TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION: WHO AND HOW

Ricard Ruiz de Querol, David Corts

Coperfield for Social Good, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract
Most of our schools, if not all, are still institutions which still operate on a design based on theories,
problems and ideologies of the past. Its overall design needs to be transformed in order to be
meaningful for the society of the future.
But this need provides an answer to just one of the four key questions (Why do we need to
transform?) that are to be addressed by any transformation project. There is currently a lot of
discussion about the second relevant question: What needs to change? The answer, of course, is that
the curriculum needs to be changed, although there is still a debate about the precise nature of the
changes, which might take some time to resolve.
Our point is that the current emphasis on the design of the curriculum is relegating to the back stage
two more critical question: Who will lead the transformation of existing schools and How to address a
transformation which will entail a renewal of the culture and the organization of schools.
Culture is here understood as a set of accepted and acceptable behaviors. In the current societal
context, schools need to adopt a culture of open and continuous innovation; open to students and
families as much as to the new pedagogical contents and methods pushed by the educational
industry. Business is increasing open to user-driven innovation. Shouldnt schools be equally open to
student-driven innovations, springing from the dreams of young people and a their sense of whats
really important to them?
The organizational model of many schools, an inheritance of the old industrial culture, with a rigid view
on disciplines and rigid roles for adults (principal, coordinators, specialists, teachers) as well as for
students fosters a culture that inhibits change. A school wanting to increase collaborative and crossdisciplinary work in their classrooms, for example, might find that teachers of different disciplines (say
science and humanities) have different schedules, routines and even meeting rooms as well as little
incentive to collaborate.
Culture change and organizational change need to be seen as change processes. As they entail
change peoples minds and behaviors, they cannot be planned in the same rigid way as engineering
or business process. Rather than being managed, they need to be led. What brings up the issue of the
kind of leadership needed to transform schools (a how) and the identity of the leaders (the who).
In our work as advisors and facilitators of change in schools, inspired by the culture and the pedagogy
of the Kaospilot (www.kaospilot.dk), weve successfully helped school teams to clarify their purpose, to
align around the why, how and who questions of the transformation process and to evolve towards a
culture of distributed leadership. We a team is so aligned, their responses to the what question follow
most naturally.
Keywords: Transformation, Culture, Leadership, Processes

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Context
There is broad agreement on foreseeing that the overall picture of education is about to undergo
profound changes at all levels. This will necessarily encompass transforming the schools and probably
the whole of the school system as well. It will not happen overnight, but as a result of a process that,
as all transformation processes, has to be thought of, designed, led and facilitated, monitored and
evaluated [1][2].
As Peter Drucker famously wrote [3], the central feature of the society of the future, as that of its
predecessors, will be new institutions, theories, ideologies and problems. Most of our schools are
institutions designed from theories, problems and ideologies of the past. Traditional models of

Transformation of education: Who and How

!1.

schooling, including approaches to teaching and classroom organisation, are inadequate for delivering
the learning agendas that are needed for adults to cope with accelerated societal changes. If we want
schools to remain as institutions of reference for the rapidly changing society in which the current
students will live [4], they need to be transformed thoroughly [5][6].
This provides an answer to the first of the four questions that need to be answered when preparing for
any transformative process [7]: Why do we need to change? The answer to the second one (What
should change?) is more complex than it might seem at first glance. Ultimately, what schools need to
change is whatever happens in the classroom. But this covers at least three items: the content of the
curriculum, including both skills and contents that prepare students to happily develop as citizens and
professionals of the future; the evolving role of the teacher into a facilitator of learning; and, finally, the
design of the classroom and the choice of equipment used to enhance learning.
One should not expect that the conversation about the changes in the classroom will come to a
definitive conclusion soon. Modern societies are being transformed at a rate unprecedented in history
[4]. Recent studies estimate that about half of the current jobs are at risk of disappearing [8], being
eliminated or replaced by others that apply knowledge and skills not yet included in the official
programs of teaching, even in those of universities. Emerging companies with new business models,
strategies, technologies and practices, threaten many traditional businesses. In the field of politics,
traditional parties face both the demand of increased citizen participation and the growth of
reactionary, when not xenophobic, proposals that challenge social values that used to be considered
permanent. We could go on, but the consequence is clear: we must anticipate that the need for
schools to adapt to the demands of a continued social change will be a constant for at least a decade.
Consequently, there is a risk that the current emphasis on redesigning the classroom relegates to the
background deciding on the answer to two far more critical questions for the future of schools: (1) How
to confront a transformation that will require a renewal of its culture and organization, and (2) to focus
on who will lead (and how) the necessary transformations.
At a minimum, the acceleration of change in the social environment should lead schools to adopt a
culture of continuous and open innovation [9]. Open, on the one hand, to the new emerging societal
trends as they start to consolidate. But also open to the peculiarities, expectations, concerns,
proposals and (why not?) innovations coming from their immediate environment, including the
students and families to whom the schools are supposed to serve.
This innovation culture clashes, often frontally, with a rigid view of the curriculum and disciplines and a
model of organization that in many schools is still a legacy of old industrial culture. A model based on a
quite rigid definition of the roles of both adults (director, coordinators, specialists, teachers) and
students. A school wanting, for example, to promote more collaborative and interdisciplinary work in
their classrooms can well find that teachers from different disciplines (say sciences and humanities)
not only are given little incentive to cooperate, but also use separate meeting rooms and run on
schedules and routines that make it difficult even to meet in person.
Transforming the culture and the organization of schools will also entail a significant change in the
attitudes and behaviors of many teachers, managers and staff. This requires a process that can
neither be planned as if it were a cold engineering project, nor be prescribed only from the topdown,
even less from outside the school, because the resistance to change is greater when change is
perceived as an external imposition. The key to a successful transformation is to create spaces and
conditions that enable each school to take responsibility for finding its own way in the evolution of the
roles and behaviors of administrators, teachers, students and families.
It becomes then of crucial importance to clarify both the identity of the leaders of this transformation as
well as the type of leadership to be exercised. Change is a complex, multi-faceted process and
creating lasting change is hard. In a multilevel and complex system like a school, the leadership of a
change process cannot be assigned exclusively to managers and directors which in many instances
are already overwhelmed with the management of the day to day priorities.
The idea of change needs to be gradually introduced; otherwise one risks losing the support, when not
raising the opposition, of those who resist radical change. One needs to build within each community
the context and the ability to take ideas that feel threatening. The change process must necessarily be
participatory and distributed in order to be accepted and sustained. Its ultimate goal is that the
teacher's main role becomes that of a facilitator of the learning process of students which receive
many inputs, including even these of their peer. This will demand, on the one hand, that the most
enthusiastic or capable among the teachers be enabled and empowered to lead their colleagues. In

Transformation of education: Who and How

!2.

parallel, as the practical requirements of the new teaching practices gradually emerge, the faculty
might need to take a more active role, not just as subordinates but as allies to management, in driving
the definition and implementation of the organizational changes that will be required.
The need to implement distributed leadership for the change process is currently being emphasised
from both independent and policy experts. As written in a recent OECD report [10] on the subject of
leadership for the schools:
Globalisation and modernisation are imposing huge changes on individuals and societies []
Providing all individuals with the knowledge and skills to participate fully in our societies is now
a policy imperative [] All this has profound implications for teachers and for the leadership of
schools and education systems [] Successful education systems are those that promote
leadership at all levels, encouraging teachers and principals, regardless of the formal positions
they occupy, to lead innovation in the classroom, the school and the system as a whole.
We propose in this paper that enabling such a culture of distributed leadership is a key element in
response to two of the questions (How to go about it? and Who will do it?) that need to be addressed
in order for each school to successfully tackle the three fronts (pedagogical, organizative and cultural)
of its transformation in the way most consistent to their particular characteristics and constraints.

1.2. Organization of this paper

In the context outlined above, the objective of this document, mainly aimed at directors and
management teams of schools, is to raise some reflections on the concepts of culture, organization
and leadership, while proposing some principles on how to address these issues.
To do so, the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 proposes some concepts regarding change
processes and its phases. Section 3 touches on the basics of organization, leading to the issues of
culture and distributed leadership in Section 4.

2. Change is a process
An organization is a living system. The transformations of living systems are nonlinear. A plant begins
as a seed; in order to eventually become a fruit, an apple is first a flower and later a seed. Processes
of organizational change also require going through certain intermediate stages and therefore take
time. From the early Greeks to the most recent thinking in science [11], life is described as a process
of becoming. Although we see change at the material level, it is caused by processes which are
immaterial. It is thus necessary to look for these underlying processes rather then for the things they
engender [12].
One can broadly distinguish [13] in any transformation process three distinct phases (Emergence,
Consolidation, Maturity) with a period of crisis in the transition between them (Fig. 1).

Figure1. Stages of evolution of an organization.

The phase of emergence is one of rapid growth and learning. In the growth process of an individual it
would correspond to the period from birth to 21 years or so. It is a period chaotic in a way, open to the
influences of the world, driven more by impulses and intuition than by rational criteria. In the evolution

Transformation of education: Who and How

!3.

of a company or organization it would correspond to the founding stage, which is in most cases
dominated by a compelling vision and the thrust of an entrepreneur (or a group of pioneers) who
tolerates (or even welcomes) the chaotic state of uncertainty which is typical at the startup of a project.
The emergent organization encounters a crisis when the requirements of the group's activity bump
against the voluntarism of the team, or when the imperative of effectiveness takes priority over the
creativity and flexibility that made starting the project possible.
In the evolution of individuals, the consolidation stage corresponds to the period between 21 and 42
years, approximately. The individual is then expected to 'settle' into adult life and to find her place in
the world: practicing a profession, finding a partner, becoming part of one or more communities. She is
still at least partly driven by the illusions and projects of adolescence; but she needs also to face the
demands, constraints and conventions of the 'real world'. It is not uncommon to find at the end of this
stage the archetypal 'crisis of the 40s', in which the search for the meaning of life leads to questioning
adopted habits, conventions and beliefs, which now might be regarded as unnecessary or even
counterproductive.
In the case of an organization, in the consolidation stage the need to formally organize, defining
procedures, rules and protocols, creating departments or specialized roles becomes dominant.
Although the initial vision remains, the emphasis is put in demonstrating the ability to achieve tangible
results that ensure the viability of the project. A crisis emerges when the organization becomes
bureaucratic, when specialized departments start prioritising their own objectives instead of the overall
interest of the organization.
In the life of a person, having overcome the crisis of the 40s, the maturity stage would manifest itself in
achieving a healthy balance between the personal priorities of the individual and his contributions to
society in a broad sense. Ideally, he focusses on what needs to be done rather than on what he can
do or likes to do. Likewise, in the maturity phase, the working of the organization are fully aligned with
its purpose to contribute to the wellbeing or its clients, or that of society in general. A good example is
the ecosystem of free software [14], in which individual developers as well to large companies
cooperate in the production of high quality software which is made accessible to the whole community.
The endeavour of transforming any organization must foresee these three stages and manage
through them. Most schools today would be in the phase of differentiation, with an organization,
culture and systems of work that prioritises stability and efficiency. Its goal would be to transition to an
integrated phase in which to provide an education in line with the changing needs of the social
environment.

Figure 2. Steps of the transformation process.

The implementation of a transformation process can then be accomplished through the steps outlined
in Fig. 2. In the initial phase, a group of pionners become the 'change team'. They are responsible for
spreading the rationale, purpose, values and the general objectives of the project with their
colleagues, thus widening the base of people willing to commit to change.

Transformation of education: Who and How

!4.

The project then progresses by selecting levers or actionable change and testing them in prototypes
and pilots. Agile and lean project methodologies [15] provide here a good reference and practical
guidelines. The evaluation of the results of the pilots and the design of proposals for improvement and
scalability are then fed back for a new iteration of the process.
The implementation of these steps, albeit conceptually simple in appearance, requires to reconsider
often sensitive issues as the culture and procedures of the organization, when not its management
and leadership styles. We deal with these issues in the following sections.

3. On organization, culture and leadership

3.1. General principles
The concept of "organization" refers to how a group of people along with some specific resources are
arranged in order to achieve a particular purpose. The ideal organization is therefore not defined a
priori. It is not a goal in itself, but an instrument in the service of a goal. Organization should follow
strategy (Alfred Chandler). An organization that pursues greater efficiency in the execution of a
process already proven in a stable environment might be very different from one designed to foster
innovation or to be flexible in order to best adapt to changes in the environment.
The business world provides good examples of alternative forms of organization. A company that
priorities customer satisfaction, for example, will adopt an organization quite different from the one
centered around product or services lines.
In the case of a school, the most appropriate organization would be the one providing the best
education. But when the characteristics of the desirable education change, as it is now happening,
one should at least consider the possibility that the launch of a new educational project could entail the
need to undertake changes in the organizational schemes that worked well in the past. By analogy
with the business example, a school that seeks to enhance collaboration, team learning and project
work tuned to real life challenges would need to adopt an organization quite different from one
centered around the traditional disciplines. At the university level, this is demonstrated by the
significant differences between the curriculum and organization of a school like the Kaospilot
(www.kaospilot.dk) and those of a conventional business school.
The design of the organization is thus framed by the purpose, principles, values and culture that one
seeks to foster (Fig. 3) as well as by the requirements of their implementation strategy. It is
nevertheless to be expected that along a process of transformation, and more crucially at its
beginnings, disfunctions or misalignements between purpose, values, culture, organization and
strategy will inevitably appear. As these elements do not align spontaneously, effective leadership is
needed in order to align them. We touch the characteristics of this leadership later on.

Figure 3. Leadership is required to align organization with its objectives

3.2. Organizing for change

When facing a transformation, the design of the process must address not only the goal of building the
desired future, but also that of changing the existing organization, which was in most cases designed
with different blueprint in mind.

Transformation of education: Who and How

!5.

One must face as a fact of life that changing an existing organization will inevitably find resistances, as
some people or existing units might fear losing relevance, power or privilege. There will also be the
ones who prefer not taking a conservative stance, not jumping on board until perceiving that the
change is going to succeed. Moreover, if a lean' strategy is adopted, which entails several iterations of
the cycle of design, validation and prototyping, there will be the need to have two organizations
coexisting for some time. The teams that push and extend the change will have to make themselves
compatible with an existing organization built around stability and efficiency.
In the case of a school, an effective strategy might require the designation of two change teams
working in parallel with the traditional organization. One or more 'pilot teams would be in charge of
designing new content and pedagogical practices and validating them through limited pilots with
students. In parallel, a team of leaders of change would be responsible of sharing, clarifying and
discussing the objectives of change with with the educational community at large (faculty, families,
even students), thus broadening the base of people identified with the objectives of change and
committed to contribute. Practical guidelines for the change teams are well covered in the business
literature (See, for example [2][16][17]).
It is nevertheless true that the organization of schools, and especially the role of their management
teams, will need to adapt as the change teams begin to act. The change teams can coexist with the
traditional organization only if a chaordic culture [18], a combination of chaos and order is enabled.
But doing so requires paying explicit attention to two often neglected issues: culture and leadership.

4. Culture and leadership

4.1. On culture
The culture of an organization determines what is acceptable and what is not. In the context of an
organization (such as that of a school), 'culture' can be defined as a set of basic assumptions adopted
by a group, that have worked well enough to be considered as the correct way to perceive, think and
feel in relation to the operation of this group as such [19].
To the extent that these assumptions are internalised and broadly shared, they generate automatic
patterns of behaviour that provide sense, stability and comfort. Conversely, when the culture of an
organization is weak or is insufficiently internalised by the group, the result is uncertainty,
disorientation and, to some extent, anxiety. The same is true when, as is the case with education,
there is a change in the conditions (internal or external) under which the existing culture was forged.
Culture manifests itself in three levels [19]: unquestioned assumptions, operational principles and
visible artefacts. The three of them are likely to be modified with the current tendencies of educational
change. The advances in cognitive psychology and the influence of information technologies are
leading to question traditional assumptions about how students we learn and what should they learn.
Pedagogy seeking the development of skills differs substantially from that of learning contents. Thirdly,
the physical layout of the classroom, perhaps even the very fact that the school is structured in
classrooms with a certain configuration, is a clear example of how a culture can manifest in physical
artefacts. Last but not least, in many occasions and in many schools, adopting a culture of change
would be in itself a change of culture.
The question thus arises is how to accomplish the desired culture change: questioning and changing
often implicit assumptions, changing principles, modifying artefacts. This leads directly to the issue of
leadership, because leadership and culture are two sides of the same coin. As a matter of fact, the
ability to perceive the limitations of the existing culture and making it evolve adaptively are the
essence and the biggest challenge of leadership.

4.2. On leadership
The concept of leadership is elusive; there are more than two hundred definitions of leadership in the
academic literature, many of them inconsistent or even contradictory. For purely practical reasons, we
like to stick with two basic propositions of Peter Drucker regarding leadership. The first one hinges on
the experimental fact that "only three things happen naturally in organizations: friction, confusion, and
underperformance. Everything else requires leadership. Starting from there, the main purpose of
leadership is the creation of a human community united by the bond of working with a common
purpose.

Transformation of education: Who and How

!6.

In our case, the community in question is the school, and the common purpose is providing the best
education. But this definition still leaves many things open. In the context of the leadership assigned to
the change teams introduced in the preceding section, the issues of the difference between
leadership and management, the implications of the different styles of leadership as well the
implementation of distributed leadership requiere careful consideration.
There is an important difference between leadership and management: Leadership focuses on vision;
management in implementation. Both are essential, but in practice not every manager is a god leader,
nor good leaders necessarily make good managers.
it has been argued that the project of transforming a school is akin to that of changing the four wheels
of a car without stopping it; an almost impossible task. An alternative metaphor is to compare it with
changing the engine without stopping the vehicle; this could indeed be accomplished by adding, for
example, an electric motor to make a hybrid, and eventually switching the old engine off.
The purpose of the analogy is to point out that a school principal or administrator, having to face the
pressure of the day to day tasks, might not have the time, the skills or the energy to lead the process
of enacting a new culture, which requires an altogether different rhythm, practices and skills.
This brings us to the question of distributed leadership, one of the linchpins of the transformation
strategy proposed in this document.

4.3. On distributed leadership

Leadership is situational [20] There is in the literature [21] the distinction among three styles of
leadership, each one with differential attributes. A dependent leadership is exercised from top to
bottom, with the leader taking all the important decisions, which no one dares to question, at least
openly. An independent leadership is exerted when the leader posses an unparalleled knowledge or
and expertise for the context at hand. This would be, for example, the case of the chief of emergency
in case of fire in a building. An interdependent leadership, on its turn, focusses on the growth of the
teams, competencies and skills that will make the organization better. It is worth noting that many
important innovations emerge at the intersection of disciplines, arising from the interaction between
people with different skills, knowledge and experience. When this interaction does not occur
spontaneously in an organization, as it is often the case, a leader's job is to promote and facilitate it.
None of these three leadership styles can be applied indiscriminately. They can coexist in a given
organization, particularly in a school. But only a style of interdependent leadership has the potential to
bring all the members of a school community on board for a process of school renewal. The
responsibility of the interdependent leader, as that of the director of a jazz band, is not to control in
detail the performance of each element of the orchestra, but to create and maintain a space in which
all the willing members of the school community can offer and bring their best [22].
There are then three priority tasks for the independent leader [18]: to lead himself; to lead his
superiors; to lead his peers and to ensure that everyone below him does the same. This would then
achieve a culture of distributed leadership.

FINALE
Change requires in many cases, certainly in schools, a non trivial intertwining of change processes at
different levels. Creating lasting change is hard. Therefore, in many cases change is adopted only on
the surface, without a substantive transformation taking place. This seems indeed to be frequent also
in schools [5].
We advocate here that establishing a culture of distributed leadership is the only viable path for the
schools to prepare themselves for the sustained change that they will need to undergo for at least a
decade. There is neverthless a significant obstacle that will need to be overcome: very few among the
staff of schools, including principals, have been exposed in their training, to the core skills of
interdependent and distributed leadership, which include appreciative inquiry, systemic thinking,
project planning, team facilitation, conversational skills or effective negotiation. Leading, as dancing or
living, cannot be learnt just in theory; it needs to be practiced. Introducing this practices in the schools
would therefore be the first preparatory step for its transformation.

Transformation of education: Who and How

!7.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Some of the concepts discussed in this paper emanate from the leadership curriculum of the
Kaospilot. We have benefited from many useful conversations with Christer Windelv-Lidzlius,
Principal and Simon Kavanagh from the Kaospilot staff. Earlier versions of this paper (in Spanish)
were part of the support to our facilitation of change processes with schools in Spain.

REFERENCES
1.

Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change, David. L. Cooperrider and Diana

Whitney, Berret-Koehler (2005).

2.

The Power of Appreciative Enquiry: A Practival Guide to Positive Change, Diana Whitney and
Amanda Trosten-Bloom, Berret-Koehler (2005).

3.

The next society, The Economist, November 1st, 2001.

4.

Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity, Hartmunt Rosa, Columbia University Press
2015

5.

What Makes a School a Learning Organisation?, Kools, M. and Stoll L. (2016), OECD
Education Working Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/5jlwm62b3bvh-en.

6.

Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons from around
the World, Schleicher, A. (ed.) (2012), Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for
the 21st Century: Lessons from around the World, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/9789264174559-en

7.

Start with WHY, Simon Sinek, Penguin 2011.

8.

The future of jobs: The onrushing wave, The Economist, January 18th 2014. See also
Automation and anxiety: Will smarter machines cause mass unemployment?, The Economist,
June 25th 2016.

9.

Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel, MIT Press 2005.

10.

Schools for 21st-Century Learners: Strong Leaders, Confident Teachers, Innovative

Approaches, Schleicher, A, in International Summit on the Teaching Profession, OECD
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264231191-en.

11.

The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems, F. Capra, Anchor 1997

12.

Leadership and the New Science, Margaret J. Wheatley, Berret-Koehler (2006).

13.

Global Management Principles, Ronnie Lessem, Prentice Hall (1989).

14.

The Success of Open Software. Steven Weber, Harvard University Press (2004).

15.

Running Lean, Ash Maurya, OReilly 2012. The concept of lean originated in The Lean
Startup, Eric Ries, Porfolio Penguin 2011.

16.

10 Principles of Leading Change Management, D. Aguirre and M. Halpern (2004), accesible

online.

17.

Moments of Impact: How to design strategic conversations that accelerate change, C. Ertel
and L. K. Solomon, Simon and Schuster (2014).

18.

One from Many: VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization, Dee Hock, Berret-Koehler
(2005)

19.

Organizational Culture and Leadership, Edgar Schein, Jossey Bass (2004)

20.

Self-Leadership and the One Minute Manager, Ken Blanchard, Harper Coliins (2005)

21.

Developing Interdependent Leadership, Charles J. Palus, John B. McGuire, and , Center for
Creative Leadership, accessible online.

22.

The Spirit of Leadership, Harrison Owen, Berret-Koehler (1999)

Transformation of education: Who and How

!8.

PAPER TITLE [ARIAL 14, BOLD, CENTRED, UPPER CASE]

Author Name1, Author Name2 [Arial, 12-point, bold, centred]
1Author

Affiliation (COUNTRY) [11-point, italic, centred]

2Author

Affiliation (COUNTRY) [11-point, italic, centred]

Abstract [Arial, 12-point, bold, centred]

This template will assist you in formatting your paper. Please, insert the text keeping the format and
styles. The parts of the paper (title, abstract, keywords, sections, text, etc.) are already defined on the
style sheet, as illustrated by the portions given in this document. [Arial, 10-point, justified alignment]
Keywords: Innovation, technology, research projects, etc. [Arial 10-point, justified alignment].

1. SECTION [ARIAL, 12-POINT, BOLD, UPPER CASE AND LEFT ALIGNMENT]

There is a limitation of 10 pages. All pages size should be A4 (21 x 29,7cm). The top, bottom, right,
and left margins should be 2,5 cm. All the text must be in one column and Arial font, including figures
and tables, with single-spaced 10-point interline spacing. [Arial, 10 point, normal, justified alignment]

1.1. Subsection [Arial 12, bold, left alignment and capitalize the first letter]
The text included in the sections or subsections must begin one line after the section or subsection
title. Do not use hard tabs and limit the use of hard returns to one return at the end of a paragraph.
Please, do not number manually the sections and subsections; the template will do it automatically.

1.1.1. Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Abbreviations and Acronyms

Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text, even after they have been
defined in the abstract. Do not use abbreviations in the title or heads unless they are unavoidable.

1.1.2. Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Figures and Tables

Tables, figures, and graphics should be centred, numbered and accompanied by a legend. Figure
captions should be below figures; table heads should appear above tables. Insert figures and tables
after they are cited in the text. Use the abbreviation Fig. 1, even at the beginning of a sentence.

1.1.3. Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Page numbers and Footnotes

Please, do not add any kind of pagination anywhere in the paper. Avoid using headers and use
footnotes [Arial, 8 point] only within the page margins (2,5 cm of white margins).

1.1.4. Sub-subsection: Guidelines for References

The list of the references should be given at the end of the paper. References are numbered in
brackets by order of appearance in the document (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). The same reference can be cited
more than once in the text with the same reference number (more info: http://iated.org/citation_guide).

2. SECTION
Use as many sections/subsections as you need: Introduction, Methodology, Results, Conclusions, etc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [Arial, 12-point, bold, left alignment]

Optional statement to thank other contributors, assistance, or financial support.

REFERENCES [Arial, 12-point, bold, left alignment]

1.

Reference [Arial, 10-point, left alignment, upper and lower case]

2.

A. Einstein, General theory of relativity, Annalen der Physik, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 769822, 1916.

Transformation of education: Who and How

!9.