostech nabízejí, mohou být např. tyto: Jak se vzdělavatelé dospělých vyrovnávají s potřebou rozvoje své profesní zdatnosti? Jaká je žádoucí a reálná odbornost lidí zainteresovaných v procesu vzdělávání dospělých? Jaký je jejich profesní profil? V čem je pedagogická interakce s dospělými specifická? Jak uvažují vzdělavatelé dospělých o své práci? Jak řeší otázky efektivity práce a jaké k tomu volí techniky? Do jaké míry jsou jejich postupy založené na teoriích učení a do jaké míry jsou tyto postupy intuitivní? Jak se vzdělavatelé dospělých chrání před stresem a jak řeší otázky duševní hygieny?

Aktivními spolutvůrci vzdělávání dospělých jsou samotní účastníci vzdělávání. Platí-li tato základní andragogická teze, potom dospělí účastníci vzdělávání nejsou jen jeho příjemci, ale spoluurčují podmínky vzdělávání, vyjadřují své vzdělávací potřeby a formulují svou zakázku. Mají specifické motivace, na kterých je třeba jejich vzdělávání a učení stavět. V samotném procesu vzdělávání se pak svým chováním, svou aktivitou a svými postoji výrazně podílejí na procesu vzdělávání. Tím se jednoznačně odlišují od „nedospělých“ účastníků procesů vzdělávání a učení.

S tímto uvažováním se pojí mimo jiné následující otázky: Jak jsou účastníci vzdělávání aktivně zapojeni do určování cílů, podmínek a procesů vzdělávání? Jak jsou vyjádřené potřeby reflektovány v procesu vzdělávání? Kolik prostoru dostává ve vzdělávání dospělých vyjednávání zakázky na vzdělávání? Jak účastníci vzdělávání svým přístupem spoluurčují procesy vzdělávání? Jak je naplnění cílů vzdělávání závislé na samotných účastnících a jak je pociťována zodpovědnost za výsledky vzdělávání účastníky a dalšími aktéry? S jakými motivacemi dospělí do vzdělávání vstupují?

Existují ovšem ještě obecnější aspekty vzdělávání dospělých. Jedná se jak o obecně politická a ideová východiska, tak o to, co se označuje jako „kultury vzdělávání a kultury učení “, jež jsou spojeny s přístupy vzdělavatelů k úkolu vzdělávat dospělé, případně s širšími kontexty, např. organizačními nebo politickými. Vzdělávání dospělých je tedy nejen procesem o sobě, ale je i arénou rozmanitých zájmů, individuálních, organizačních i širších společenských. Je prostorem pro uplatnění hodnot, přesvědčení, motivací a také ideologií, což se do podoby vzdělávání dospělých může velmi zásadně promítnout.

V této rovině se naskýtají např. tyto otázky: Jaké podmínky pro vzdělávání dospělých nastavuje vzdělávací politika? Na jakých teoriích či předpokladech o podstatě učení jsou postaveny přístupy ke vzdělávání dospělých? Jsou tyto přístupy kongruentní s očekáváními vztaženými ke vzděláváním dospělých, případně s konkrétní zakázkou? Proč vzdělavatelé dospělých dělají právě určitá rozhodnutí ohledně priorit, aktivit, metod a technik, materiálu a využití vnějších zdrojů? Je vzdělávání dospělých citlivé vůči širším kontextům (organizačním, institucionálním či obecně sociálním)? Jakým způsobem lidé aktivní v oblasti vzdělávání dospělých zájmy různých aktérů slaďují?

Vzdělávat dospělé není snadné zadání. Koneckonců ani pro příští monočíslo Studia pedagogica nebylo zvoleno náhodně. Je zřejmé, že uvedené náměty šíři tématu spíše naznačují, než vyčerpávají, jejich účelem je téma otevřít, nikoliv svazovat. Doufáme, že budou autorům inspirací pro psaní a sdílení.

Redakci časopisu Studia paedagogica je možno nabízet původní empirické či teoretické studie. Abstrakty (v délce 200 – 400 slov) přijímáme do 15. listopadu 2011 na emailové adrese Uzávěrka pro plné texty je 15. leden 2012. Všechny příspěvky procházejí recenzním řízením, na jehož základě redakce rozhodne o přijetí textu k publikaci. Abstrakt v českém a anglickém jazyce bude součástí textu uveřejněného v časopise.

Časopis vyjde v červnu 2012. Editorem čísla je Petr Novotný. Další informace i podrobnější pokyny pro autory je možné nalézt na adrese