Change for Motivation_Support for New Pedagogies of Teaching and Learning in Ontario Public Schools

Change for Motivation:

Support for New Pedagogies of Teaching and Learning in Ontario Public Schools.

By: Andrea Lagalisse (2992863)For: Prof. Christina De Simone (EDU 5199)

April 13, 2015

Andrea Lagalisse (2992863) Final Synthesis. For Prof. Christina De Simone. EDU 5199. 1

Change for Motivation: Support for New Pedagogies of Teaching and Learning in Ontario Public Schools

Andrea R. Lagalisse

Abstract

This article examines psychological and social aspects of motivation in support of the changing landscape of teaching and learning in Canada and internationally. Arguing from a constructivist perspective, the author explores education reform attempts in Finland and Alberta as examples of slow change. The paper ends with some recommendations for educators, school leaders, parents, students, and community partners on how to tip the scales towards deep, ‘whole-system’ change in education philosophy, policy, and practice towards offering participatory, relevant, learner-centered and inquiry-based paths to learning and being in an increasingly diverse and evolving society.

Introduction

This paper explores the climate of educational change and reform in public schools in Ontario,

especially in the context of learner motivation. This is relevant and timely because of the

continuing interest in school reform nationally and internationally in the face of a rapidly

changing global society. Schools are intended to help young people develop the skills and

abilities needed to succeed in various aspects of their lives. I aim to inform interested readers of

the importance of motivation in learning as support for the increasing push for deep change in

education philosophy, policy, and practice away from traditional ‘factory-style’ educational

paradigms that persist in our public schools towards more authentic and rich learning

experiences. By deep, I mean that the changes will have effects that ripple outside of the

classroom environment and into communities.


I argue that this involves a slow, ‘whole-system’ approach and that it is important to

show examples of change attempts to support and sustain the evolution of our public schooling

systems in Ontario. By slow, I simply mean that systemic change involves philosophical change,

and that this cannot happen overnight. By whole-system, I am referring to what Fullan (2010)

discusses as “whole-systems reform”, which means that each part of the schools system- school,

the community, district, and also government contributes individually and in concert to “forward

movement and success” (p. 3). I believe that in is important to encourage change in the ways in

which we think about teaching and learning in order to give current influential actors a push to

get real change happening for this and future generations of students in Ontario public school

classrooms, and elsewhere.

My research questions are:

1) How does motivation relate to education, and why does it matter?

2) What does ‘whole-system’ change mean in the context of public schools in

Canada, and why do we need it?

Purpose

I seek to explore how motivation is created and sustained in learners in the hopes of

supporting future efforts at educational reform towards constructivist, participatory school

programs. By incorporating an understanding of motivation, I hope to encourage educators,

policy makers, school leadership, and students to think differently about schooling, teaching, and

learning, and their roles within those. I hope to add a different perspective by taking an

interdisciplinary approach to investigating lasting change in public schools, incorporating aspects


of educational pedagogies, and some understanding of motivation from the psychological and

social perspectives in a way that aims to support long-term, deep change.

In my post-secondary studies, I have devoted a lot of time trying to understand why

schooling systems in Canada are the way they are. What are some of the problems, and how

might we challenge them? I aim to combine my interest in working towards equity and equality

for young people in the context of educational system reform of Canadian public schools. I was

miserable in the public school system in Ontario. This was the sum of a lack of options, a system

that did not adequately provide for varied learning needs and strengths, and which focussed on

compliance, test scores, and power hierarchies to indicate success. I watched my fellow students

excel and suffer based on their personalities, exceptionalities, and other variations on the norm.

As a student, I felt undervalued, unimportant, and like I had very little agency in my own

education. There were constant power struggles, and stress from constant testing to figure out if I

was above average in achievement scores? Below the average? Both? It was not motivating, to

say the least. A few teachers stand out in my memory. They do not stand out because they taught

me facts, but because, in spite of a curriculum and institution that repressed them, they taught me

how to think for myself, or gave me space to question and experiment. Especially, they I

remember them because they treated students as partners in learning, rather than empty heads to

fill.

The purpose of this paper is to provide information and support to educators, policy

makers, parents, and school leaders about motivation and the importance of providing relevant

and engaging education opportunities to our young people. Bandura’s social cognitive theory of

development recognized that people are an important source of information about the world and

that as individuals we actively engage in learning about and understanding our world (Kail,


2009, p. 11). At the provincial level, I would like to see this research contribute to a redefinition

and dramatic overhaul of a provincially-controlled public school system that is underserving and

even interfering in youth learning and development into healthy, active citizens of a diverse and

evolving society. I would also like to see this research contribute to support for the importance of

education for young people’s social development, and change towards participatory learning

around the world.

Methods

This paper was created through a synthesis of literature alongside an investigation of the

experiences of two school reform experiences: the Finnish education system, and the Alberta

charter schools experiment. The purpose of including the two school reform examples is to

highlight that change is possible, but also that it is a lengthy and evolving process. I brought

together a short history of sociocultural learning theories in order to inform readers and show the

historical scientific and philosophical underpinnings of participatory learning. I also examined

current issues regarding schools, schooling, teaching and learning in order to show that the

climate for school change in Ontario and worldwide is ripe.

Theoretical perspectives.

The main perspective of teaching and learning used in this paper is constructivism.

Constructivism is the view that the individual builds the world around them by engaging with it.

Social constructivism goes one step further to include that construction of the world involves

interaction with other to co-create things like knowledge, culture or history. Constructivist

methods involve inquiry-based learning, problem-solving, collaboration, and focus on how to


learn, rather than what to learn (ThirteenEd Online, 2015). Constructivist educators view

themselves as continually learning, and there is a subsequent change in the teacher-student role

to reflect a variety of purposes. For example, the teacher may be in the classroom as facilitator,

or the teacher may switch to being the learner, as is often the case nowadays with technology in

the classrooms.

Discourse and critical theory. I believe it is important to bring into the light the

relationships between discourse and social change. Fairclough (1993) summed it up nicely when

discussing three facets of discourse and change in society (namely, “democratization” of

discourse, “commodification” of discourse, and “technologicalization” of discourse), which are

substantive changes, but are also recognizant of how conscious intervention in discourse

practices is increasingly important in bringing about social change (p. 200). What this means is

that if we want to create change, we have to consciously attempt to make it by talking about

wanting it, and arguing about what we mean by it, and pushing actively for it!

Sociocultural theories of learning. There exists a long history of research into the social

and psychological aspects of learning. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Vygotsky’s

(1930-1935/1978) Sociocultural Theory, which posits the importance of the role of culture in

intellectual development, and stresses the importance of collaborative, or guided learning

involving scaffolding (where “more expert” participants willingly tailor support to the novice

learner’s current abilities) (Shaffer, 2000, p. 92); 2. Piaget’s (1950) conceptions of the child as

the constructor of their world into behavioural, symbolic, and operational schemes through active

engagement with others and the world around them (Shaffer, 2000, p. 51); 3. Bandura’s (1977,

1986, 1992) Cognitive Social-Learning Theory indicates that observational learning is central to

our developmental process (Shaffer, 2000, p. 45); and, 4. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1989, 1993)


Ecological Systems Theory, which considers the important impact of environment(s) on the

individual, including micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-systems that inter-relate and interact as the

individual navigates through them (Shaffer, 2000, p. 90). Theories like these have informed

educational philosophy since Socratic dialogue (ThirteenEd, History…), and attest to the reality

of the way that our world is socially constructed. Yet their pedagogical effects are rarely

promoted in public schools past early childhood programs.

Motivation and change: Sociocultural Perspectives and Evolving Goals for Education

The reality has been that, as Ritchie notes, throughout the Western world, student

achievement has plummeted (2010, p.5). Students are less engaged in learning yet have access to

more information than ever before due to a rapidly evolving global society sped along by

technology. Ten years ago, Nichols, Glass, and Berliner (2006) showed in a quantitative study

(investigating policies like No Child Left Behind across 25 states in the U.S.) that there was no

relationship between “earlier” pressure nor later cohort achievement in grade 4 or 8 maths- nor

was there correlation found between “testing pressure and reading achievement” at any grade

level (p. 1, abstract). It is not difficult to take the U.S. setting and switch it for the Canadian

context. Both are culturally diverse, economically well-off and schools are controlled locally by

the state or province in question with an overarching federal component. They contend (and I

agree) that programs that focus solely on testing and achievement in schools only serve to

“punish” those identified as low-performing, rather than provide them with the resources they

need to become more effective and that these types of programs fail to recognize that schools

that are improving (Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, p. 168).. In spite of findings like these, schools

are having a hard time letting go of their old ways. But, change is on the horizon!


The international trends of increasing conservatism and also of increasing pluralism have

been cited as a factors contributing to the trend in charter and other alternative education funding

(Wagner, 1999. p. 54). There is the feeling that our public school systems are slaves to

curriculum expectations and standardized testing schedules, and that many students fall between

the cracks. Clearly, traditional public school structures are not succeeding in supporting the

success of their students. This is not to say that no effort is being made. I aim to show how the

Finnish and Alberta reform attempts are positive examples of slow change.

Individual Motivation. Very simply, motivation is “literally the desire to do things”

(Psychology Today, 2015). According to Bandura, individuals acquire information about their

capabilities through comparison with others, as well as through mastery and vicarious

experiences and physiological indexes (Schunk and Usher, p. 20-21). This can have “diverse”

effects on achievement and on behaviours depending on how the individual views their abilities,

what they value, and the circumstances that affect them. The authors show that current research

indicates that people’s thoughts, beliefs and emotions underlie motivation, and that people act in

accordance to their beliefs about capabilities and expected outcomes of their actions (Schunk &

Usher, 2012, p. 13). Individuals interact within a framework of “triadic reciprocality” involving

personal, behavioural and social/environmental factors and views the individual as having

agency and also the ability to “regularly shape their lives” through proactive engagement

(Schunk & Usher, 2012, p. 14-15).

Schunk and Usher highlight that motivation is a key process in observational learning

because onlookers are more likely to attend to, retain and produce modelled actions that they

believe are important (my emphasis) (2012, p. 16). As an early childhood educator, I am often

thinking about the importance of offering young people differentiated choices, relevant and


timely experiences, and in providing opportunities to explore, make mistakes, and engage in a

hands-on way, and I would like to see these principles extended into all levels of education.

Motivation in Education. Wigfield, Cambria & Eccles (2012) examine students’

motivation in the context of learning and the classroom and describe how motivation to learn and

engage arises, is sustained, and declines. They support a sociocultural perspective, positing that

learning takes place “in the context of relationships with teachers and peers” (p. 463), and posit

that students’ participation in different classroom environments and interactions with others co-

create motivation” (p. 474). The authors indicate that research shows how children’s academic

motivation declines throughout elementary schools and secondary school years. Contributing

factors include: receiving more information about performance and learning to interpret it clearly

(which can lead to pessimism about abilities); greater emphasis on evaluation and performance

outcomes; and greater levels of comparison between peers (Wigfield,, Cambria, & Eccles, p.

467). These factors align with traditional education models seen in public schools in Ontario

today that are tied to standardized testing schemes, tracking of students into different streams,

and competitiveness that comes along with academic achievement and familial/cultural

expectations of success.

Wigfield, Cambria, and Eccles (2012) suggest strategies for increasing intrinsic

(internally motivated) and extrinsic (externally motivated) motivation in students. Some of these

include: 1. offering task-level practices that are developmentally appropriate, and tasks that are

differentiated over time to avoid redundancy or disinterest; 2. reducing emphasis on evaluation;

adapting instruction to existing background knowledge; 3. providing opportunities for

exploration, and treating mistakes as a natural part of the learning process (p. 467). These

strategies are consistent with the current emphasis in educational pedagogy on supporting child-


centred, hands-on, relevant activities in order to reduce student apathy and maximise learning

potential.

While these strategies address individual motivation, but don’t discuss the necessity for

systemic change in the way the education is “done” as an institution. And so, it is important to

find ways to bring suggestions like these into the practical sphere, so that they can infiltrate

personal and professional applications of pedagogy as a culture of change is cultivated over

multiple generations. This seems a daunting task, but it is nonetheless the reality. We have to

change the ways in which we think about teaching and learning so that those who hold or come

into the positions of influence or power can implement and support new pedagogies and

purposes for our public schools and other educational forums. I will discuss this further below.

Discussion: Wanting Wider Change

Why do we need change in the way we run our schools? My experience working as an Early

Childhood Educator in Kindergarten and School-Age programs has shown me firsthand how

students struggle to stay motivated when they are uninterested and not consulted. It has also

shown me that the trend for emergent and other responsive curricula that are employed in the

Early Years Programs are not often being carried forward into grade school, or are being met

with great resistance from an entrenched institution.

A prime example that I struggled to reconcile as an educator was having no choice but to

comply with a kindergarten silent lunch initiative designed to “train” them for grade 1. My heart

sank and I felt frustration and dismay as I watched fifteen small children squirming and

struggling not to talk to each other at a time when social interaction ought to be supported and

developed. It didn’t make sense to me. It didn’t make sense to the E.C.E. running the program

either, but there was pressure from the grade school teachers and from administration to help


ensure ‘smooth transitions’ (which we gathered meant easy for them, not healthy for the

children).

In Rethinking Schools: An Agenda for Change (1995) Delpit argues for incorporating

tasks that use writing and reading for real purposes, noting that if there are children who are not

being successful, there is “something else you need to do”, namely, using knowledge of

individuals’ contexts, cultures, and different teaching strategies in an authentic way (p. 136).

This is very important, yet many educators shy away from this in favour of completing mandated

curriculum expectations in spite of learner realities. In the same book, Meier examines the “clear

and present danger” of standardized testing threatens the educational experience of all children

with their biases, limitations, and suppression of critical thinking, evaluation and analysis (p.

175-177). Standardization creates a stressful and competitive environment, which is de-

motivational for many educators and learners, yet it is still the dominant structure of school and

education in Ontario classrooms. It is up to us as teachers, principals, policy-makers, parents, and

students to change this by speaking against it and offering alternatives.

Social cognitive theory, motivation, and whole-system change. It is my belief that it is

imperative that we explore possibilities for creating more authentic educational experiences that

reflect our understanding of social and psychological development. And, that these experiences

and knowledge reflect our desire to produce future citizens that are actively able to engage in a

complex and evolving world. Many researchers have taken an integrated and/ or critical

approach in considering the interrelating factors that must evolve together for lasting change

(Salhberg, 2011; Fullan, 2000; Fullan, 2010; Levin & Fullan, 2009, Friere, 1998).

Following an integrative method that looks to effect practical change rather than simply

project an ideal is a direct effort to approach educational policy and reform. Fullan (2010)


discusses the idea of “whole-systems reform”, which means that “each part of the schools

system- school, community, district, and government contributes individually and in concert to

forward movement and success” (p. 3) rather than patchwork or rogue efforts. This is akin to the

deep change that I am arguing for. Aside from individual teacher practices within the traditional

system, Charter schools seem to me to be attempting to effecting whole-system change by

involving communities and working with the ministry of education to try and achieve success in

spite of setbacks.

Change benefits us all. Boudreault (2013) presents a more ‘official’ strategic perspective

on addressing the issue of change in education systems. Writing for Action Canada, a Canadian

charity partially funded by the government that aims to “build leadership for Canada’s future”

(2013, p.2), Boudreault investigates the perceived needs of Canadian society and what schools

will need to do in order to “equip Canadians with the skills necessary to operate effectively in

response to our increasingly dynamic world”- skills like critical thinking, evaluation and

effective communication (2013, p. 4). Boudreault’s suggestions for Ontario specifically centre on

incorporating “higher-order learning” into our classrooms, but notes that current frameworks and

policy documents focus on “hard skills” in anticipation of future employment (2013, p. 9). To

put it simply, we are talking the talk, but not walking the walk when it comes to implementing

educational philosophy and pedagogy.

Boudreault (2013) is coming from a place that recognizes that the speed of change in the

21st century surpasses that of even the industrial revolution, and aims to ensure that Canadians

can “remain competitive” by being able to integrate into increasingly sophisticated and

technologically fueled global economy (p. 4). While his report smacks of traditionalism, seeming

to value change for economic success alone, his statements still hold merit. Changes such as


Boudreault suggests should lead to positive change in the philosophy and pedagogy of teaching

and learning alongside an economic interest. Perhaps framing it in a more traditional sense can

help make change easier to swallow for those individuals and institutions that resist it.

What might change look like? Examples of school reform efforts at change for learner

motivation.

Finland and systemic change. In Finnish Lessons, Pasi Sahlberg examines the Finnish

school renewal process and suggests that the reform was possible because policy makers were

able to look beyond optimization toward “fundamentally transforming the paradigm and beliefs

that underlay policy” (2011, p. 127, my emphasis). Sahlberg (2011) highlights four strategies of

principle employed since the 1970’s in Finland with the aim of improving student learning that

contribute to the kind of long-term, whole-system change I am pushing for. These are:

Guaranteed equal opportunities to good public education for all; strengthening professionalism

and trust in teachers; steering change through “enriched” understanding of processes of

schooling and smart assessment; facilitation of network-based school improvement

collaborations (p. 126). These strategies will help students and teachers by increasing the access

to information about teaching and learning, as well as creating an atmosphere around learning

that values learning for its own sake.

Education reform in Finland has developed since the early 1990’s “almost in opposition”

to other global reform movements that were characterized by competition, test-based

accountability, and merit-based pay for teachers (Salhberg, 2011, p. 124-125). It is interesting to

note that the ways in which change were put into effect over a long period of time involved

decentralization of public sector administration, increasing the quantity and quality of teacher


training, and loose external standards with a focus on learning. I want to emphasize also the

importance of the fourth point about facilitating collaborations between schools and non-

governmental organizations. More simply put, it means to build community. The idea of giving

up control over education is arguably what riles a lot of critics. We are what we know, and it is

hard to change! As an educator, time and again, I have come up against unbending, traditional

teachers who refused or were unable to see beyond their historical experiences of school in order

to try something new. Honestly, if as an educator, I knew I would never heard the words “but

this is how we have always done things” again, I would rejoice! Schools are also difficult to

access for the community, many of them having locked door policies and strict rules for visitors.

Gardner (1990) highlights that in the modern technology-fueled era, many children live

in ‘value-deprived’ environments where no one pays attention to them unless they break the law

(p. 46). Greene (2000) examines how changes brought about by technology, demographic shifts,

decolonization and plurality is changing the “perceived absoluteness” or value systems and

moral codes and argues that to strive towards a better vision of schools should be we need to

overcome the invisibility of the problem (p. 276). We must name it! We must imagine how

things can be otherwise if we are to effect change. Gardner (1990) pushed for a re-establishment

of healthy communities characterized by; 1. Wholeness incorporating diversity (basically,

working towards eliminating social clique-isms); 2. The sharing of cultures, norms, and values;

3. Good internal communication (meaning combatting “we-they” barriers, and ensuring that

people believe they really have a say); and 4. Caring, trust, and teamwork (these protect the

individual while maintaining commitment to the “common good” (p. 48-50).

What are our aims in changing school systems? The Finnish School Board (2015)

states that their key aims in education reform recently are “Developing schools as learning


communities, and emphasizing the joy of learning and a collaborative atmosphere, as well as

promoting student autonomy in studying and in school life” (Halinen, front page). This view

holds learning as intrinsically valuable and supports constructivist learning that can lead to

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for learners. The Ontario Ministry of Education’ (OMOE)

Mission Statement, to compare, reads

Ontario is committed to the success and well-being of every student and child. Learners in the province's education system will develop the knowledge, skills and characteristics that will lead them to become personally successful, economically productive and actively engaged citizens.

Ontario will cultivate and continuously develop a high-quality teaching profession and strong leadership at all levels of the system. Our education system will be characterized by high expectations and success for all. It will be responsive, high quality, accessible and integrated from early learning and child care to adult education (MOE, 2015, Achieving excellence…).

But, what are these knowledges, skills, and characteristics needed? How will we cultivate high-

quality teaching and strong leadership? The Ministry offers four “renewed” goals for education.

These are: 1.) “Achieving excellence”; 2. “Ensuring equity”; 3. “Promoting well-being”; and 4.

“Enhancing public confidence” (OMOE, 2015, Achieving excellence.). Strategies included to

support these goals include “raising the bar for the teaching force”, investing in “innovative”

teaching methods, extending play-based learning past early childhood, and expanding learning

opportunities outside of the classroom through community involvement and engagement

(OMOE, 2015, Achieving excellence…).

While not comprehensive, this list is representative of the fairly ambiguous and vague

language used in the Ministry’s website. What is success? According to the Ministry, success

means an 85% high-school graduation rate and 75% success rate on EQAO results (OMOE,


2015, Achieving excellence), showing a continuing obsession with grades and testing to indicate

academic achievement in spite of talks about valuing the whole child and community wellbeing.

Canadian school systems could learn something from the Finnish experience, even if it is

just to move the focus away from traditional academic achievement on international rosters

towards learning as an intrinsically valuable endeavour. Academic achievement benefits arise

naturally from a real engagement with teaching and learning and being part of a community.

While the reality is that what worked for a then relatively homogeneous Finland may not be

exportable in its exact form, I agree with Sahlberg that there is no reason we cannot take what is

useful in implementing change at home and elsewhere. This transformation of the underlying

beliefs, paradigms, and basic principles would come closer to what Fullan (2010) describes as

whole-system change in Ontario education systems.

Experiences like those of the Finnish educational system have provided insights towards

what is needed for change to be effective and lasting. For starters, “educational change,” argues

Sahlberg, “should be systemic and coherent, in contrast with current haphazard intervention

efforts” (2011, p. 132). Equally important is the necessity to effect change on multiple inter-

related levels, supporting educational reform through increasing the “technical drivers” of

education (equal access, high-quality teacher training, support for teachers, smart accountability

procedures, good leadership), promoting sociocultural factors such as valuing literacy, respect

for teachers, trust between individuals and institutions, and the creation of social capital), and

links to other public-policy sectors (Sahlberg, 2011, p. 132). Change in Ontario public schools

appears to favour adaptations on traditional models, maintaining the status quo of schools and

classrooms and their implementation. I argue that we need a shift in the way that we structure

schools alongside a shift in the philosophy and pedagogy behind teaching and learning.


The charter schools experiment. Another example of efforts to change schooling

systems, this time in Canada, is the charter school experience in Alberta. Charter schools in

Canada are defined as “…autonomous public schools that would provide innovative or enhanced

means of delivering education in order to improve student learning” (Alberta Education, 2002. p.

1). Charter schools receive the same funding as other public schools, and are non-religious and

non-profit, and require teachers to be certified (Alberta Education, 2002, p. 3- 4). Charter school

champions argue that “…student and parent demand for the choices charter schools provide will

increase and public schools will fight for the flexibility charter schools enjoy” (Bosetti, 2010.

p.101). This is indicative of desire for chance, and proof that when presented with alternatives,

many will work to make them successful.

Of course, not everyone is on board, and there is the reality of significant political and

institutional resistance to changes to and entrenched public school system. Ritchie outlines

challenges faced by charter schools in Alberta that include but are not limited to: 1. The

restrictive nature and instability created by the charter renewal process, whereby schools must

reapply for status every five years; 2. Difficulties in acquiring premises due to restrictions on

public land and building grants; and, 3. Opposition from those who believe charter schools serve

niche markets and are exclusive (2010, p. 18-19). These types of mainly bureaucratic and

conservative ideological challenges are likely the reason why charter schools in Alberta have

been a limited success in spite of the obvious support from communities.

It is notable that as of 2010, there were 13 charter schools (of a possible 15) in operation

over 22 campuses, student enrollment had increased consistently, and waiting lists in the

thousands considered normal (Ritchie, 2010, p.12-13). Toma and Zimmer state that


at the end of the day, we must recognize that families are choosing charter schools…

the choice is voluntary….but beyond achievement effects, our observation that the

movement is voluntary suggests that the research community should be creatively

searching for ways in which to measure the benefits perceived by families. (2012. p.

212).

I believe that this type of experiment is necessary for the eventual overhaul of public

education in Canada. Why has the charter school experiment been confined to Alberta? My

recommendation would be for each province to attempt a similar project, but that they learn from

the Albertan experience and ensure they avoid unnecessary restrictions like those outlined by

Ritchie (above) that detract from an honest effort for change.

Conclusions and Future Directions: Changing the Way We Think About Education.

This paper aimed to contribute to discussion and eventual action towards a worldwide trend of

education reform and the evolution of better, more effective school systems that can help

individuals reach their potential while minimizing standardizations that detract from creativity,

multiple intelligences and ways of meaning-making, and differences. Boudreault (2013)

highlights how the role for education systems in the face of rapid societal and technological

change is “no longer as dispensers of knowledge, but rather facilitators of learning...requir[ing] a

paradigm shift in which teaching students answers gives way to teaching them how to ask the

right questions, evaluate information critically, and communicate effectively” (p. 4). This means

that each individual must be encouraged to think about their role in teaching and learning, and

how they can facilitate change towards authentic, participatory, constructivist learning in Ontario

public schools.


This is a big task, yet as Friere noted in Teachers as Cultural Workers, Letters to Those

Who Dare Teach, we must not allow the fear of what is difficult paralyze us (1998, p, 27) Rather,

we must objectively find whether there is real reason for that fear, match these against

possibilities for overcoming them that are available, and where they are not, we must determine

what steps to take in order to become “better capable of overcoming it tomorrow” (Friere, 1998,

p. 27). We must seek help from each other. This aligns with current educational pedagogy that

promotes the development of the ‘whole child’, and which advocate the development of policies

that treat the school as a whole community within the wider community (Noddings, 2005, p. 6)

and that addresses the importance of education for “deep learning” (Fullan and Langworthy,

2013). It is essential that we make conscious and collaborative efforts in order to effect real

change rather than elaborating on a broken system in a patchwork way. It is the ideological

equivalent of open-heart surgery, rather than taking an aspirin. Like heart surgery, school reform

needs to be drastic, requiring intent, patience, and collaborative effort to succeed.

Recommendations. For parents! For teachers, Early Childhood Educators, and school

leaders! For young people of all ages! For policy makers and implementers! I ask that you to

consider your role in learning and in making the world around you. What do you know today that

you did not know yesterday? Who did you teach something to? Who taught you something new?

What do we envision for our young people, and how can their education experiences influence

that? There are many paths towards whole-system, deep reform of public schools in Ontario.

Part of change involves imagining something better, and then finding ways to go towards that

visualization. Some ways that we can contribute towards a conscious call for change in education

philosophy, policy, and practice include:


1. Encourage reform in policy and practice that encourages learner-centred and

learner-directed activities at all grade levels. This means encouraging hands-on,

constructivist approaches and reducing teacher-learner power and conceptual divisions.

2. Seek out, value, and incorporate the opinions and interests of young people in

considering curriculum and classroom practices. Ask them what they are interested in.

Ask them for their input on policy, on curriculum, on subject matter. Form groups that

allow for the interaction of young people and adults in a collaborative way, and celebrate

their successes.

3. Encourage the evolution of studio-style classrooms and programs that value social

learning experiences at all grade levels. Again, this means learning as relevant, inquiry-

based opportunities to engage authentically in the world around them. It means changing

the way that a classroom looks, and what texts or other media students look at).

4. Encourage parents, teachers, principals, board members, and other community

partners to support greater links between young people and the community. This

means opening our doors, making connections, and inviting the community to be the

school. This means creating youth internship and training programs that value knowledge

and skill acquisition over economic imperative and filling a labour market.

5. Make funding available for alternative education projects and be open to new ways

of learning and doing. This means supporting charter school experiments, and reducing

financial and social barriers to other alternative schooling options (i.e. home-schooling,

private schools, and international schools). It means ensuring that educators are engaging

in professional and personal development in ways that are consistent with leading

scientific and social understandings of learning and teaching.


6. Make funding available to research the efficacy of various alternative schooling

models, and make these findings available to the public in an accessible way in order

to create awareness and understanding of possibilities and individual agency. This means

that research on the area of education philosophy, pedagogy, and reform should be free to

access, and relevant actors should be required to be informed about current issues and

strategies.

7. Support the development of quality teachers and teachers-in-training, and the

development of respect for teaching and early childhood education as valued and

important professions. This means supporting teachers in pre-service as well as those

who are already teaching. It means making better connections between early childhood

educators and teachers.

8. Hire and support educators who incorporate constructivism and hands-on learning,

and give them the leeway to run their classrooms as they want to, rather than forcing

adherence to an archaic system, recognizing that the system is in the process of changing

to reflect scientific, philosophical and biological realities about learning and motivation.

9. Remember that each of us is always learning, and reflect on how we can capitalize on

our interests and enrich our learning through social connections. This means redefining

the traditional teacher-learner relationship to include a variety of different roles that

reflect the purpose of the learning and the needs of the learner.

10. Reduce the emphasis on grades and achievement levels, and focus on learning and the

development of the whole child as valuable and essential for the creation of engaged and

able future citizens. This is not to say that marks and tests are not useful in any way, just


that they should not be the most important or defining way of viewing and assessing

learning.

11. Respectfully and actively retire educators who resist pedagogical, policy, and

curriculum changes in favour of traditional rank and file classrooms that suppress

efforts for change. (I recognize this is controversial, as it involves a re-structuring of a

traditional, tenure-style support for teachers, which enables them to stagnate. This brings

up a power element that merits its own discussion).

12. Don’t be afraid to speak up! I say this especially to students and young educators facing

opposition from traditionalist proponents. You have a voice, and you can use it. It may

not be easy, but you will benefit in the long run from a system that enables authentic and

relevant opportunities to engage and create your world.

To sum up, education system reform in Canada is not a new endeavour, although it remains

controversial. There is obvious desire for schools to be places that are motivational and

supportive of relevant, authentic learning. But, in order to create lasting, whole-system change in

a way that will support participatory, constructivist learning throughout our lives, we must

constantly renew the cry for change. We have to strive for it, even when it is hard and when we

want to quit. Even when we recognize that the problems facing education reform are not only

pedagogical, but also financial, political, and ethical problems (Friere, 1998, p. 36). As Friere

(1998) succinctly states, “it is true that education is not the ultimate lever for social

transformation, but without it transformation cannot occur” (p. 37). It is up to us as individuals to

decide to aim for better educational opportunities for ourselves and our young people in Ontario,

in Canada, and ultimately, around the world. We must keep moving forward!


References

Alberta Learning. (2002). Charter Schools Handbook. Edmonton, AL: Albertan Government.

ISBN: 0-7785-2550-3

Bosetti, L. (2001). The Alberta charter school experience. In C. R. Hepburn (Ed.), Can the

market save our schools? (pp. 101-121). Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute. Retrieved from

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/market_schools/7_bosetti.pdf

Boudreault, F. (2013). Future tense: adapting Canadian education systems for the 21st century.

Action Canada Task Force Report, 1-16. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.007

Delpit, L. (1995) Teachers, Culture, and Power: An Interview with Lisa Delpit. In D. Delpit, H.

L. Gates, Jr., H. Kohl, H. Zinn, et. al. (Eds.) Rethinking Schools: An Agenda for Change,

pp. 136-147).

Fairclough, N. (1993) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. ISBN 0 7456

0674 1

Friere, P. (1998) Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach. Oxford, UK:

Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-2304-5

Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581-584.

Retrieved from http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=577485

Fullan, M. (2010). The idea and importance of whole-system reform. In M. Fullan (Ed.), All

Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform (pp. 3-19). Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452219554.n1

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452219554.n1

http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=577485

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.007


Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Toward a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning.

Seattle, Washington: Collaborative Impact. Retrieved from

http://www.newpedagogies.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/New_Pedagogies_for_Dee

p%20Learning_Whitepaper.pdf

Greene, M. (2000) Imagining futures: the public schools and possibility. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 32(2), 267-280. ISSN 0022-0272.

Halinen, I. (2015) What is going on in Finland: Curriculum reform 2016. Finish National Board

of Education, retrieved from

http://www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/what_is_going_on_in_finland_curriculu

m_reform_2016

Kail, R. V., & Zolner, T. (2008). Children: A Chronological Approach (2nd ed.) Toronto:

Ontario, Pearson Canada, Inc.

Levin, B, & Fullan, M. (2009) Learning about system renewal. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The

Challenge of Change: Start School Improvement Now! (pp. 187-207). Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452218991.n13

Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child? Educational Leadership,

63(1), 8-13. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept05/vol63/num01/What-

Does-It-Mean-to-Educate-the-Whole-Child%C2%A2.aspx

Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., and Berliner, D. C., (2006). High stakes testing and student

achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept05/vol63/num01/What-Does-It-Mean-to-Educate-the-Whole-Child%C2%A2.aspx

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept05/vol63/num01/What-Does-It-Mean-to-Educate-the-Whole-Child%C2%A2.aspx

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452218991.n13

http://www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/what_is_going_on_in_finland_curriculum_reform_2016

http://www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/what_is_going_on_in_finland_curriculum_reform_2016

http://www.newpedagogies.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/New_Pedagogies_for_Deep%20Learning_Whitepaper.pdf

http://www.newpedagogies.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/New_Pedagogies_for_Deep%20Learning_Whitepaper.pdf


Analysis Archives, 14(6), 1-180. Retrieved from

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/72/198 ISSN 1068–2341

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015). Achieving excellence: A renewed vision for education in

Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/great.html

Perry, K. H. (2012). What is literacy?- A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal

of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50-71. Retrieved from

http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/What-is-Literacy_KPerry.pdf

Ritchie, S. (2010). Innovation in action: an examination of charter schools in Alberta. The West

in Canada Research Series. The Canada West Foundation. ISBN: 1-897423-61-5

Sahlberg, P. (2011). Is the future Finnish? In P. A. Wasley, A. Lieberman, & J. P. McDonald

(Eds.), Finnish Lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland?

(124-146). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan

(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 13-27). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Shaffer, D. R. (2000) Social and Personality Development (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/

Thomson Learning Press.

Sussex Publishers, Ltd. (2015). Motivation. Psychology Today. Retrieved from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/motivation

https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/motivation

http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/What-is-Literacy_KPerry.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/great.html

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/72/198


Thirteen Ed. Online.: Constructivism as a paradigm for teaching and learning. Concept to

Classroom. Retrieved from

http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/

Toma, E., & Zimmer, R. (2012). Two decades of charter schools: Expectations, reality, and the

future. Economics of Education Review, 31. Pp.209-212. Retrieved from

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/econedurev

Wagner, M. (1999). Charter schools in Alberta: Change or continuity in progressive conservative

education policy? The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 52-66. Retrieved

from http://ajer.synergiesprairies.ca.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/ajer/index.php/ajer/article/

view/24

http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/

Documents

Change for Motivation_Support for New Pedagogies of Teaching and Learning in Ontario Public Schools