Participatory Work-System Planning in Youth and Adult Education: A Design-Based Intervention for Educational Leadership, Community Engagement and Institutional Self-Regulation: una intervención basada en diseño para el liderazgo educativo, la participación comunitaria y la autorregulación institucional
Portada revista
PDF (Spanish)
EPUB (Spanish)

Keywords

youth and adult education
educational leadership
participatory planning
work-system planning
community engagement
institutional self-regulation

How to Cite

1.
Ramos Pantoja D, González Pérez E, Rosabal Rodríguez JA. Participatory Work-System Planning in Youth and Adult Education: A Design-Based Intervention for Educational Leadership, Community Engagement and Institutional Self-Regulation: una intervención basada en diseño para el liderazgo educativo, la participación comunitaria y la autorregulación institucional. MF [Internet]. 2026 Mar. 2 [cited 2026 Oct. 16];16(1):21-60. Available from: https://revistas.usam.edu.sv/index.php/masferrer_investiga/article/view/88

Abstract

Institutional planning in youth and adult education is a strategic process for connecting educational leadership, community engagement and school improvement. However, in many school contexts, planning may become fragmented, top-down and weakly connected to the diagnosis of the educational community. This study aimed to design, implement and evaluate a participatory action system intended to improve work-system planning in a youth and adult education institution in the municipality of Amancio, Cuba. The research followed a mixed-methods approach with a design-based intervention orientation, supported by modelling, theoretical systematisation, observation, interviews, surveys, documentary analysis and lived pedagogical experience. The participants included 12 educational leaders selected through purposive sampling, together with socio-educational actors from the school, family and community contexts. The intervention was organised around theoretical-practical and practical-transformative actions focused on educational leadership, participatory planning, networking, the use of digital tools and artificial intelligence, objective and indicator formulation, and institutional evaluation. The findings indicate that the action system supported more contextualised, collaborative and evidence-informed planning practices, while strengthening the involvement of community actors in diagnosis, decision-making and feedback processes. Nevertheless, challenges remained regarding technological resources, scheduling, connectivity and the sustained participation of all actors. The study contributes a situated model of participatory planning for youth and adult education institutions, with potential transferability to educational contexts seeking to strengthen leadership, community co-responsibility and institutional self-regulation.

PDF (Spanish)
EPUB (Spanish)

References

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

Benavot, A., Hoppers, C. O., Lockhart, A. S., & Hinzen, H. (2022). Reimagining adult education and lifelong learning for all: Historical and critical perspectives. International Review of Education, 68, 165–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-022-09955-9

Bierema, L. L. (2019). Adult learning theories and practices. In M. Fedeli & L. L. Bierema (Eds.), Connecting adult learning and knowledge management: Strategies for learning and change in higher education and organizations (pp. 3–25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29872-2_1

Boeren, E. (2016). Lifelong learning participation in a changing policy context: An interdisciplinary theory. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137441836

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8

The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005

Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214

Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863253

Ho, C. S. M., & Chen, J. (2026). Entrepreneurial leadership in educational settings: A systematic literature review from 1996 to 2025. Educational Research Review, 50, Article 100762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100762

Hovmand, P. S. (2014). Community based system dynamics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8763-0

Ishimaru, A. M. (2014). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of district-community collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 188–216. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.2.r2007u165m8207j5

Ishimaru, A. M. (2019). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Policy, 33(2), 350–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817691841

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

Lu, J., Walker, A., Banoglu, K., Tang, J., & Gümüş, S. (2026). Future-ready school leadership: Construct clarification, development, and validation of a new measurement instrument. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432261441721

Mayorga, C. A. E., & Flores Polanco, M. I. (2025). Attitudinal Indicator Model for Disability Inclusion in Higher Education: Advancing Sustainable Development Goals in El Salvador. Sustainability, 17(22), 10379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210379

Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Polanco, M. I. F., & Mayorga, C. A. E. (2025). Scientific production in central America (1996–2023): Bibliometric analysis of regional trends, collaboration, and research impact. Publications, 13(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13030044

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509

Rubenson, K., & Desjardins, R. (2009). The impact of welfare state regimes on barriers to participation in adult education: A bounded agency model. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(3), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713609331548

Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2016). Holistic school leadership: Systems thinking as an instructional leadership enabler. NASSP Bulletin, 100(4), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636516683446

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2026 Dayana Ramos Pantoja, Ermis González Pérez, José Alberto Rosabal Rodríguez (Autor/a)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.