Engaging Adolescent Learners

Engaging Adolescent Learners

Brandy Yee • Anne Sliwka Matti Rautiainen

Engaging Adolescent Learners International Perspectives on Curriculum, Pedagogy and Practice

Brandy Yee Calgary Board of Education, University of Calgary Calgary, AB, Canada

Anne Sliwka Universität Heidelberg Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

Matti Rautiainen University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä, Finland

ISBN 978-3-319-52601-0    ISBN 978-3-319-52602-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52602-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018953169 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © huePhotography / Getty This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to all those teachers, students and instructional leaders whose words and work have provided us with images of practice that will positively impact the ways in which we engage adolescents in their learning. This book is also dedicated to that person each of us has in our lives who will not only read our chapters, but who, more importantly, inspires us to be brave enough to share our words with the world…WGY, thank you for being my person…xo

Contents

1 Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years?   1 2 Setting the Stage  21 3 Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada  71 4 Germany: A System Undergoing Change 115 5 Finland: Towards the Future School 139 6 Ecologies of Practice 161

vii

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 (a, b, c) Whys, hows and whats on rocks 89 Fig. 5.1 Big Picture of Teacher Education at the Department of Teacher 152 Education at the University of Jyväskylä

ix

1 Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years?

Is it okay if I tell you that most days I feel like I don’t even know who this person is who is staring back at me in the mirror. Sometimes I am happy, sometimes I am sad, and then mad and just bored, all in like the same hour. My body aches and all these things are happening to it that I feel embarrassed to ask my family and friends about. And then I have to be in class and try to hold all these emotions together and also get my mind focused on learning. Every day feels like a struggle. (Yee, Student Interview, December 2014)

Anyone who has recently stepped into a middle years’ classroom knows all too well the truth of this portrait—the lived experience of learners in our schools today. Early adolescents are truly a unique group of learners, like none other a teacher might experience—a group that will at one moment test a teacher’s mettle and the very next bring so much elation and reward that a teacher might even question how they could ever think of working with another age group. This is the appeal and the true curiosity behind the early adolescent learner and is the heart of what we will present to you in this book. While many arguments can be found to support either the early years (kindergarten through grade 4) or the high school years (grades 10 © The Author(s) 2018 B. Yee et al., Engaging Adolescent Learners, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52602-7_1

1

2 

B. Yee et al.

through 12) as being of crucial importance in a child’s growth and development, it is the middle years that have often gone unnoticed. Much brain-based research has been devoted to understanding the tremendous changes early adolescents experience; yet, connecting that research to school-based practices for these learners has remained elusive. Decisions about middle level learning environments and programming for these learners are often based on budgets and capital plans as opposed to what will best support them through what can be a very tumultuous time. This is not a group of slightly more complex primary students. Nor is it a group of immature high schoolers. These [middle-years learners] are unique. Intellectually, the tools they need for figuring out academics and life are not all in the toolbox yet. This makes decision making, impulsivity control, moral/abstract reasoning, “reading” the situation, planning, understanding consequences of words and actions, and other executive functions intermittent at best. They are fiercely independent, yet paradoxically, they crave social connection. They move from concrete to abstract thinking, sounding like adults when talking about some topics, and young children when discussing others. They crave competence, self-definition, creativity, vividness in learning, emotionally control/power over their lives, physical activity, positive social interactions with adults and peers, structure and clear limits, and meaningful participation in school/community. Most of all, they want to belong. (Wormeli 2012, para. 9–14)

Truly understanding the unique developmental needs of early adolescent learners and how the multifaceted developmental changes they undergo during this period impact their experience in school is often overlooked while educators with good intentions engage in “strategic guesswork” attempting to create effective and appropriate learning environments and opportunities for adolescent students. We cannot deny the very real stages of physical, emotional and social development and transition occurring for these learners; however, we need not perpetuate myths that associate early adolescence with distress, difficulty or suffering. If school systems attend to how these changes impact teaching and learning, middle level learning environments can achieve their potential in becoming ­remarkable places of learning, responsive to the unique learning needs of early adolescents.

  Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years? 

3

With much attention worldwide currently focused on the early years of learning along with supporting students as they work towards high school completion, it is the early adolescent learner, age 10–14, and the middle years of learning that are often overlooked as large education systems endeavour to bolster student achievement. An abundance of current research highlights a concerning decline of student engagement in and connectedness with their learning, beginning at age 10 (Association for Middle Level Education 2010; Balfanz 2009; Centre for Collaborative Education 2003; Manitoba Education 2008; McCreary Centre Society 2009; National Association of Secondary School Principals 2006; OISE 2008; Rumble and Aspland 2009; Steinberg 2014; Willms et al. 2009; Wormeli 2011). Still, a significant imbalance exists in the amount of time, money and human resources education systems have invested in the middle years of learning as compared to learners on either end of the developmental continuum. According to one study, Young People in Canada: Their Health and Well-Being, early adolescents’ behaviours and self-perceptions are closely related to their quality of life in school (Klinger et al. 2011). This study found that by Grade 8, only 21 per cent of girls and 16 per cent of boys reported “liking school a lot” (p. 52). Furthermore, 52 per cent of girls and 54 per cent of boys described their “teachers [as being] interested in them,” and only 72 per cent of girls and 70 per cent of boys believed that “most of their teachers were friendly” (p. 54). Similarly, a study sponsored by the McCreary Centre Society (2009) in British Columbia examined adolescents’ perceptions of school and feeling connected to school and their learning throughout the adolescent developmental period. This multifaceted study generated troubling findings that characterized early adolescent learners as lacking any meaningful connection to school across all grades. Results showed a sharp drop in student connectedness to their learning from 23 per cent in Grade 7 to 7 per cent in Grade 10, with a slight rise to 12 per cent in Grade 12. Longitudinal research studies from both New Zealand and Australia indicate that it “works” for schools to develop a middle years approach. Outcomes are better, student engagement with their learning is greater, teacher satisfaction is higher and resources within and across schools are better utilized (O’Sullivan 2005). Haigh (2004) writes, “Studies have overwhelmingly concluded that

4 

B. Yee et al.

middle schools do an effective job… The notorious Year 7 dip tends not to happen” (p. 2). The Canadian Education Association’s (CEA) What did you do in school today? study has, since 2007, surveyed over 63,000 Canadian adolescents and found that although 69 per cent of students report being “engaged in school,” as measured through indicators such as attendance, homework behaviours, positive relationships with friends and participation in extracurricular activities, only 37 per cent reported being engaged in learning. The concept of being “engaged in learning” was measured by reported levels of effort, interest and motivation and perceived quality of instruction (Dunleavy et al. 2012). During these transitional years, students change significantly--physically, intellectually, morally, psychologically and social-emotionally. The academic growth and personal development experienced during these important years significantly impact their futures. In the middle grades, the stage will be set for success in high school and beyond…[These students] deserve an education that will enhance their healthy growth as lifelong learners, ethical and democratic citizens, and increasingly competent, self-sufficient individuals who are optimistic about the future and prepared to succeed in our ever-changing world. (AMLE 2010, pp. 11–13)

This research, along with emerging evidence from other parts of the world, combines to underscore the importance of further examination into the experiences of early adolescents in middle level learning environments and the factors that contribute to their engagement in learning. Therefore, the significance of this book can be found in the unique comparative approach we utilize to examine dialogues and practices related to the major paradigm shifts underway in Germany, Finland and Canada designed to target the early adolescent learner, the pedagogical methods employed by teachers for that age group, along with the organization of the learning environments in which their formal education takes place. So far, very few studies have examined this phenomenon within a contemporary international context; further, none can be found that have crossed linguistic borders, where cultural beliefs and values connected to education have a significant impact on the emerging narratives contributing to distinct national systems of education. Without an

  Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years? 

5

understanding and appreciation of other cultures and the unique histories, beliefs and contexts intertwined into their national identity, which have consequently impacted their systems of education, we may miss valuable opportunities to learn from each other. Finland is considered by many to have one of the world’s top performing education systems (Hancock 2011; Sahlberg 2011). Education reforms in Finland have been described by some as emphasizing teacher and student personal responsibility—where teachers are given the freedom to design the curriculum and students have increased choice in what they study, thereby creating meaningful and authentic learning experiences. The Finnish context will provide a thought-provoking narrative of how this much-admired system supports the unique and ever-changing developmental needs of early adolescents in what is viewed as a highly student-centred system of education. Germany is currently undergoing significant reforms in the country’s education system and teacher preparation as long-held beliefs about hierarchies and levelled systems of schooling are challenged as a response to the findings of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and other empirical research studies. Once believed to be a symbol of national strength, the sifting and sorting of children into one of three tiers of school at the age of 10 is now believed by many to be a limiting factor in potential for student growth and opportunities (OECD 2011). In response to what some described as “PISA shock,” Germany has, since the year 2000, seen a steady increase in PISA scores in literacy, mathematics and science. With a decentralized system of education, the 16 German Länder (states) have primary responsibility for what happens in schools and teacher education programmes. Reforms in teacher preparation programmes are now underway, as educational leaders in the university system work to ensure teacher training programmes reflect the changes in Germany’s secondary schools. The German context will provide a fascinating look at how the needs of early adolescent learners are being attended to in a school system undergoing rapid transformation. The education system in Canada varies considerably among the 10 provinces and three territories. When Canadian results are profiled in international measures such as PISA or the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), the nation as a whole continues to score

6 

B. Yee et al.

near the top. These results, when further examined by province, reveal there is a large discrepancy in how individual provinces fare on the tests. A small number of provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec) score, in all PISA tests, at the Canadian average and have in some cases surpassed the average Canadian results. The remaining six provinces score below the Canadian average and, in some instances, well below other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. It is interesting to note that some of the most significant work related to leading, teaching and learning in the middle years has come from the province of Manitoba. The province of Ontario, driven by research emerging from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, has also recently been more intentional in the way it has supported and resourced its middle level learning environments (2008). The Canadian context will provide an intriguing examination into what impact the middle years movement has had on selected Canadian school contexts, almost 50 years after it originated just south of the border in the United States. Throughout this book you will find boxes entitled “Research to Praxis.” The intent here is for the authors to share their own experiences as educators and researchers in the hope of providing insight and practical wisdom into the complex and rewarding phenomenon of adolescent engagement in their learning. Chapter 2 will provide an overview of the current state of international research on adolescents’ development and its implications for their learning. Research to Praxis: Seeing What Is Possible Throughout the duration of my doctoral program, it was a common occurrence for people to ask me why I had chosen to do my research on the topic of adolescent engagement in their learning. It was almost as though individuals could not comprehend why I would devote the time it entails to engage in doctoral research to this particular issue. Similarly, as a teacher of adolescents, people often offer me their condolences, or praise me as having unlimited amounts of patience for “being forced” to work adolescent learners each day. I have never seen my work or the students I have chosen to teach as an inconvenience, a burden or even an afterthought. What I

  Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years? 

7

find interesting and also saddening is this viewpoint is far too common. I do not fully understand what has perpetuated these myths we have all heard that equate teenagers with trouble. I always consider it a loss that others have not been able to see these learners in the same way that I do, as confident, capable and caring young men and women.

In Chaps. 3, 4 and 5, our country chapters, we will explore how curriculum reform, inclusive philosophies, instructional design and assessment practices, fostering student voice and choice, and creating new ways to engage the student community within each country context are supporting the conditions in which effective middle years learning can unfold. Finally, in Chap. 6, a conceptual framework of “next practices” and emerging evidence from each country will be shared in order to contribute to what is believed to be a necessary ongoing discourse concerning early adolescent learners and the middle years of schooling. The contexts for our comparative work will be shared to end this first chapter in order to situate the importance of this cross-national, cross-linguistic perspective. To provide our country analysis with a joint theoretical framework we have been excited to come across the study “Changing Practices, Changing Education” by an Australian research group (Kemmis et  al. 2014). We have found the concept of “ecologies of practice” as developed in this profound study to provide us with an ideal framework for our comparative examination of suitable learning environments for adolescents in the twenty-first century. Before we look at international research on adolescents and their learning we will explicate the theoretical framework that will serve as foundation for our comparative work in Finland, Germany and Canada.

Our Framework Across OECD countries, efforts are being made to transform systems of schooling to meet the needs of the globalized economies and cultures of the twenty-first century. These transformation processes affect core areas

8 

B. Yee et al.

of schooling such as curricula, design of learning environments, teaching methods and assessment. In spite of all these ongoing efforts to transform schools and school systems, “classrooms and schools have remained strikingly stable as social forms” as Kemmis et al. (2014, p. 1) have pointed out. The visible culture of schooling today can in many cases still be traced back to the late nineteenth century age of industrialization, when mass compulsory schooling became a question of survival for the newly emerging nation states and their rapidly industrializing economies. We have chosen to write this book to study and analyse today’s transformation of schooling with a focus on adolescence, the crucial stage when children develop into adults, a complex process accompanied by changes in brain and body. Recent years have seen the emergence of significant research on adolescents and the unique developmental needs impacting their learning. In our societies, adolescents have become a highly visible group, not only as learners in schools but also as consumers in our market economies and in their identity as “digital natives,” active contributors to our networked and digitized societies. As individual schools and entire school systems are changing their pedagogies, practices and organizational cultures to meet the challenges of twenty-first-century societies, they have begun to use the evidence-base emerging from disciplines such as educational science, motivational psychology and medical brain research to inform the process of school transformation to better meet the needs of the adolescent learner. In analysing the cultures of schooling for adolescents, we have found the framework developed by Kemmis et al. (2014) to be extremely useful. It is based on the notion of social practices, the human actions that constitute our social realities and “secure and stabilize the world of today as continuous with the world of yesterday, and as a precursor of the world of tomorrow” (p.  2). This model takes social change into account and describes the transformation of schooling as a “kind of dance between reproduction and transformation” (p. 3). Like Kemmis et al. (2014), we are deeply convinced that our schools and education systems will not meet the needs and challenges of the twenty-first century, unless we manage to develop and institutionalize new practices of education. In our own systems, Canada, Finland and Germany, we have in recent years observed sometimes significant, often tentative changes, manifested in

  Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years? 

9

what Kemmis et  al. describe as new forms of understanding (sayings), new modes of action (doings) and new ways in which human beings in educational settings relate to one another and the world (relatings). These changes have been complex and fragmented and therefore hard to decipher, because they originate both from individual schools at the grassroots level but at the same time from meta-level policy discourses focussing on educational change and innovation. In our countries we notice: • new languages and discourses that express new ways of thinking, • new material and economic arrangements that support different ways of doing things and • new social and political arrangements that support different kinds of relationships between the people involved. Intellectually, it has been a fascinating enterprise to trace and to synthesize the many different developments we have been observing in pockets of our systems at the same time as we observe an almost stifling continuity in other areas. One reality that constitutes the twenty-first century for us is that the challenges we are currently facing in our different systems have become strikingly similar. In all three countries, current discourses on change revolve around notions of migration, globalization and diversity, equity and inclusion, individualism and consumerism and the disruptive societal and economic transformations occurring as we move into the digital age. While the discourses on the drivers of change are quite similar, we have found the specific responses to be unique in each of our three countries. We are aware of the fact that historically and linguistically, Canada, Finland and Germany have developed distinct narratives of schooling. The cultural-discursive arrangements manifested in the language we use to speak about schooling simultaneously enable and constrain how practices of education are described, interpreted and justified in our three education systems. To look at schooling for adolescents from three different linguistic and cultural traditions seems to us to be a genuine twenty-first century inquiry. We noticed that educational discourses, much more than discourses in science or economics, have largely remained within cultural-linguistic boundaries. It was surprising to us to see to

10 

B. Yee et al.

what extent publications about adolescent schooling only reference research and practices from the same cultural-linguistic realm. We think that it is worthwhile to go beyond these linguistic barriers to examine educational practices and the practice ecologies, in which they are embedded, from a phenomenological and comparative angle. In doing so, we are trying to understand better to what extent the concerns articulated and the tentative steps taken in the process of educational renewal overlap—driven by a global discourse—and to what extent they represent the unique contingencies of three quite different school systems. In this enterprise, we have found Theodore Schatzki’s (2002) notion of the “site of the social” as used in Kemmis et al. (2014, p. 4) to be of great value. They rightly point out that “the social” is more than the sum of its practices: “The people in ‘communities of practice’ do not interpret each other simply on the basis of their sense impressions, nor do they understand each other only via cognitive information processing. On the contrary, people understand another in terms acquired in a lifetime of inhabiting the social world” (p.  4). It is exactly these intersubjective spaces that we are most interested in, the tangible sematic, physical and social-political spaces in between people that enable and constrain how the agents in education, students, teachers and administrators express themselves in the social medium of language (sayings), how they make use of material arrangements (doings) and how they relate to one another in their practices (relatings). Practices go beyond individual agency: “In practices, individual will, individual understanding and individual action are orchestrated in collective social-relational projects” (Kemmis et  al., p. 32). In these projects, sayings, doings and relatings interdependently hang together. Practices occur in the present, but they are situated on a time-space continuum oriented towards the future and in contingency with the past. Whereas the traditional understanding of sites of practice in education was often framed in the form of distinct entities such as “the student,” “the teacher,” “the classroom,” “the school” we now understand well that practices are interrelated and interdependent and best understood in the context of “practice ecologies” (Kemmis et  al., p.  43) constituting an interdependent ecology of practice: (1) student learning, (2) teaching, (3)

  Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years? 

11

professional learning (4) leading and (5) researching. Traditional categories of analysis like “the student” and “the teacher” are increasingly being replaced with the intersubjective spaces which constitute our social world. As we strongly believe that this paradigm is much better suited to understand the systemic and ecological nature of any social process in the twenty-first century, we embrace it in our analysis of schooling for adolescents in Canada, Finland and Germany. We will also use this ecology-­ of-­ practice framework for the phenomenological and comparative reflections we present towards the end of our book. The practices we ­ iscursive examine are situated and contingent. They are also informed by d and material local conditions that make an “omniscient viewpoint” impossible. We will use a range of artefacts developed in the three systems and selected schools that for us signify the transition from the past of adolescent education to its future. The agents in these settings come alive by means of interview data collected from different stakeholders, not only teachers and school leaders, but also adolescent students, who we perceive to be key agents in the co-construction of their learning. Our research will reveal that the empowerment of the learner is not only driven by the research on adolescent motivation and brain development but also by attempts to take the diversity of twenty-first century societies into account and to democratize education. We consider ourselves to be researchers who work at the boundary between practice and theory. All three of us have spent many days in actual schools, practising education ourselves as teachers, school principals, professional developers and teacher educators. Our view is not a distant one. We are part of the education systems we write and think about. That is a difficult position to be in as it blinds us to the perspectives of a “neutral observer.” We are convinced, however, that this intimate knowledge of the systems we write about will account for a rich and in-depth perspective on the kinds of learning working for adolescents in twenty-first century schools. To see beyond a narrow view on our three school systems, we have chosen a joint framework: we will focus on the intersubjective spaces that constitute the practice architectures of adolescent schooling in the twenty-first century. We understand these architectures to be made up of:

12 

B. Yee et al.

• Sayings: the semantics of how stakeholders including students talk about and plan learning (language) • Doings: the ways of using the material arrangements for adolescent learning (activities and work) • Relatings: the forms of social interaction that come to bear in our educational settings (social interaction: leadership and co-operation). Our cross-national perspective requires that we take the broader cultural-­discursive arrangements, the material-economic arrangements and the social-political arrangements into account. Stenger’s term “ecologies of practice” (2005) used in its plural form as “ecologies of practices” by Kemmis et al. seems therefore well suited for our study. The twenty-first century transformations in education go beyond changing pedagogical practices in individual classrooms. The main changes are taking place in the intersubjective spaces between the various agents of schooling. We agree that changing education today means changing the ecologies of practices (in plural!). Student learning, teaching, professional learning, leading and researching education are highly interdependent: “If change in education is to be wrought, then all five of these practices need to be changed in relation to each other” in their ecological interdependence (Kemmis et al., p. 51). Taking this interdependence into account, we will start our book with a background chapter outlining and discussing the current knowledge base on adolescent learning. What do we know from research in education, in psychology, in brain science about adolescents and their genuine learning and developmental needs? We will then, in Chaps. 3, 4 and 5, introduce the system ecologies and selected practice architectures of schooling for adolescents in Canada, Finland and Germany. In doing so we will focus on the intersubjective spaces of sayings, doings and relatings and our understanding will be based on the assumption that student learning, teaching, professional learning, leading and researching are intimately connected and hang together. We will now briefly examine what we mean, when we talk about five different components of practice ecologies: learning, teaching, professional learning, leading and researching.

  Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years? 

13

Learning Learning and teaching are profoundly interrelated in a complex dynamic. Since its inception as a mass activity, schooling has been closely linked to the notion of teaching, the deliberate transmission of knowledge and skills from a teacher to his or her students. For the most part of the twentieth century, schools were places of visible teaching but not necessarily visible learning. As the “sage on the stage,” the teacher’s task was to transfer knowledge and her obligation was seen as fulfilled when the process of teaching had been completed. The transitions to the twenty-first century brought with them a much stronger focus on learning rather than teaching. With a boom in empirical research on learners and their different learning prerequisites, attention began to shift from teaching to learning, from mass instruction to individual processes of cognitive development and the motivational, emotional and social processes driving it. When we talk about learning and teaching today, our perception has become more complex: the relationship between learning and teaching is neither simple nor straightforward. Learning can and does quite frequently occur independently of intentional teaching and some teaching taking place in formal settings of schooling results in little or no new learning or might even discourage students from learning altogether. Whereas in the past learners have mostly been perceived as the more or less passive recipients of teaching, they are increasingly seen as co-constructors, as research on motivation and selfregulation in learning has moved to centre-stage in the learning sciences (Boekaerts 2010). This shift has an impact on all elements of schooling such as curriculum design, classroom practices and forms of assessment.

Teaching In the twenty-first century, teaching is no longer seen as a process of simply transmitting educational “content” from the teacher to the learner. Knowledge, skills, values and attitudes are constructed by the learner through his or her own agency in educational settings. Teachers are not to be diminished; on the contrary, the role of the teacher is more active and complex than ever before (Hattie 2012), because teaching can be under-

14 

B. Yee et al.

stood as an act of initiating individuals into practices. The complex task of the professional teacher is to constitute an intersubjective space, in which particular sayings, doings and relatings enable learners to (re)construct knowledge, to acquire skills, to examine values and to appropriate attitudes. In creating the intersubjective space for these experiences “teachers enable and constrain what students can say or do and how they relate to one another and the objects around them” (Kemmis et al., p. 95). In doing so, teachers assume multiple roles: they model and coach, scaffold and fade depending on the students` needs in the learning process. The outcome of learning depends to a significant extent on the degree to which the student is cognitively activated and engaged in the learning process (Friesen 2009). This kind of engagement requires a “strong” notion of teaching, in which the teachers plan the sayings, doings and relating with their students in mind. In their attempts to plan for and design learning, teachers are influenced by the practice architectures and sites enabling and constraining how these practices unfold (Kemmis et al., p. 97). In the twenty-first century, teaching has essentially developed to be a co-constructivist activity: learner engagement depends on some kind of dialogue between teachers and learners. To make learning relevant teachers need to be able to see learning through the eyes of their students (Hattie 2012). We will examine what this dialogue looks like when teachers are talking and listening to learners in order to co-­construct learning that is challenging and engaging. In that sense, teaching in the twenty-first century can be seen as a complex set of skills depending not only on profound subject matter knowledge, but also diagnostic and dialogical skills as well as the cognitive and metacognitive ability to plan highly adaptive arrangements, in which students engage in meaningful sayings, doings and relatings. We now better understand that this can hardly be achieved by teachers working in isolation, so that twenty-first century teachers increasingly see themselves and organize their work as active members of professional learning communities.

Professional Learning When teaching was still seen as a “private” activity of individual teachers, the design and quality of teaching and learning depended to a significant extent on the individual teacher, his or her knowledge, skills and attitudes

  Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years? 

15

towards teaching and learning. The evidence-base for the gradual “deprivatisation” of teaching is becoming ever stronger (OECD, 2013) and thus professional learning communities in schools are seen as key to both improved student learning and teacher job satisfaction. The semantic shift from “professional development” to “professional learning” signifies that teachers themselves are taking charge of their own learning rather than relying on professional development providers, with the focus ­shifting from the development of individual skills to the development of joint practices. This allows teachers to respond to the “unique circumstances, needs and opportunities” (Kemmis et  al., p.  128) that exist at their individual school sites. Drawing on their shared knowledge, teachers increasingly use joint inquiry to work out the connections between their own experiences and the research and evidence-base and then codesign practices accordingly. They focus on improving student learning in order to make their schools work for particular individuals of a particular age group in a particular environment. This emerging understanding of professional development encompasses a plurality of practices, ranging from informal discussions, on-site research and data collection, joint analysis and inquiry of evidence, peer visits and mutual observation of teaching and learning, coaching and mentoring to name but a few. These practices take place in what is increasingly perceived as an intersubjective space, a shared language community of professionals who see their professional learning conversations as key drivers of practice development. Student learning and teacher professional learning are increasingly seen as highly interdependent. In the twenty-first century, teaching and learning are no longer confined behind classroom walls—the often cited “black box”—they have instead become the subject of an ongoing professional dialogue with the aim of changing practices to make learning work for students.

Leading The notion of “leadership” is also undergoing significant change. In line with the “deprivatisation” of teaching, the common understanding of what it means to “lead” in a school is surpassing the focus on individuals

16 

B. Yee et al.

in formal positions and their capabilities and traits. The focus is shifting from the persons who lead to the processes of leading: “We have looked for too long in the direction of the leader (and often just at the principal) to understand leading. We need to look instead at the practices of leading and the practices that connect with them” (Kemmis et al., p. 157). These emerging practices of leading are in profound ways driving the change in learning and teaching. “Leading” needs to be seen in the plurality of its manifestations: formal leadership by school principals constitutes a necessary but insufficient driver of change. While principals and vice-­ principals have an important role in the transformation of educational practices, leading also encompasses the pedagogical leadership by teachers and the leadership of students as co-constructors of their own learning experience. Systemic leadership refers to the broader systems in which schools are situated: conditions of practice are influenced not only by school principals, teachers and students, but also by parents, local citizens and other stakeholders. As “enablers” of distributed leadership, formal school leaders play a key role. As “gatekeepers of change” (Fullan 2015) they can facilitate but also constrain the distribution of leadership. When a principal as a “primus inter pares” is able to change the “relational architectures” and to nurture shared responsibility and collective learning by building “relational trust” (Kemmis et al., p. 166), she allows for a plurality of leading practices to evolve. Thereby leadership practices can reflect multiple sayings, doings and relatings, such as sharing professional reading to introduce new ideas, turning traditional staff meetings into joint sessions of inquiry and planning for change. Building relational trust implies moving away from “power over others to power with” others (Kemmis et al., p. 166), in which teacher, student and parent agency are actively encouraged. Leadership becomes “a practice-changing practice” (Kemmis et al. p. 177).

Researching In our current “knowledge age” research and practice inform each other more than ever before. Professionals in schools are increasingly open to reading and using research evidence in their renewal of learning and

  Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years? 

17

teaching. Researching has become a core practice of “ecologies of practices” in twenty-first century schools. It takes place on different levels and with different methodologies, large-scale and grassroot, quantitative and qualitative, driven by practitioners as well as university researchers collaborating with schools. Flourishing system ecologies rely on a mix of research evidence, both from academia and from practitioners themselves. In that sense, research has become democratized. Kemmis et al. point out the crucial importance of “researching practice from within practice traditions” (p. 179). To engage in systematic self-critical inquiry has become a core practice of any effective school and is increasingly seen as a key driver of practice development. Practitioner-driven research has become more rigorous and more like academic research in the sense that it is “consciously undertaken, identifiable, deliberate, planned, data-­driven, analytical, interpretive, oriented towards reflection and action, and directed towards communication with others” (Ibid., p.  180). In our work on schooling for adolescents we have noticed that academic research has been informing practitioner research and practitioner research in turn has—in significant ways—informed and triggered academic research. This fruitful interplay between university researchers and researchers in schools can be seen as a crucial “ecology of practices” driving change and innovation in today’s schools. In our three country chapters we attempt to analyse ways in which different practices of researching have played important roles in the transformation of schools for the benefits of adolescent learners. In the subsequent chapter on our three countries, Canada, Finland and Germany, we will use this framework to take an analytical look at our school systems and schools within them to better understand how “ecologies of practices” in which learning, teaching, professional learning, leading and researching are highly interdependent, are working to improve schools, so that they become better places for young people on their way from childhood to adulthood in the twenty-first century.

References Association for Middle Level Education. (2010). This we believe: Keys to the education of young adolescents. Westerville: Association for Middle Level Education.

18 

B. Yee et al.

Balfanz, R. (2009). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path: A policy and practice brief. Westerville: National Middle School Association. Boekaerts, M. (2010). The crucial role of motivation and emotion in classroom learning. In H.  Dumont, D.  Istance, & F.  Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice (pp. 91–111). Paris: OECD. Centre for Collaborative Education. (2003). Turning points: At the turning point, the young adolescent learner. Boston: Centre for Collaborative Education. Dunleavy, J., Willms, J. D., Milton, P., & Friesen, S. (2012). The relationship between student engagement and academic outcomes. What did you do in school today? Research Series Report Number One. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching effectiveness. A framework and rubric. Canadian Education Association. www.galileo.org/ cea-2009-wdydist-teaching.pdf. (3.7.2018). Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Haigh, G. (2004). A golden age that could disappear. Times Education Supplement. Retrieved from http://www.middleschools.org.uk/news. php?NewsId=3 Hancock, L. (2011, September). Why are Finland’s schools successful? Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/ Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge. Kemmis, S., et  al. (2014). Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer. Klinger, D., Mills, A., & Chapman, A. (2011). The health of Canada’s young people  – A mental health focus: School. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada. Manitoba Education. (2008). Citizenship and youth, communicating student learning: Guidelines for schools. Winnipeg: Manitoba Education School Programs Division. McCreary Centre Society. (2009). A picture of health: Results of the 2008 British Columbia adolescent health survey. Vancouver: McCreary Centre Society. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2006). Breaking ranks in the middle: Strategies for leading middle level reform. Reston: Secondary School Principals.

  Why Comparative Research on the Middle Years? 

19

O’Sullivan, S. (2005). Making the most of the middle years: A report on the community consultation for the principles and policy framework for the middle years of education. Northern Territory: Northern Territory Department of Education. OECD. (2013). Fostering learning communities among teachers. Teaching in Focus, Vol. 4/2013 (June). http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TiF%20 (2013)%2D%2DN%C2%B04%20(eng)%2D%2Dv2.pdf. (4.7.2018). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (2008). How to change 5000 schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Germany: Once weak international standing prompts strong nationwide reforms for rapid improvement. Paris: OECD Publishing. Rumble, P., & Aspland, T. (2009). In search of the middle school teacher: What differentiates the middle school teacher from other teachers. Conference presentation, October 3, 2009. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland. New York: Teachers College Press. Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt. Stenger, I. (2005). An ecology of practices. Cultural Studies Review, 11(1), 183–196. Willms, J. D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement: First national report. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Wormeli, R. (2011). Movin’ up to the Middle. Educational Leadership, 68(7), 48–53. Wormeli, R. (2012). 4 fundamentals of middle level teaching. Middle Level Web. Retrieved from http://www.middleweb.com/1450/rick-wormeli-thefundamentals/

2 Setting the Stage

To be an educator requires one to have a deep understanding of how development unfolds in the children and young people you work with each day and the impact of this development on teaching and learning in the classroom. In this chapter, we will not foray into an in-depth examination of the intricacies involved in the neurobiology of the adolescent developmental period (we do not profess to be developmental psychologists); instead we will focus on what we believe our shared experience has made us experts in, and that is the impact of the adolescent developmental period on teaching and learning in our current classroom contexts. This chapter will explore what current research supports as appropriate and effective responses by teachers, instructional leaders, communities and systems in relation to adolescents’ changing developmental needs, along with the contextual philosophies and needs adolescents themselves have identified which have positively impacted their experience with schooling. In Chap. 3, we will bring this research into practical realms in what we like to refer to as “pedagogy and practice in action” across our three country contexts. For ease of reference, this chapter will be organized into the following sections: © The Author(s) 2018 B. Yee et al., Engaging Adolescent Learners, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52602-7_2

21

22 

B. Yee et al.

• Adolescents’ perspectives on their schooling needs in response to their changing developmental needs. • Teacher pedagogical response to adolescents’ changing developmental needs. • Instructional leadership dimensions in response to adolescents’ changing developmental needs. • School organization in response to adolescents’ changing developmental needs. • Community engagement in response to adolescents’ changing developmental needs. • Systemic approach/strategy in response to adolescents’ changing developmental needs. First, a brief overview of the adolescent developmental period to ensure a common lens from which to view, understand and critically examine the responses that will be presented in each section. Five key areas of adolescent development are commonly agreed upon in the research and must be considered when determining how to best meet the needs of these learners in our classrooms today (Centre for Collaborative Education 2003; Garden Valley School Division 2010; Manitoba Education 2010; NMSA 1995). It important to remember that although general categories of development can be identified, adolescent development is neither linear nor does it occur in a predictable manner; and, it is this understanding that must form the foundation of anything that is undertaken in the hopes of improving the experience of adolescents in schooling. As identified by the Centre for Collaborative Education in Turning Points: The Young Adolescent Learner (2003), and reinforced in countless of other documents (in some cases with slight adaptations to the labels used), the five broad domains of adolescent development are: 1. Physical: Young adolescent learners mature at varying rates and go through rapid and irregular physical growth, with bodily changes that can cause awkward and uncoordinated movements. 2. Cognitive: Young adolescent learners are curious, motivated to achieve when challenged and capable of critical and complex thinking. 3. Social/Emotional: Young adolescent learners have an intense need to belong and be accepted by their peers while finding their own place in

  Setting the Stage 

  23

the world. They are engaged in forming and questioning their identities on many different levels. 4. Psychological: Young adolescent learners are vulnerable and self-­ conscious, and often experience unpredictable mood swings. 5. Behavioural: With their new sense of the larger world around them, young adolescent learners are idealistic and want to have an impact on making the world a better place. (p. 8) Adolescence itself, as it is understood and experienced in most advanced industrial societies, is the transition from childhood to adulthood, beginning with puberty. It is a period of development more rapid than any other phase of life except infancy. Adolescent development is neither singular nor simple, and aspects of growth during adolescence are seldom in step with each other, neither within individuals nor among peers. (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development 1989, p. 3)

As the above passage indicates, adolescence is widely recognized to be one of the most dynamic times in whole-being, multifaceted development, second only to the rapid development experienced during infancy. While infants do not demonstrate the same conscious awareness of their development, adolescents are all too aware of the multitude of changes happening to them. The sometimes dramatic self-awareness that accompanies early adolescent development can have a significant, long-lasting impact on the adolescent as an individual and as a learner. Research focusing on middle level reform places tremendous importance on the role of the teacher in not only supporting early adolescents through this period in their development, but in also understanding the impact this evolving development has on student learning (AMLE 2010; Centre for Collaborative Education 2003; National Association of Secondary School Principals 2006).

 he Impact of the Neurobiology of Adolescent T Development Adolescent Physical Development  As with most developmental change during early adolescence, physical development occurs at an uneven rate and is often of most concern to the adolescents themselves (McNeely and

24 

B. Yee et al.

Blanchard 2009; Strahan et  al. 2009). Extremities in the body, most noticeably the hands and feet and the ears and nose, tend to grow sooner and at a faster rate than other parts, accounting for difficulties with equilibrium and sometimes coordination. It is not until later in adolescence that fine and gross motor skills improve, permitting adolescents greater control over their developing bodies (McNeely and Blanchard 2009; Strahan et al. 2009). Adolescence is the period of most rapid bone growth, often resulting in physical discomfort. The once separate bones of the coccyx or tailbone begin to fuse together, taking on the adult form, placing the sciatic nerve closer to the skeletal structure. These changes make it difficult for early adolescents to sit in particular, for extended periods of time (McNeely and Blanchard 2009; Strahan et al. 2009). The hallmark of physical growth during adolescence is often referred to as the “growth spurt,” in that significant increases in height are often seen during one short period, rather than gradually throughout adolescence. “Growing pains” is another term associated with growth in adolescence, due to the physical stress placed upon the adolescent body during this period (McNeely and Blanchard 2009; Strahan et al. 2009). Females enter into this stage of physical growth earlier than males, reaching adult height earlier than their male counterparts; doctors maintain however, they see their young male and female patients entering into this stage earlier than before. Body composition also changes during adolescence; males tend to develop more lean muscle mass and lose the fat associated with childhood, while females’ ratio of body fat to lean muscle mass tends to increase. The many other physical changes associated with adolescent development and puberty (increased hair growth, changes in voice pitch, body odour and the development of other secondary sexual characteristics) can leave adolescents feeling self-conscious and unsure of themselves and their abilities. Adolescents are especially vulnerable to disordered thinking related to body image during this time, with statistics of eating and other body dysmorphic disorders on the rise for this age group (McNeely and Blanchard 2009; Strahan et al. 2009). The two-part pituitary gland is sometimes referred to as the master gland. This gland is responsible for the secretion of hormones and also signals all other hormone-producing glands in the body to produce spe-

  Setting the Stage 

  25

cific hormones, which determine tissue growth and function. Changes in the pituitary gland during adolescence can sometimes lead to the release of large amounts of adrenaline at unpredictable times. What can appear as inappropriate and arbitrary outbursts of sound and movement are in fact completely explicable physiological responses to a surge of adrenaline rushing through the body of an adolescent (McNeely and Blanchard 2009; Strahan et al. 2009). Adolescent Brain Development  During the early adolescent years, the brain is still very much under development. Current research suggests that the brain does not take what is referred to as its “adult” form until an individual reaches their early 20s (National Institute of Mental Health 2011). Steinberg (2014) in his book, The Age of Opportunity, discusses new developments in the study of the adolescent brain, which indicate that adolescence is a “remarkable period of brain reorganisation and plasticity. This discovery is enormously important, with far-reaching implications for how we parent, educate and treat young people” (p. 60). Brain plasticity refers to the ability of the brain to be moulded, which Steinberg describes as “a process through which the outside world gets inside us and changes us” (p.  65). This knowledge of the early adolescent brain and what conditions stimulate healthy brain development are of utmost importance for teachers and parents as they work to place adolescents in a “Zone of Proximal Development” adequate for learning (Vygotsky 1978) and provide the necessary scaffolding to develop adolescents’ skills and abilities. Different parts of the brain mature at different rates, adding complexity to the multitude of changes occurring in the body of an early adolescent. Cortex regions responsible for controlling basic functions (information processing from the senses, motor coordination) develop earlier on; whereas higher order functions, such as impulse control, forward thinking and the ability to reason are seen to emerge much later in adolescence (Friedman 2014; National Institute of Mental Health 2011). Steinberg (2012) highlights four structural changes that occur in the adolescent brain as being significant. First, the process of myelination (where brain fibres become enveloped with myelin, enabling more effi-

26 

B. Yee et al.

cient circuitry in the brain) is accelerated, and continues throughout a healthy adolescent’s development. This process is essential for the development of higher order cognitive functioning. Second, the grey matter in the brain responsible for housing synaptic connections where thought and memory are processed is known to be at its highest volume during early adolescence. The pruning of some connections as the adolescent matures, enabling a more efficient brain, is a normal part of maturation. These anatomical changes and efficiencies in the brain are responsible for improvement in basic cognitive functioning and ability to reason logically. Third, the connection between the limbic system and the prefrontal cortex (the anatomical regions of the brain responsible for emotional regulation) begins to strengthen. As these connections intensify, circuitry that supports the abilities of self-control and self-regulation are formed in the adolescent brain. Brain imaging scans show that the adolescent brain responds to emotionally-laden imagery with a heightened response compared to older and younger subjects. Lastly, the number and distribution of dopamine receptors in the brain increases significantly during adolescence, most noticeably at the onset and throughout puberty. The neurotransmitter dopamine is deeply involved in the brain’s response to pleasure and pain, perhaps shedding light on adolescents’ tendency to seek stimulation from any number of sources (Steinberg 2012). It is also during this time the brain is left especially susceptible to the influences of toxins, such as drugs, alcohol and other environmental hazards; the adolescent brain responds very differently from adults’ to the presence of drugs and alcohol in the body, and this poses a tremendous concern because of the increased susceptibility to addiction (National Institute of Mental Health 2011; Friedman 2014). Coupled with the intense hormonal changes occurring in the body, early adolescents’ ability to process and cope with both internal and external stressors is greatly compromised. At perhaps no other time in an individual’s development does sleep (or the lack thereof ) have such a profound influence on both physical and mental health. Adolescents and Sleep  Ask any parent of an early adolescent to list one of their biggest concerns related to their child’s development and the amount of sleep would be near the top. A recent blog post in the New

  Setting the Stage 

  27

York Times (Brody 2014) highlighted the concern many parents have about the amount of sleep their adolescent children are getting and the impact this is having on their schooling and overall well-being. Based on what we know about the tremendous diversity in the rate of adolescent growth and development, pinpointing an exact number of hours adolescents should sleep every night is often difficult. Researchers generally agree that eight and a half to nine and a half hours are the minimum amount required for healthy adolescent growth and development. Less than this amount places adolescents at an increased risk for Type 2 diabetes, obesity and a compromised immune system, as well as psychological risk factors leading to depression, anxiety and increased risk-taking behaviour (Dement 2000). Dr. Judith Owens, lead author on a 2014 statement released by the American Academy of Paediatrics states that, “Sleep is not optional. It’s a health imperative, like eating, breathing and physical activity” (Owens as cited in Brody 2014, para. 7). Lack of sleep has also been linked to an increased number of traffic deaths involving adolescents. Owens, who is the paediatric sleep specialist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, indicates that, “Lack of sleep can be fatal. The level of impairment associated with sleep-deprived driving is equivalent to driving drunk” (Owens as cited in Brody 2014, para. 9), and encourages parents of adolescents to reconsider giving their children permission to drive if they have not gotten enough sleep. Owens also links sleep deprivation to an increased rate of suicide attempts among adolescents, citing the impact of sleep on adolescent mood, ability to think rationally and employ good judgment. She presents further evidence indicating that for each hour of sleep lost, adolescents are at an 80 per cent greater risk for becoming obese.

The Developmental “Perfect Storm” Many experts in the field of adolescent development have put forward what they believe to be essential traits and abilities of “successful” adolescents; those adolescents who are seen to have navigated this developmental period relatively unscathed. Resilience, grit, perseverance, drive, tenacity, the ability to delay gratification have all been used to describe

28 

B. Yee et al.

what essentially boils down to adolescents being able to self-regulate their behaviour. Steinberg (2014) describes self-regulation as being the “central task of adolescence,” (p. 45) and a key determiner of healthy adolescent development. Teachers and school leaders of adolescent learners indicate the social-­ emotional environment at their schools is an issue of significant concern, so much so that many indicated it often kept them up at night (Yee 2015). Thoughts turned to the classroom contexts and long-held practices at their schools, questioning if the school culture is actually conducive to supporting our adolescent learners developing sound decision making skills, good judgment and the ever-important task of self-­ regulation. And here is why…Two systems in the brain, that can be said to have competing interests, are involved in the decision making process. The limbic system is the brain’s centre of emotion and also reward. It is constantly searching for stimulation and reward. The prefrontal cortex, which governs self-regulation, tries to balance the reward system, by getting us to think critically about the stimulation in our environment (Steinberg 2014). During adolescence, there is a constant struggle to keep these two systems balanced—think of the scales of justice, with the adolescent being the blindfolded (sarcasm intended) Lady Justice. A host of developmental changes occurring during puberty, often at different rates, makes it very difficult for adolescents to maintain balance in the scales. Being around peers stimulates the reward centre in the brain, often impairing their ability to make good decisions, placing adolescents on a path to seek immediate reward at all costs. This heightened sensitivity to social acceptance and rejection, along with a desperate need for peer approval can throw out the window what adults may think of as common sense. Adolescents show poorer decisions making and judgment ­capabilities when they are in groups—unstructured, unsupervised time for adolescents is known to have disastrous consequences. Finally, there seems to be a culprit and an explanation for the drama that school administrators and middle years teachers see every day—the very natural unfolding of events in adolescent brain development. The capacity of the brain for learning is never greater than during adolescence. The adolescent brain is believed to be a formidable match for the adult brain in terms of learning. Functional brain imagery shows that when presented with the same task, adolescents and adults access differ-

  Setting the Stage 

  29

ent regions of the brain in the processing and execution phases of its completion (Friedman 2014; National Institute of Mental Health 2011). In adolescents, the parts of the brain responsible for emotions appear to fire, to some extent, during all tasks they are presented with; whereas, in general, adults appear to be able to mitigate the emotional response to most tasks. During controlled tests in a laboratory, in the absence of peers or any emotional stimulation, adolescents perform just as well as adults on the tasks they are given. Insert peers or any type of emotional stimulation (positive or negative) and adolescents’ performance drops dramatically. Peers do not even have to be present in the testing environment to impact the performance of adolescents on requisite tasks, simply believing they may be close by is shown to have a significant impact (Steinberg 2014). It is no wonder that many adolescents cringe when called upon in class to answer a question or demonstrate a skill—the anticipated judgement of on-looking peers is a terrible experience to endure. Because adolescents’ capacities for self-control, sound thinking and good judgement are significantly dependent on the context they find themselves in, sometimes by choice and sometimes the ones we place them in, educators need to be highly intentional about the kind of environment they create in their classrooms and the kind of culture that is established in schools. The question then becomes if our adolescent learners are sometimes placed in the most impossible of situations because of the structures and processes established in schools, many of which have not changed in decades. With this in mind, it is perhaps easier to understand why adolescents may not respond as adults would hope when they are placed in situations that elicit strong emotions. Steinberg reminds us that a strong emotional reaction from an adult is likely to be met with an equally strong emotional response from the adolescent. Furthermore, given the stage of their brain development, adolescents are more apt to fixate on the body language and emotion demonstrated by the adult, rather than on the message that was attempting to be conveyed. Adolescents themselves have said they would rather slack off in school, appear disinterested in their learning or even sometimes antagonize their teachers, all to gain the approval of their peers (Yee 2015). This understanding of the adolescent brain is crucial for all those working to create a classroom learning environment that draws upon the strengths of the adolescent brain, while

30 

B. Yee et al.

ensuring opportunities are presented for it to develop in a safe and supported learning community. In a publication by the American Psychological Association (APA) (2002) dedicated to better understanding the impact of adolescent physical development on their psychological development, a section entitled, “Yes, it’s normal for adolescents to…” described, with a touch of humour, several behaviours typical of adolescent development, and while perplexing and frustrating, are to be viewed as very normal as adolescents test both boundaries and the patience of adults. Found on the list of characteristic adolescent behaviours are: “[arguing] for the sake of arguing; [jumping] to conclusions; [being] self-centered; constantly finding fault in the adult’s position; and, [being] overly dramatic” (p. 11). It is precisely this kind of understanding that is important for educators to have as they work to create a classroom environment and teacher–student relationships founded on mutual respect and empathy.

An Optimistic Outlook Many descriptions of the developmental changes experienced during adolescence carry with them a negative connotation. Beginning with Hall’s (1904) first study in the field of adolescent development and for the next almost 85 years, adolescence was most often characterized, from scientific research and societal perceptions alike, as a time of turmoil and anxiety. Prior to the 1990s, other descriptions portraying adolescents as being “broken,” “in danger” or “dangerous,” or requiring extensive ­management to “tame uncivilised behaviour” served only to propagate the commonly held belief that adolescence was not a time to be celebrated (Anthony 1969; Benson et al. 2006; Roth et al. 1998). Any positive depiction of adolescence was often characterized as the absence of negative traits (Benson et al. 2006). More recent investigation into early adolescent development, such as Turning Points: The Young Adolescent Learner (2003), has helped frame this growth and developmental period in a more positive light. Psychologist Richard Lerner (2005) has also approached adolescence and adolescent development from a strength-based rather than a deficit-based

  Setting the Stage 

  31

model, through the evolution of a Positive Youth Development (PYD) perspective. Lerner’s (2005) work is founded on the belief that the best ways to circumvent challenges inherent in the developmental changes facing early adolescents is to focus on their strengths and view these changes as a positive phase in the maturation process. Similarly, Steinberg’s (2014) Age of Opportunity: Lessons from the New Science of Adolescence, presents a much-needed perspective of the adolescent developmental period, calling for society, systems and people to support the healthy development of our adolescents. These two approaches, coupled with Dweck’s (2007, 2008, 2010) work on the growth mindset, highlight the impact of perceptions, both self and others, on adolescents’ abilities to navigate this critical developmental period in a healthy manner. It is this “Growth Mindset” approach we believe to be essential to ensuring that the current values and contexts of our education systems are reflective of the needs of today’s adolescent learners. And it is with this positive viewpoint on adolescents as developing individuals and learners that we will approach the following sections, beginning with the voices of the adolescent learner themselves and their perspective on what they need from their schooling experience.

 he Adolescent Perspective: “What Would T They Say?” Have you ever wondered what education systems would look like if they were left in the hands of students? If adolescent learners were given authentic opportunities for voice and choice in aspects of their learning that are meaningful, what would they say, what would they do, what would they create? Students are the reasons schools exist, the reasons teachers have jobs and the reasons governments have ministries of education. It is, however, sometimes forgotten that all that is done in the name of education should have at its core the purpose of serving the needs of students. Government officials, curriculum specialists, principals, teachers, all with good intentions, make decisions every day that impact the learners in their schools, yet often those decisions are made using “average data” or “perceptions about early adolescents” rather than actual feedback

32 

B. Yee et al.

in the form of the students’ voices. Instructional leaders, teachers and district officials have at their disposal a wealth of information and insight into the needs of early adolescent learners (Yee 2015). In so many aspects schooling, student agency and voice has been left out of real decision making with regards to how their schooling experience unfolds—and, if student voice is celebrated primarily as being the choice between a poster or a PowerPoint presentation as a means of sharing research, then educators’ notions of voice, choice and agency are perhaps misguided. The creation of a learning environment that supports the unique developmental and learning needs of early adolescent learners needs to be co-created with the very individuals that will be most impacted—the students (Willms et  al. 2009; Yee 2015). In order to ensure middle level learning environments are responsive to the needs of early adolescent learners, the learners themselves can no longer be left out of the multifaceted learning equation. Transformation of middle level learning environments involves a complex interplay of many factors, perhaps none more important than the students. If we seek to create the types of learning environments where adolescent learners will flourish, the needs students articulate must be used in more intentional and ­purposeful ways to guide the work of teaching and learning (Manitoba Education 2010; Willms et al. 2009; Yee 2015).

Research to Praxis: Engaging Students as Active Participants in Their Learning During one interview, a Canadian student asked me quite inquisitively, “So, who decides what we do and learn in school every day?” (Student interview, December 2014). When I replied that it was a rather complex interplay between government regulations, district and school philosophies and also what his teacher thinks is best for the group of students, he threw up his hands and replied, “Well no one ever asked me! If anyone wants to know what is important for kids to learn, they should ask the kids” (Student interview, December 2014). He is very perceptive. If we fail to engage students as active participants in their learning, we will be left with students who can no longer advocate for themselves as learners, communicating what only they know best and that is what they need from their teachers.

  Setting the Stage 

  33

To learns the needs of adolescent learners necessitates that we engage with them in a conversation about their learning, yet for various reasons many teachers feel this type of dialogue and potential shifting of relationship has no place in classrooms. Despite overwhelming research that tells us the “sage on the stage” pedagogical approach of classrooms past will not foster the kind of engaged thinkers needed to meet the challenges of our ever-changing world, this is the reality faced by many students’ in their schooling experience (Cooper 2011; Manitoba Education 2010; Willms et al. 2009; Yee 2015). What was clear from interviews with students during my doctoral research is their desire to be more involved in all facets of their education. This does not necessitate a swinging of the student agency pendulum 180 degrees in opposition from where it currently lies to find students involved in managing their schools, writing curriculum, approving budgets and hiring teachers…yet, this does not seem completely absurd. Research to Praxis: Nurturing Student Agency in Their Learning With great delight I have taken on the teaching duties for a class of 18 grade 9 boys at my school this term. These are the boys some teachers feel are unreachable. They often find their way into my office for some reason or another, where we discuss appropriateness of behaviour and better choices for next time. Working with them is the highlight of my workday. I began our class by asking them a simple question, “If you could learn about anything, anything at all, what would it be?” An awkward silence fell over the room. So, I changed my question slightly, “What lights you up? What would you pay to learn about? What do you dream about doing when you are not at school?” Still nothing. It took close to 15 minutes to pull out of these boys what is was that they wanted learn about over the course of the term. The parameters I had placed on this class were quite loose. The boys could choose any topic they wanted to learn about, with the following three guidelines: one, the topic had to be school appropriate, something they would be okay to discuss with their grandmothers (I use this test with my own children and it has yet to fail me); two, with their new learning, they have to find a way to use it to give back to their school community; and three, they have to use this new learning to challenge themselves personally. This is a structure I learned about during my doctoral research in Germany and I think it is quite brilliant. What concerned me most about the difficulty my students had in selecting a topic of study was not that they

34 

B. Yee et al.

could not find a school-appropriate area of focus  – it was that look they gave me, like I was crazy. The look had suspicion written all over it, like they had just been posed a question they felt there was no correct answer to – like there was a catch and I was waiting to pounce on them should they say the wrong thing. My “ah-ha” moment came with the realization that for far too many years these boys have been told what to learn, why, when and how, and now that I was placing the power in their hands (where I think it should actually reside) they simply did not know what to do. They waited in quiet compliance for their teacher to tell them what would come next. I am reminded that we have much work to do.

 ultivating Positive Teacher–Student Relationships: C “Teacher Is Not Spelled f-r-i-e-n-d” What do our adolescent learners need from their teachers? One thing is certain—they do not need their teachers to be their friends. They have many of those, along with all of the drama those friends are likely to bring. They need the adults in their lives to provide them with structure and boundaries, and as Steinberg (2014) describes in his most recent work, to be warm, to be firm and to be supportive. Teaching teenagers is about being an adult all the time. You can’t just give them orders; you have to be the adult, an adult who is present all of the time. If I put [the student and I] into a situation where I say it is “this” or “that,” then I have lost. If “this” doesn’t happen, then I have to make “that” happen and then my relationship with this student is on thin ice. This is the issue I have to avoid as long as I can. Also have to be awake when the students do something good. That is very important. That is the main issue. Tell them they are doing well, that you are proud of them. You need to be interested in them. Notice them. Not pretending, but genuine. And at the beginning I thought, “Can I be interested in them all?” I noticed if I am truly interested in them and want to meet them as persons, it didn’t take energy away from me, it gave me energy. (Yee 2015, p. 187)

They will give us pushback; this is what they are supposed to do. We cannot give up on them; that is what they expect us to do. They need us to believe in them. The development of self-regulation is what Steinberg

  Setting the Stage 

  35

(2014) believes is the central task of adolescence and the capability that separates those who navigate this developmental period securely into adulthood from those who do not. Positive relationships with adult mentors play a significant role in helping adolescents develop this self-­ regulation, which Steinberg characterizes as the gradual shifting of control, once provided by the adults in their lives, to a more internal form of self-regulatory behaviour and action. The success of this transition is determined in large part by the presence of three characteristics in adolescents: emotional security; behaviourally skilled to be able to govern actions in the absence of adult direction; and self-assured so as to be able to assume responsibility for their choices (Steinberg 2014). It is these three characteristics that we must nurture in our classrooms and foster through the very influential relationships we develop with our students through the teaching and learning process. Research to Praxis: The Importance of First Impressions After you have been in front of a classroom for a number of years, you tend to develop a pretty solid opening day routine to fall back on. I think mine is pretty stellar. I start of with something like, “This year I am going to challenge you to think for yourselves, to problem solve and to ask me difficult questions. I do not want you to sit there and blindly accept everything I say to you. I want you to ask me great questions, in a respectful way, but questions that will challenge me and will therefore challenge you and our entire class to grow. I expect us to work together as partners in your learning. I will demand this from you. I will hold you as capable learners. I will ask that you hold me as a capable teacher. As much as we are partners in this classroom, we are not equals – this is not a democracy. I am your teacher. You are my students. Teaching you is my job, and a job I take very seriously. I am also a learner, alongside you. Remember this always. I will earn your respect, and you must do the same from me. I do not hold grudges – I do however, remember facts and remember them well. Be honest with me. We all make mistakes. I do every day, but I use those mistakes as lessons to learn from. Do not lose my trust. You will need to work hard to regain it if you do. Every day is a new day with me, beginning with a clean slate. I will treat each of you fairly. Do not mistake this to mean sameness. You are each individuals, and the way I will work with each of you will reflect this individuality. Do not occupy your time or concern yourselves with what others are doing, or with how I am working with other students. Spend time thinking about

36 

B. Yee et al.

yourself as a learner, about yourself as an individual and about the person you hope to have become by the end of our year together. Oh, and this whole thing about technology, that seems to occupy so much of our time. I love technology. I use it all of the time. We will use it together to support and extend and enhance your learning. I will ask you to create with your technology and to use your technology to show me what you know. So, we will not play a game of hide and seek with your personal devices. I am not the cell phone police. Put it away when I am talking to you; use it responsibly when I am not. And  – if you dare  – use your technology to show me something I have not yet discovered. This is going to be a great year. Shall we get started?”

 urturing Positive Peers Relationships in and Through N the Learning: “Friends…Pick One?” The general consensus among adolescents is that no one gets them other than their friends, and at times, even those friends can be at the centre of an awful lot of drama. Conversations with adolescents consistently reveal the importance of friends in their school lives (Steinberg 2014; Willms et al. 2009; Yee 2015). Interestingly enough, it would appear that schools often go to great lengths to separate groups of friends. A pretty standard practice is for students, at the end of the year, to write down on a piece of paper one friend (in some cases two) they would like to be placed with in a classroom the following year. Students felt that schools generally made good on those requests, but still questioned why the practice was in place at all (Yee 2015). Great anxiety was reported by students when having to select one friend only; and, in the lives of adolescents when an everyday occurrence can be the cause of great strife and angst, schools need not unnecessarily complicate things. This falls under the category of practices and processes that no one can quite remember why they came to be, but continue on without much inquiry into the why. Research to Praxis: Removing Barriers to Student Learning As an instructional leader in a large middle school with almost 1000 adolescents, I regularly work with students and parents who have concerns about the classroom groupings that been made. And while on some level I under-

  Setting the Stage 

  37

stand how one might believe that classroom groupings consisting of large friends groupings may negatively impact a student’s ability to focus and take the risks necessary to grow as a learner, I believe the positive outcomes far outweigh any “supposed” undesirable effects. Having always made the choice to be a “teaching” school administrator, I feel I can speak to this point in a current and informed manner. As I write this, I am currently teaching a group of 18 grade 9 boys; students whom are all friends, who socialize with each other outside of school time, and who go to great lengths throughout their school day to find each other (often resorting to “hiding out” in the bathroom, something to this today I have a difficult time understanding the logic behind). Some questioned my sanity in choosing not to separate these boys. I retorted that I would rather spend my time redirecting side conversations towards the topic of discussion than on policing strategic calls for a bathroom break. As a side note, I know unreservedly this to be true – when learning tasks are designed in ways that allow each learner to connect with and find meaning in what they are studying, then their engagement with the learning task is complete and any off-task or disruptive behaviours disappear, irrespective of the number of friends they are surrounded by. I believe that at time when our adolescent learners are so painfully self-conscious, placing students in a learning environment surrounded by trusted peers (while not completely without its drawbacks) also removes a very real barrier to their learning. Students I interviewed indicated that looking foolish in front of their peers prevented them from taking risks as a learner, or showing their excitement for what they were learning. Being surrounded with trusted and loyal friends helped students to feel more comfortable in exploring their learning in ways that may find them making mistakes or showing vulnerability.

At this point, some of you may be taken back to earlier in the chapter when the impact of the adolescent “social brain” on their ability to make good decisions was discussed, and you would be quite correct to question whether putting a large group of adolescent “friends” into a single classroom is the best approach. Educators and educational institutions are in the best positions to create the appropriate environments in which adolescents can explore, make mistakes, learn what do not to do and perhaps what to try next time and then to repeat it all again. Partnering with parents, schools can create a strong alliance to support adolescent learners as they navigate the myriad of choices they will need to make and situations they will encounter in their adult lives. The question, “Does adolescent development unfold in different ways in different cultures or parts of the world?” often arises in discussions

38 

B. Yee et al.

among teachers who cross international borders. The answer comes in two parts. First, in a neurobiological sense, adolescent development occurs in relatively consistent patterns around the world, although we know a host of environmental and societal factors that have led to puberty beginning at an earlier age and entry into the “adult” world coming much later. Second, adolescent development from a behavioural standpoint often looks different in different locations around the world because of the contexts in which the adolescents find themselves. Expectations and beliefs related to the importance of education, male versus female gender roles, acceptable behaviour, perceptions of what constitutes “cool,” and so forth carry with them great cultural histories. Adolescents growing up with these cultural norms are certain to adopt these values and attitudes. As Steinberg (2014) articulates very clearly, the best chance we have at changing risky adolescent behaviour is not by providing them with more information (they are quite adept at processing and understanding information provided to them), but through changing the contexts they are growing up in. Why would we leave this to chance when we can control these contexts to a large degree through the conditions we create for teaching and learning in our schools? A quote by Alfie Kohn (2014) is particularly applicable when reflecting on the impact of school-based practices and philosophies: Traditional schooling isn’t working for an awful lot of students. We can respond to that fact either by trying to fix the system (so it meets kids’ needs better) or by trying to fix the kids (so they’re more compliant and successful at whatever they’re told to do). (p. 1)

And so it seems appropriate to ask the question, “Whose needs are we serving by continuing such practices?”

Informed Design of Learning: “Fits Like a Glove” Hart (1983) equates designing learning for students without a deep understanding of how the brain learns naturally and most efficiently to designing a glove without knowledge of the human hand or designing cars without an understanding of how an engine works. In Human Brain

  Setting the Stage 

  39

and Human Learning first published in 1983, Hart coined the term “brain-compatible” as he sought to help educators understand the necessity of matching instructional design and assessment practices with how the brain naturally works best. As large education systems around the world engage in the process of curriculum redesign, more consideration should be placed on the acquisition of competencies, knowledge and skills through the lens of how students’ brains learn best rather than on forcing a fit with existing programmes and content knowledge alone. Look out across a classroom of 32 Grade 8 students and you are certain to see learners of all types that would fall into as many categories of Gardner’s (1993) Multiple Intelligences, deBono’s (2010) Thinking Hats, Goleman’s (2005) Emotional Intelligences or even Lowry  and Kalil’s (2001) Colours. With this kind of diversity in one classroom, is there an answer to the question of what kind of learning experiences adolescents want most? The answer lies in the students themselves. The phrase, “The Children are the Curriculum” strikes many people as odd. [My colleagues and I have used the phrase for so long that I am not even certain who should be given credit for it.] Nonetheless, the point is this, the students that teachers have in front of them each and every day provide everything they need in order to create meaningful learning with them and for them. Without a doubt, teachers will have pages and pages of curriculum ­documents issued to them by the body governing education in their system, yet they must find a way to create a relationship between those pages (that were likely created with good intentions, thinking of the content first and the children second) and their students. If teachers, for even just a second, can flip this on its end and view the children as being the curriculum and those specific learning outcomes as supports, bringing context as they work with their students to make learning meaningful and relevant, then there is a much better chance that they will deeply engage a whole generation of students in learning that is relevant to them and the world they are growing up in. What do adolescents say when asked about the kind of learning that is meaningful and engaging? The following key insights have emerged from research spanning several decades and from many corners of the globe (AMLE 2010; Barratt 1998; Chadbourne 2002; Hill and Russell 1999; Willms et al. 2009; Wormelli 2006, 2011; Yee 2015). First and foremost,

40 

B. Yee et al.

adolescents say they would like to have input into what they learn, how they interact with their learning and the ways in which they demonstrate their learning. For the most part, students understand that the “what” of their learning is often not in the total control of their teachers. (As an aside, there is another whole level of student voice missing in the redesign of curriculum.) Students would like to be given choices within larger “big picture” topics (Yee 2015). For example, curriculum standards may dictate that students must study the Renaissance to better understand what influences our worldview. Rather than a prescribed set of learning assessments based on what the teacher deems necessary, students who were particularly interested in Renaissance art could explore how the artistic styles of the time reflected the emerging worldview of the people. Or, students with a real curiosity about da Vinci’s journals could examine how his work has influenced advances in science and technology to this very day. This level of voice and choice allows for all students to find a way to connect to a curriculum that may seem foreign to them. When asked about their most memorable learning experiences, students, nine times out of ten, described learning that could be characterized as active learning (Yee 2015). Under no circumstances did students describe occasions where they were sitting at desks in neat rows as their teacher lectured to them from the front of the room. The adolescent brain thrives on novelty and challenge (which also explains some of the thrill-seeking behaviour that as a mother keeps me up at night, and as a school principal, makes my office a very busy place). Exposure to learning experiences that test students’ abilities, just beyond their zone of proximal development, are precisely what the adolescent brain needs at a time when it is most plastic, meaning the brain grows and develops through experience (Steinberg 2014). Classes that fall outside of the “core” programme of study (often labelled complementary or exploratory courses) such as applied technologies, culinary arts, fashion design, website design, digital photography and so on are often those students report being most engaged in. This in part can be attributed to the newness of experience, but is also due to the fact that students are active, work with their hands, collaborate with others and are challenged to solve complex problems. Students questioned why classes such as Language Arts, Mathematics and the Sciences could not involve the same kind of active learning (Yee

  Setting the Stage 

  41

2015). They are quite correct; all of their learning should incorporate these elements. Critical thinking, problem solving and the skills of metacognition are not abilities that students either have or do not. These are aptitudes that need to be developed and nurtured in very deliberate ways through the learning opportunities teachers challenge their students with. Contrary to what some may believe, a conversation with an adolescent learner is sometimes all that is needed to bring clarity to what seems like the elusive adolescent engagement in their learning.

 onnecting Students to a Learning Community: “Let C Us Hope It Is Not a Black Box” The things that may seem frivolous or extraneous to the work of teaching and learning in the classroom are in fact known to have a significant positive impact on teachers and students and the learning culture within a school. School clubs, sport teams, intramurals, the school band or drama production all provide amazing opportunities for teachers and students to learn together in non-traditional ways. For some students, these opportunities will be the reason they come to school. They may always struggle in math class, but they shine on the basketball court—every student deserves to find that place within their school where they shine. There is something very powerful that happens to the culture of a school when teachers, students and their families unite in support of a common purpose (Manitoba Education 2010; Yee 2015). As silly as it may sound, students take great pride in identifying with the school name and mascot that has been chosen. [Being recognized as a “Titan” (the school mascot name) and wearing that bright orange (the school colour) “hoodie” with the school logo is significant in the life of an early adolescent.] The challenge is to create a school culture that teachers would want their own children to be part of—that is a very good litmus test. Research to Praxis: Self-fulfilling Prophecy There is a poster that hangs on the wall of my office, well there are many, but this one in particular always seems to catch the attention of passers-by. It reads, “My teacher thought I was smarter than I was  – so I was.” The

42 

B. Yee et al.

words came from a child, not a necessarily a famous one, but for those of us who spend our days working with children, each one is as important as the next. This always reminds me of the importance of seeing each student who passes through the doors of our schools as capable leaners, and with this in mind, I believe we return to society strong, confident, talented young men and women ready to give back to the world in a manner in which they only can. I am also reminded of a conversation with a principal I interviewed during my doctoral research, whose approach to student learning, “failure is not an option” reflected his willingness to do whatever it took and to support his teachers in doing what they believed necessary to ensure their students were successful as learners, the success criteria defined by each one individually. And with this in mind, it is perhaps easier to understand the highly intentional pedagogical responses needed from teachers of adolescent learners to ensure their engagement in learning.

Teacher Pedagogical Response The notion of developmentally responsive learning environments, along with developmentally responsive instructional practices within those environments, emerged on the Canadian educational scene in a position paper put forward by Manitoba Education, outlining a provincial strategy for engaging adolescents in their learning. Further consultation with teachers highlighted the need to develop common understanding, common language and common instructional practices that would ­ underscore the province’s philosophy for developmentally responsive learning environments that support early adolescent learners. Responsive Middle Years education is more about teaching and learning and less about management, more about helping students to make healthy choices and less about mandating behaviour, more about using time productively and less about sticking slavishly to timetables that do not support learning, more about personal relationships and less about upholding traditional roles, and more about including student voices and less about Middle Years teachers covering curriculum. (Manitoba Education 2010, p. 18)

In this description of developmentally responsive middle level learning environments, it is apparent that the student is at the centre of all decisions, all practices and all things related to their experience as learners.

  Setting the Stage 

  43

Students are viewed as essential partners in the creation of a developmentally responsive learning environment. Students work closely with their teachers as co-creators of their learning experience; students set goals, they establish criteria for successful demonstration of mastery, they articulate their progress towards given learning outcomes and monitor and adjust their learning strategies based on feedback. “Making students… prime partners [in their education] means putting them and their learning at the core of all other partnerships—and involving them directly in their process” (Hargreaves and Fullan, as sited in Manitoba Education 2010, p. 25).

In Search of Expert Teachers: “The Importance of Understanding the Students You Teach” In 2009, Rumble and Aspland presented a paper at the Australian Curriculum Studies Association Conference entitled, In search of the middle school teacher: What differentiates the middle school teacher from other teachers, based on their own research study, which sought to understand essential attributes of the middle school teacher. Rumble and Aspland’s findings ­ aving expertise clearly point towards the necessity of middle years teachers h in adolescent learning and development, along with a true passion for working with students of this age. Four core attributes of the middle years teacher emerged during this research study, which should perhaps form part of any prerequisite search for a teacher of adolescents: • • • •

The capacity to forge a middle school identity; A designer of wholesome curriculum; A specialist in adolescence; And, a capacity to sustain middle school reform and support systems for the middle school teacher. Research to Praxis: “What Is Best for Students” As a teacher with particular expertise working with adolescents in middle level learning environments, specifically within the discipline of the humanities, I am very aware of my strengths as a teacher and where I can best

44 

B. Yee et al.

facilitate exceptional learning opportunities for my students. While I might be able to “survive” as a teacher in a classroom of 22 kindergarten students, it would not be the very best learning experience for them. [Is this not what education systems should aspire to? Is this not what our students deserve?] And, if the filter, “What is best for students?” is used for everything we endeavour to in the field of education, then logic would dictate that we place the very best people with specific expertise in leading, teaching and learning at the various developmental levels in those specific contexts. As a mother of an early adolescent son, this is what I want for him to experience in middle school  – expert teachers and expert instructional leaders, who have dedicated their careers to creating the best learning environments for students of the middle years.

 ultifaceted Teacher Expertise: “Wearing Many Hats M While Juggling Just as Many Balls” When teachers have both disciplinary expertise as well as expertise in early adolescent development and learning, it becomes easier to see which instructional practices best serve the needs of a particular group of learners (or an individual learner) at a particular point in time. This is likely to change the next day; however, when teachers approach teaching and learning in middle level learning environments through the lens of responsiveness, they are better able to adapt to the ever-changing needs of their students. Bransford et  al. (2005) term this “adaptive expertise” which is very reflective of the iterative nature of a teacher’s work. Teachers, as adaptive experts, are not tied to existing ways of thinking and knowing and doing; instead they are able to use the understanding they have about the students, the content and current research to effectively adapt their instructional design and assessment practices to meet the needs of their students. This responsive approach to instructional practices does not take on the form of an “anything goes” or “laissez faire” approach. Quite the opposite; a learning environment with clearly articulated expectations and success criteria, where students are viewed as capable learners and enlisted as co-designers of the learning, is shown to foster student motivation and intellectual engagement. Adolescents are capable learners (far more capable than they are often given credit for) and they need to be provided with learning tasks that are

  Setting the Stage 

  45

challenging and offer them multiple opportunities to demonstrate their unique aptitudes and to experience success. Research emerging from Stigler and Hiebert’s (1999) study of classrooms in Asian countries has shown that teachers deliberately design learning tasks that are slightly beyond the capabilities of the students they teach so the students can experience struggling with something just outside their reach. Once students have mastered the intended learning outcome, teachers will actively point out that the student was able to accomplish it through hard work, tenacity and determination. Taxing the adolescent brain in this way, just outside of, what educators often refer to as the proximal zone of development, is what stimulates development. The “drill and kill” approach of pure repetition will do nothing to promote brain development in adolescents when their brain is experiencing great plasticity. Moreover, learning tasks for early adolescents need to be authentic and true to the disciplines they are studying, while also reflecting and connecting students to the world they are growing up in. When teachers provide authentic opportunities for student voice and choice in meaningful aspects of their learning, students’ problem solving, critical thinking and metacognitive abilities are challenged to develop and grow. Neatly put together posters, PowerPoint presentations with whirling animation or other examples of “busy” work are simply not the type of stimulating learning tasks that foster deep understanding for adolescent learners. The multi-year, cross-Canada What did you do in school today? study sought to better understand the schooling experiences of Canadian adolescents. The numerous factors found to impact student intellectual engagement in their learning fall within the two broad concepts of instructional challenge and learning climate, encompassing such things as instructional design and assessment practices, relationships and school-­ based practices. These concepts, further developed by Friesen (2009) in a framework outlining principles of effective teaching, serve to focus teacher professional learning and conversations on next right steps in supporting adolescent learning. In the context of middle level learning environments, the five principles of Friesen’s (2009) Teaching Effectiveness Framework are particularly relevant to ensuring early adolescent learners, who are shown to be vulnerable and at risk for disengagement in their learning, remain connected to and supported. Although many cognitive

46 

B. Yee et al.

changes are taking place in early adolescence, there is no better time to engage these students in the ways of thinking and doing true to the disciplines they are studying (Friesen 2009). Work that early adolescents engage in should be worthy of their time, allowing them to collaborate and connect with peers, their teacher and experts in the discipline. Assessment cannot be seen as separate from the instructional design process, and similarly, cannot be seen as something meant only for the teacher. Assessment is most meaningful to students and supports them in their growth when they work together with their teachers and peers to create clear criteria for success. Ongoing feedback becomes an integral element in student self-assessment and the subsequent adjustments they make to their learning strategies.

L earning Relationship: “In the End, It Is All About Relationships” Past, current (and most likely) future research highlights the importance of healthy relationships in the development of adolescents, both as individuals and learners. Friesen’s (2009) Teaching Effectiveness Framework identifies the need for three types of strong relationships to exist in order to support ongoing student engagement and success: students’ relationship to the work they engage in and an understanding of why this work is important to them and in the real world; teachers’ relationships with the students, making their thinking and problem solving processes visible to students in order to support the development of these abilities in their students; and, students’ relationships with each other, collaborating to build collective capacity and understanding (Friesen 2009). Further, in developmentally responsive learning environments, the establishment of a learning community, where teachers support and mentor students and where students serve as positive support systems for each other, is essential to ensuring adolescents feel valued as contributing members of the classroom and the larger school community (Manitoba Education 2010; Wormeli 2006, 2011). This increased student ownership of and agency in their learning is not thrust upon them all at once, but gradually, within a supportive learning environment with trusted

  Setting the Stage 

  47

peers and teachers. Middle years teachers who truly understand the nature and needs of early adolescent learners focus on building appropriate learning relationships, which differ from those relationships that exist outside of the school context. These learning relationships provide an appropriate balance between high expectations for behaviour and achievement and the nurturing supports necessary to meet these expectations (Rumble and Aspland 2009; Wormelli 2011). The final principle of the Teaching Effectiveness Framework focuses on the understanding that teaching is not a solitary pursuit and that professional collaboration makes everyone better. The image of the teacher as a lifelong learner is important not only as a model for students, but also to ensure the teaching profession remains in a continuous cycle of improvement. Ongoing professional learning and professional dialogue about how to best support adolescent learners guarantee the most current professional knowledge and collective wisdom is being used to create developmentally responsive and intellectually engaging middle level learning environments.

 ssessment That Supports Student Learning: “Holding A Up a Mirror” Instructional design and assessment should not be viewed as separate entities, as they work in conjunction with each other to inform teachers as they work alongside students to create developmentally appropriate learning opportunities. Throughout the assessment and grading process, teachers have an opportunity to impact student motivation and engagement and the way students view themselves as learners—capable or not capable. “Assessment is not something that teachers do to students; it is a process of collaborative communication in which information about learning flows between teacher and student” (Manitoba Education 2010, p. 10). In classrooms today, there continues to be evidence of long-held beliefs teachers hold related to assessment, which is at best assessment of learning, but honestly more along the lines of evaluation, signalling the end of a unit of study and the subsequent “moving on” to the next concept in a long line of curricular learning outcomes (Dunleavy et al. 2012;

48 

B. Yee et al.

Yee 2015). However, if teachers follow the line of thought that the intent is for all students to learn the identified outcomes, then ongoing assessment information is as much about teaching as it is about student learning. The “I taught, but they didn’t learn” viewpoint of pedagogy has no place in our schools today (Cooper 2011). Undeniably, teaching is a highly personal profession, and it is difficult to not feel vulnerable when teachers’ beliefs and practices are drawn into question. Student assessment evidence provides teachers with rich information about their next steps. And yes, student assessment evidence certainly does identify gaps in their learning, but should the response as teachers not be twofold when it comes to emerging assessment information? One, teachers determine what their next steps are in order to close the gaps; and two, students are supported in understanding how they can adjust their learning strategies so as to move closer towards mastery of the learning outcomes. Just like reading and writing, these skills of reflection and the higher order thinking skills associated with metacognition must be intentionally taught. The assessment process is powerful place in which to foster these skills while the adolescent brain is highly malleable (Cooper 2011; Steinberg 2014; Yee 2015).

 ultiple Opportunities to Experience Success: “The M Power of “Not Yets” and “Do-Overs” Perhaps one of the most powerful lessons for middle years teachers emerging from Dweck’s vast body of work comes in the simple form of the word “yet.” The assessment process, which inevitably at several points during the year translates into a formal report card grade or mark, can be a stressful and anxiety-filled time for many early adolescent learners. Dweck gives an example from a school she has worked with, where instead of issuing a student a failing or incomplete grade on a report card, the words “not yet” appear (Dweck 2010). When students see “not yet” versus a “0” or an “F” or “40%,” the first message is that while students have not yet mastered the learning outcome, it is still expected that they work towards mastery. “Not yet” is also a signal to teachers that even though the concept may have been taught, students have not yet demon-

  Setting the Stage 

  49

strated they understand it, and this should inform next steps in teaching: Whenever students say they can’t do something or are not good at something, the teacher should add, “yet.” Whenever students say they don’t like a certain subject, the teacher should say, “yet.” This simple habit conveys the idea that ability and motivation are fluid. (Dweck 2010, p. 20)

The work of Canadian educator and researcher Damian Cooper (2011) compliments Dweck’s (2007, 2008) views that support the developing nature of learners in general, most certainly relevant to the adolescent learner who will for several years while in the care of our educational systems be in a constant state of growth and development. The premise of his book, Redefining Fair (2011), is that outdated beliefs about what constitutes “fairness” in our classrooms often prevents teachers from engaging the necessary pedagogical supports to ensure that all learners can be successful. He asks that teachers be very clear, first in their own minds and then with students, about intended learning targets and what assessment will evidence student mastery of the concept. This ensures the “target” does not become a “moving target” as these can be very difficult for students to hit. And with this clearly articulated understanding of the intended learning target, adolescent learners, with the appropriate time and scaffolds, can work towards mastery. Problems arise with outdated assessment practices that come in a summative nature, with little information about how a student can improve upon their work, often with one opportunity to demonstrate their learning. If the goal is that all students attain mastery of a learning outcome, teachers must understand that not all learners, especially adolescent learners given the wide range of developmental readiness, will reach that target at the same time. “Do-overs” become a necessary component of a responsive instructional programme that seeks to ensure all learners are successful in their own way, in their own time. Ongoing, formative feedback, along with multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery of identified learning targets ensure adolescent learners understand the importance of and purpose of clearly identified learning targets and are held “capable” of meeting these targets (Cooper 2011; Dweck 2007, 2010).

50 

B. Yee et al.

 orm and Criterion Referencing: “Stop the Madness N of Sifting and Sorting” A question that all educators must come to terms with is the nature and purpose of assessment. The practice of norm referencing aligned very much with the notion of fixed intelligence, using assessment information to sift and sort students into ability groupings, capable and not capable. An instructional programme built around criterion or individual referencing supports the belief that all students can learn and that all students achieve proficiency. Equity of opportunity is foundational to this philosophy, not uniformity, which is the intent of a norm-referenced system. Teachers who follow a criterion- or individual-referenced system in their classrooms understand that in order for all students to achieve proficiency, students will require different forms of scaffolding. The learning target does not change, but the pathways students use to reach the target may (Cooper 2011). Adolescents thrive in this kind of learning environment (Manitoba Education 2010; Wormeli 2006, 2011; Yee 2015).

 uilding Flexibility into Structures and Processes: “Not B Only for Yoga” If public education systems are to be a mirror of modern democratic society, teachers can no longer draw on a singular pedagogical approach in order to meet the diverse needs of learners within an inclusive setting. Enter the adolescent learner, and we are no longer looking at inclusion in reference to only those students with exceptional learning needs; the multifaceted developmental changes taking place during adolescence create classroom contexts where a teacher is likely to encounter 32 students, all at different levels of developmental readiness. Differentiation is a philosophical approach to teaching and learning where the teacher (or team of teachers), beginning from a place of deep understanding of their students as individuals and as learners, makes intentional decisions about what each student needs to achieve success (Tomlinson 2014). A key tenant of differentiation is that all students can learn, in their own way, in their own time. Understanding that the adolescent developmental

  Setting the Stage 

  51

phase places each adolescent learner within our classrooms at different levels of readiness to engage with their learning, teachers employ such strategies as flexible instruction, flexible groupings, as well as providing students with multiple means of accessing content, working with information and expressing their learning. Recognizing that the learning needs of adolescent learners will change as they grow and develop means that the learning environment and the supports within that environment may vary depending on the day or the curricular area of study. Based on the learners in their classroom, teachers make decisions about the nature of the supports they will provide for their students, but the learning target remains the same. In some classrooms, this notion has been mistaken to mean that the quantity or the quality of the task is compromised, leaving some students to engage in nothing but “busy work” (think map colouring), while others are simply tasked with more questions to answer (think answering all questions odd and even, as opposed to only the even questions). In a truly differentiated classroom, all students are engaged in respectful learning tasks, intended to support them in arriving at the same learning target in their own way, in their own time (Cooper 2011; Robinson 2014; Tomlinson 2014). Providing “just in time” and “just right” instruction for a large group of adolescent learners can test the mettle of any teacher. A strategy of flexible grouping allows teachers to move students in an out of smaller learning groups, ensuring students can receive the instructional support they need to be successful. For some, flexible grouping and ability grouping have become synonymous and therefore the notion of flexible groupings has come under fire for their place in an inclusive learning environment (Olszewski-Kubilius 2013). The intent of flexible learning groups is never to “institutionalise” a student to a particular ability group (high or low); instead, this strategy sees students sometimes in groupings based on need or targeted skill development, but also based on interest, learning profile and even choice. Learning groups are reflective of current assessment data and should never be viewed as static. The key message emerging from the strategy of flexible grouping is that teachers are better able to match needed instruction and supports to smaller groups than to whole class instruction (Tomlinson 2014).

52 

B. Yee et al.

One of the unintended positive outcomes of differentiation is that as teachers provide their learners with varying strategies to support their learning, students themselves begin to understand what they can access to be successful in their learning. Students become active participants in their learning, equipped with the very powerful knowledge needed to advocate for themselves as learners. A quote by Howard Gardner (in Siegel and Shaughnessy 1994) provides a great reminder of the importance for teachers to look at each learner as an individual, requiring supports for their learning as unique and individual as they are. The biggest mistake of past centuries in teaching has been to treat all children as if they were variants of the same individual and thus to feel justified in teaching them all the same subjects in the same way. (p. 563)

If we fail to recognize this, the already large gaps that are sure to exist among adolescent learners will continue to widen with a singular approach to teaching and learning.

Instructional Leadership Response The four core attributes of the middle years teacher identified by Rumble and Aspland (2009) through their research study (the capacity to forge a middle school identity, a designer of wholesome curriculum, a specialist in adolescence, and a capacity to sustain middle school reform and support systems for the middle school teacher) should perhaps be applied more broadly to also include the search for middle school principals. The practice of many education systems to hire school-based instructional leaders—both principals and assistant/vice-principals—who have little to no background in working with teachers, students and their families in middle level learning environments is puzzling to me. A search of recent job postings for middle school principals uncovered some which listed as the only criteria assistant principals with a given number of years of experience or current principals desiring a transfer. There was no mention of specific expertise in middle level learning or a passion for working with early adolescents and their teachers.

  Setting the Stage 

  53

There is an abundance of current research emphasizing the middle years of learning as being key to putting early adolescents on the path to success in subsequent grades, high school graduation, post-secondary acceptance and completion, career futures and overall well-being. It is troubling that so much is left to chance when it comes to creating the conditions for early adolescent learners to experience success in their growth and development within our school systems. The importance of searching for “the right” instructional leaders for early adolescent learners and their middle level learning environments must not be underestimated. Attention must be paid to current research along with paradigm shifts occurring in education systems around the world which indicate our collective thinking related to instructional leadership in middle level learning environments needs to be re-envisioned in order to better serve this population of learners and their teachers. Newly emerging images of teaching and learning in the middle years must form the basis for developing, selecting and cultivating those who will lead the schools that serve our early adolescent learners.

 haracteristics of Effective Instructional Leaders: “A C Hint of This and a Bit of That” Recent research into effective instructional leadership practices revealed the qualities of courageous and unconventional, visible and responsive, along with clear vision and direction to appear as descriptors for those instructional leaders suited to lead learning environments where adolescent learners flourish (Yee 2015). Instructional leaders who have been shown to effect meaningful and sustainable change in the learning environments for their early adolescent learners show courage, and at times a hint of unconventionality. Sometimes, transformation takes real courage, courage to reflect on what has been done in the school in the past, courage to ask why and then courage to say “we can do better.” A concerning characteristic in many schools is what can be termed a “history of grandeur”—a community mythology of being good schools that actually prevents them from becoming the kind of exceptional learning environments that best support the learning and developmental needs of adoles-

54 

B. Yee et al.

cents (Collins 2001; Yee 2015). To move a school from outdated, deeply rooted philosophies and practices requires courageous leadership. Research to Praxis: “Finding That ‘Just-Right’ Fit” I am reminded each and every day when I step through the front doors of my school, of the unmistakable energy that fills a middle school. There were 932 adolescents in my school at last count, so not only is there a constant buzz of activity, a high level-vibration, but also a wonderful air of quirkiness that some tell me you need to be “middle-schooler” to get. Undeniably, it takes a certain kind of teacher and a “just-right” fit instructional leader to embrace all that accompanies the adolescent learner and a learning environment that supports their unique learning needs. In my own experience as a middle years teacher, a district specialist for middle years teaching and learning, and an assistant principal of two different middle school configurations, I have worked with hundreds of teachers and school principals who have very diverse pre-service teacher training experiences, along with in-service professional learning opportunities. [Only a handful of those educators have been part of teacher training programs designed for those eager to work with adolescents in middle level learning environments. None have been part of leadership development programs aimed at aspiring middle school principals.] Many carry with them the belief [a misguided belief, based on my own research] that “good teaching is good teaching,” and “good leadership is good leadership,” regardless of the developmental stage of the students they face each and every day. I would concede that there might be key tenets of basic pedagogy that cross the developmental spectrum of students. However, consistent with my research, foundational middle years research (This we believe, Turning Points 2000, Breaking Ranks in the Middle, Transforming Middle Years Education in Manitoba) has demonstrated there are far more pedagogical considerations specific to the age, and more importantly, the developmental readiness of the student.

Robinson’s (2011) student-centred leadership philosophy aligns with the type of instructional leadership vital in developmentally responsive and intellectually engaging middle level learning environments. Instructional leaders who are deeply involved in the teaching and learning taking place in the classrooms of their schools develop a better understanding of the unique learning needs of their early adolescent learners as well as the instructional practices that will support these learning needs. Establishing and articulating goals and expectations that support a theory

  Setting the Stage 

  55

of quality teaching and learning in the context of early adolescent learners will ensure the collaborative focus is clear. The importance of ongoing professional learning that promotes a better understanding of early adolescent learners, along with instructional design and assessment practices that increase student agency and ownership in their learning has, in the context of Robinson’s work, the biggest impact on student learning outcomes. Finally, the importance of the school environment for early adolescent learners is clear. With the vast number of developmental changes early adolescents experience during this time period, ensuring they feel safe and supported (as individuals and as learners) is key to their academic success and healthy development (AMLE 2010; Manitoba Education 2010; Wormeli 2006, 2011; Yee 2015). Student-centred leadership is instructional leadership that makes a difference to the equity and excellence of student outcomes (Robinson 2011). The leadership dimensions outline clear direction, identifying what leaders need to do in order to have a bigger impact on student learning. In her keynote address at the Calgary Ideas Conference, Robinson articulated her “big message” as being the following, “the more leaders focus their relationships, their [daily] work and their [professional] learning on the core business of teaching and learning the greater their influence on student outcomes” (Robinson 2014). She went on to indicate that leadership in schools is based all too often on management of resources, people, time and money, on the building of relationships with adults and other partners and, more recently, on what is perceived as “innovation.” This has overshadowed what should be the central purpose of all we do in education, and that is improving student outcomes. While the work of a school principal is sometimes one step removed from working directly with students in classrooms, Robinson articulates that it is in creating the conditions for teachers to do their work where principals have the most impact on students: There are compelling ethical arguments for student-centered leadership. Because the point and purpose of compulsory schooling is to ensure that students learn what society has deemed important, a central duty of school leadership is to create the conditions that make that possible. (Robinson 2011, p. 4)

56 

B. Yee et al.

 New View on Instructional Leadership: “Creating A the Conditions” While none would contest the importance of a student-centred philosophy towards instructional leadership as put forward by Robinson, another, complementary view of instructional leadership, which creates the conditions for adolescents to engage deeply in their learning, was proposed in a recent study that is worth noting (Yee 2015). An examination of any leadership section at a local bookstore would reveal a wide variety of books touting the latest leadership “style” or even more prevalent, the leadership “manifesto.” While many forms of leadership have been put forth as most conducive to leading educational reform and transformation, looking at instructional leadership as a synergistic factor has not been part of that discourse. This is something Yee (2015) has proposed in her recent research. By definition, a synergist is, “something that enhances the effectiveness of an active agent” (Merriam-Webster 2014, para. 1) or “an agent that increases the effectiveness of another agent when combined with it” (Merriam-Webster 2014, para. 2), further, a synergist is, “[an agent] that acts in concert with another to enhance its effect” (Merriam-Webster 2014, para. 3). There is something rather intriguing about looking at the work of instructional leadership through the lens of a synergist. To illustrate this idea—instructional leadership (as the synergist) creates the conditions, acting as a catalyst for an intense reaction to unfold, which is the work of teaching and learning in the classroom. Many labels have been used to describe the work of a principal (change agent, servant leader, transformational leader, charismatic leader, etc.), however the image these labels create all centre around the traits of the leader, rather than the conditions they create for others. Effective instructional leadership cannot be an egocentric undertaking. A second image of instructional leadership, again making reference to the sciences, emerges, this time involving the laws of physics. If we agree with the notion of energy conservation, that the energy within the universe is constant and therefore cannot be created or destroyed, only changed into a different form, as proposed in the first law of thermodynamics, it would seem reasonable to look at the synergistic quality of instructional leadership as a factor that creates the conditions within

  Setting the Stage 

  57

school for energy to be shaped in the ways most conducive to learning. Now taking into account the Newton’s third law of motion, stating “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Newton 1686), instructional leaders must be cognizant of the kinds of opposite reactions elicited by their actions. Practical wisdom might suggest that forcing or pushing teachers towards a desired end may not yield the anticipated positive results. Actions of instructional leadership must never lose sight of the most important outcome, which is student learning. This requires the work of an instructional leader to be very “finessed”; making sure the necessary conditions are in place, bringing together the right people and producing an intentional first action allowing to for the reaction of teaching and learning to unfold in the classroom. Instructional leadership as a synergistic factor; there is great potential here for a transformation of sorts in the way the work of an instructional leader is approached and viewed in the context of adolescent learning.

Contextual Response  he School Environment: “Balancing Consistency T and Flexibility” There is something to be said about a strong sense of consistency, cohesiveness, coherence and dependability in the “school life” of early adolescents, when many other aspects of their growth and development seem not within their immediate control. Current instructional leaders and teachers need to examine the processes at their schools, many of which probably existed long before they arrived, to ensure the current school population is being served well; and, then should not hesitate to do away with those structures and philosophies that may be doing more harm than good. If there was one word that can be used to describe the kind of middle level learning environment (and subsequent school processes) that best support the adolescent learners within it, it would be “flexible.” This should not be confused with “anything goes” or “laissez faire.” Flexibility very much reflects the needs of adolescent learners in relation to their school environment as the developmental changes they are expe-

58 

B. Yee et al.

riencing can have them experiencing an entire spectrum of emotions, behaviours, thoughts and physical sensations, all within the span of a day. To be more specific, balanced flexibility with high expectations and firm boundaries would be a more accurate descriptor to characterize effective middle level learning environments. Research to Praxis: A Pep Talk for Principals A reminder. As an instructional leader, please never lose sight of the fact that the adolescent learners you have in your school are the most important resource you have at your disposal to easily gauge if you (as the instructional leader) and your teachers (as facilitators of learning) are on the right track. Talk to your students. Ask them about their experiences in your school. Provide your students with authentic opportunities to develop agency in their learning by demonstrating to them through your actions you consider them and their voices as important factors when creating a learning environment in which they will flourish. Shadow some of your students throughout the course of their day at school if you truly want to understand what it means to be an early adolescent learner in the middle level learning environment you have been entrusted to care for and lead. Base any decisions you make on what you learn from your students and about your students. Do not attempt to find a “quick fix” in the latest innovation or packaged program. Find the answers you need to create a developmentally responsive, intellectually engaging learning environment, in those very students who are the reason you are here today, wanting to know how to make their experience in your school exactly what it needs to be, so they, too, may see the world of possibilities that exist for them.

 eflecting on Current Practices: “More Like a R Guideline” School timetables need to accommodate large blocks of learning that can be negotiated among the teachers to allow students to delve deeply and linger with topics and issues important to them. The start and end to learning must not be dictated by the sounding of a bell or the passing of a week or month. The practice of asking teachers to create unit plans and year plans that determine the pace of learning is considered outdated by many current instructional leaders and teachers (Yee 2015). This pace of learning, of course, can only be dictated by the actual learning students

  Setting the Stage 

  59

demonstrate. Again, this does not encourage an anything goes approach; however, when teachers are tied to an arbitrary timeline, with the sole purpose of covering the entire curriculum by the time the end of the school year rolls around, then teachers are missing out on wonderful opportunities for the learning to reflect and take on the lives and lived experiences of their students.

 he Importance of Non-cognitive Factors in Student T Success: “The Missing Link” Based on the extensive understanding current research has provided about the neurobiology of adolescent development and learning, the focus of most traditional systems of education on curriculum content may not provide the necessary balance between academic and social-­ emotional learning in which adolescent self-regulation, viewed by many as the single most important contributor to healthy adolescent development, can be fostered (Yee 2015). Recent surveys conducted worldwide reveal that adolescents report experiencing alarming levels of depression and anxiety (Klinger et  al. 2011; McCreary Centre Society 2009; McNeely and Blanchard 2009; Yee 2015). One must question whether there may be a key element missing from what is taught to students every day. Some believe that traits such as resiliency, tenacity, confidence and self-efficacy develop (or do not) in students naturally. It can be likened to what some think about leadership: you either have it or you do not. Like reading and writing, and also critical thinking and problem solving, these traits need to be intentionally targeted through our teaching. So much time is spent focusing on the academic aspects of schooling that for the most part school systems have overlooked the psychological aspects that play a significant role in students’ success in school (Steinberg 2014). Developing these essential capacities throughout the natural course of teaching and learning in the classroom should also be seen as fundamental curriculum content. Education systems need to re-imagine what is possible for their adolescent learners in all facets of their schooling experience.

60 

B. Yee et al.

Research to Praxis: The Potential of Unconventional The longer I work with adolescents in middle level learning environments, the more convinced I am that there is a “just right” fit between the people in place in a school who can effectively support the unique learning and developmental needs of adolescent learners. This includes the principal, teachers, support staff and any other individuals a budget may permit  – such as psychologists, social workers, etc. I advocate for being open to all possibilities that exist with regards to how you might schedule your school, deploy your teachers, group your students, and secure learning resources and tools. Some of the most unconventional approaches can yield amazing results.

Community Response The community in which a school is situated can act as a powerful force for a school; and, whether this takes on a positive or negative tone in many ways rests in the hands of the adults in the building. The positive relationship between a school and its community is one that should be nurtured. Instructional leaders and teachers must shape this relationship so their adolescent learners are not only supported while in school, but also the moment they step outside—the community must also be open to this type of partnership and it is often at the school level where the conditions must be created for this to occur. Early adolescents are not always seen in the most positive light by older generations. Opportunities for early adolescents to contribute to their communities in positive ways are important components in their healthy social and moral development. Increased opportunities for positive contact among early adolescents and the various individuals, groups and organizations that form their community promote understanding and the building of mutual respect among these groups. Developmentally speaking, early adolescents are highly susceptible to influences, both positive and negative; the establishment of a community that supports the healthy development of its early adolescents is of utmost importance in ensuring the success of these learners both inside and outside the four walls of the school. In a developmentally responsive learning environment, learning relationships are also seen as extending beyond the classroom and school,

  Setting the Stage 

  61

into the community (Manitoba Education 2010). To foster these relationships requires the intentional design of opportunities that will connect students and their communities. Schools should be opened up to those in the community; ask community members to share in the students’ learning. Every opportunity that will showcase students’ unique talents and abilities to the community should be explored. Helping the community see early adolescent learners as the kind, caring and capable individuals the schools know them to be is essential. Then there will be the establishment of a true school community; and, this is exactly what early adolescent learners need to support their healthy growth and development as learners and as individuals.

Systemic Response Either through what systems openly endorse or (sometimes worse) what is rarely is mentioned, it quickly becomes clear what priorities exist. This has been an issue plaguing the middle years of learning for quite some time in most countries around the world. The middle years of learning and consequently those learners that fall within this grouping have rarely been identified as system priorities, with most attention being paid to the early learning years or high school completion (OISE 2008; Yee 2015). Both worthy in their own respect; however, the failure to acknowledge the impact of the adolescent developmental period on the middle years of learning, along with the complex nature of the work facing teachers and instructional leaders who have been entrusted to care for these students, has left much to chance for adolescent learners and middle level learning environments (Centre for Collaborative Education 2003; Wormeli 2006, 2011; Yee 2015). Some will say that not everything can be a priority when it comes to the multifaceted world of education, yet it can be argued that when it comes to a profession where the most precious resource is children, children of all ages, of all learning abilities and all cultural backgrounds should be a priority (Manitoba Education 2010; Yee 2015). It must not be seen as acceptable, through what falls into the categories of sins of omission or sins of commission, to deny an entire developmental group of students the con-

62 

B. Yee et al.

sideration necessary to ensure they, along with their teachers, are given adequate resources and supports. Those who have devoted their careers to working with adolescent learners know the wonder and challenge (often all at the same time) associated with the middle years of learning. The struggle of the adolescent learner to find his or her place within a school environment, let alone find their way in an ever-­changing world is very real. Teachers who work with these learners tirelessly work to find ways to help their adolescent students connect to and find meaning in their learning. Worldwide, research shows adolescent motivation and engagement in learning decreases steadily throughout the middle years of learning (McCreary Centre Society 2009; Willms et  al. 2009; Yee 2015). This should be cause for concern. This should be attracting the attention of education systems around the world. This should be enough to cause a revisioning of what the middle years of learning can be and what is needed systemically to ensure adolescent learners are supported to successfully navigate this developmental period within our school systems. These students and teachers are every bit as much deserving of the same kinds of attention and resources currently being directed at other populations of learners and their teachers. There are a couple of exceptions worth noting. For the past decade, both New Zealand and Australia have worked hard to establish nation-wide systems of beliefs, practices and resources that would support teaching and learning in the middle years. This desired consistency across all middle level learning environments is believed to be important in supporting early adolescent learners through what is understood to be a very dynamic time in their development (Bishop 2008). Policy emerging from both countries clearly articulates the importance of holding at the centre of their newly developing middle years philosophies the early adolescent learner, their unique developmental needs and the ever-changing world they face (Barratt 1998; Chadbourne 2002; Hill and Russell 1999). New Zealand has invested considerable resources into reform initiatives for their middle level learning environments. The question that has guided their research has been focused on how schools and systems are responding to the unique developmental needs of learners, ages 10–15. Longitudinal research studies from both New Zealand and Australia indicate that a middle years approach simply “works.” Outcomes are bet-

  Setting the Stage 

  63

ter, student engagement with their learning is greater, teacher satisfaction is higher and resources within and across schools are better utilized (O’Sullivan 2005). Haigh (2004) writes, “Studies have overwhelmingly concluded that middle schools do an effective job… The notorious Year 7 dip tends not to happen” (p. 2). Departments of Education across all Australian states and territories and in New Zealand have identified the central need for change and support of reform in the middle years of schooling and have committed to continued research, development and funding in support of their early adolescent learners. In 2006, the Canadian Education Association (CEA), in response to growing concern about the lived educational experiences of adolescents in Canada, identified the adolescent learner as a core priority. The CEA’s multi-year, What did you do in school today? research and development initiative began shortly thereafter in 2007. Douglas Willms, Sharon Friesen, Penny Melton and other researchers involved in the What did you do in school today? (2009) research study hypothesized that transformation of the educational experiences and increased achievement for all adolescents in Canada was possible. Carole Olsen, then president of the CEA, explained that: From CEA’s standpoint, the process of transforming schools to improve learning will require a significant shift in our current designs for learning, the beliefs we hold about the purpose of schooling, and the knowledge we draw on to understand adolescent learning and development. (Willms et al. 2009, p. 1)

The intent behind What did you do in school today? was twofold: one, explore how student engagement and effective teaching practices impacted adolescent achievement; and two, begin a dialogue with Canadian educators about new ideas that would enhance the learning experiences of adolescents in classrooms and schools. While significant findings and important insight pertaining to adolescent engagement in their learning have come from the study, it is disappointing (from the perspective of a Canadian educator) that as a country Canada has not taken the very clear message conveyed through the voices of our nation’s adolescent learners and acted upon it in some greater way. Any research

64 

B. Yee et al.

or any source of data should always be looked at with a “so what and now what” lens. And so there would seem to be an important “now what” piece that has been missed. In Canada, where no national governing system exists for education, the province of Manitoba should be applauded for the strategy they have developed to transform the middle years of learning and engage adolescents in their learning. Perhaps some of this is in response to the initial What did you do in school today? findings. Beginning in 2007, the Manitoba department of education held a series of open forums and interviews with school division administrators, school leaders and other stakeholders in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the current state of middle years teaching and learning in the province. Information gathered suggested the typical curriculum and assessment documents, often the hallmark of system support departments, did not adequately address the needs of those working in the province’s middle level learning environments. Educators in Manitoba acknowledged the unique learning needs of their early adolescent learners and pressed the Department of Education for further guidance, support and resources to ensure they could more effectively meet the learning needs of their students. In response, Manitoba Education identified five key action areas they committed to support and resource in order to transform middle level learning environments in their province. These five action areas are as follows: • Understanding of and commitment to young adolescents: Effective middle years education is provided by educators who have a deep understanding of young adolescents and are committed to meeting the needs of their middle years learners. • Responsive teaching and learning experiences: Effective middle years schools provide young adolescents with responsive teaching and learning experiences. • Learning relationships: Effective middle years education provides strong learning relationships for young adolescents. • Student voice and choice: Effective middle years education offers students opportunities for voice, choice and responsibility. • Community involvement: Effective middle years schools have strong community involvement. (Manitoba Education 2010, pp. 3–6)

  Setting the Stage 

  65

At a provincial level, Manitoba continues to resource and support the strategies put forward in what has now become part of provincial legislation for education.

The Middle Years Movement: “A History Lesson” A side note that some may find interesting, in the form of a brief history lesson. The middle years movement had its origins in the United States (US) in the early 1960s after the move towards creating a junior high school between primary and high school failed to adequately meet the needs of students of this age group. Thus it is perhaps that most organizations, people and research that have been influential in setting the agenda, focusing the debate and providing direction for practitioners and policy makers alike with respect to middle level education around the world originated in the US.  The Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) is the hallmark organization for middle level education around the world. Turning Points and Turning Points 2000 are credited by many for re-energizing the need for middle level reform after the middle years movement waned in the early 80s. Since these two hallmark position papers were released by the Centre for Collaborative Education, the sponsoring group, Carnegie Corporation, has continued to support m ­ iddle years transformation with the subsequent release of numerous Turning Points publications related to curriculum development, understanding the early adolescent learner, assessment, as well as collaborative and shared leadership for middle schools (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development 1989; Centre for Collaborative Education 2003). Breaking Ranks in the Middle (2006) is a position paper published by the National Association for Secondary School Principals in the US that focuses on taking the theoretical into more practical realms. Research emerging from these three organizations has shaped and influenced (up until now at least) what is thought to be next practice for teaching and learning in the middle years. The National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform aims to promote middle level transformation by highlighting and honouring the work of exceptional middle schools in the US each year (1999). Rick Wormeli (2006, 2011) has been a champion and advocate for learning

66 

B. Yee et al.

environments which meet the needs of early adolescent learners for over three decades. The voices of these organizations and people will continue to be important as worldwide, education systems work to understand how to best meet the needs of their adolescent learners. In the face of persistent criticism facing the American education system one would question the current status of the middle years movement in the US and wonder what the next steps may be for some of these influential organizations. As we move into the next chapters, specific regional practices in response to the sections that formed the basis of this chapter (the adolescent, instructional leader, teacher, contextual, community and systemic perspective on the interaction between the adolescent developmental period and adolescent engagement in their learning) will be highlighted. What will become apparent is how success for adolescent learners in their schooling experience is dependent upon the intentional creation of conditions and the careful matching of resources, leaders and teachers to support their unique learning needs.

References American Psychological Association. (2002). Developing adolescents: A reference for professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Anthony, J. (1969). The reaction of adults to adolescents and their behaviour. In G.  Caplan & S.  Lebovici (Eds.), Adolescence: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 54–78). New York: Basic Books. Association for Middle Level Education. (2010). This we believe: Keys to the education of young adolescents. Westerville: Association for Middle Level Education. Barratt, R. (1998). Shaping middle schooling in Australia: A report of the National Middle Schooling Project. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association. Benson, P., Scales, P., Hamilton, S., & Sesma, A., Jr. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory, research, and applications. In R.  M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, volume 1, theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 895–933). Hoboken: Wiley. Bishop, P. (2008). Middle years teacher credentialing in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Fellowships in Public Policy.

  Setting the Stage 

  67

Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, L. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1–39). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Brody, J.  (2014). Hard lessons in sleep for teenagers. The New  York Times. Retrieved from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/sleep-for-teenagers/?_r=0 Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Boston: Centre for Collaborative Education. Centre for Collaborative Education. (2003). Turning points: At the turning point, the young adolescent learner. Boston: Centre for Collaborative Education. Chadbourne, R. (2002). A case for separate middle years teacher education programs. Middle Schooling Association of Western Australia Journal, 2, 3–13. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New York: Harper Collins. Cooper, D. (2011). Redefining fair: How to plan, assess, and grade for excellence in mixed-ability classrooms. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press. deBono, E. (2010). Six thinking hats. London: Penguin. Dement, W. (2000). The promise of sleep. New York: Dell. Dunleavy, J., Willms, J. D., Milton, P., & Friesen, S. (2012). The relationship between student engagement and academic outcomes. What did you do in School Today? Research series report number one. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Dweck, C. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 34–39. Dweck, C. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. Dweck, C. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16–20. Friedman, R. (2014, June 28). Why teenagers act crazy. The New York Times. Sunday Review. Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching effectiveness: A framework and rubric. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Garden Valley School Division. (2010). Middle school philosophy position paper. Winkler: Garden Valley School Division. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New  York: Basic Books.

68 

B. Yee et al.

Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ (10th ed.). New York: Bantam. Haigh, G. (2004). A golden age that could disappear. Times Education Supplement. Retrieved from http://www.middleschools.org.uk/news. php?NewsId=3 Hall, G.  S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to psychology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education. New York: Appleton. Hart, L. (1983). Human brain and human learning. Harlow: Longman Publishing Group. Hill, P., & Russell, V. (1999). Systemic, whole-school reform of the middle years of schooling. University of Melbourne/Centre for Applied Educational Research. Melbourne, Australia. Klinger, D., Mills, A., & Chapman, A. (2011). The health of Canada’s young people-a mental health focus: School. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada. Kohn, A. (2014, September 9). Dispelling the myth of deferred gratification: What waiting for a marshmallow doesn’t prove. Education Week. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/09/09/03kohn.h34.html Lerner, R.  M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. White paper prepared for National Research Council, Washington, DC. Lowry, D., & Kalil, C. (2001). Follow your true colors to the work you love. Orange County: True Colors Publishing. Manitoba Education. (2010). Engaging middle years students in learning: Transforming middle years education in Manitoba. Winnipeg: Manitoba Education School Programs Division. McCreary Centre Society. (2009). A picture of health: Results of the 2008 British Columbia adolescent health survey. Vancouver: McCreary Centre Society. McNeely, C., & Blanchard, J. (2009). The teen years explained. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Merriam-Webster. (2014). Definition: Synergist. Retrieved from http://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synergist National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2006). Breaking ranks in the middle: Strategies for leading middle level reform. Reston: Secondary School Principals. National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (1999). Vision statement. Newton: Education Development Center. National Institute of Mental Health. (2011). The teen brain: Still under construction. Bethesda: Scientific Writing, Press and Dissemination Branch.

  Setting the Stage 

  69

National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Westerville: National Middle School Association. Newton, I. (1686). Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London. O’Sullivan, S. (2005). Making the most of the middle years: A report on the community consultation for the principles and policy framework for the middle years of education. Northern Territory: Northern Territory Department of Education. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2013, May 13). Setting the record straight on ability grouping. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2013/05/20/fp_olszewski.html Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (2008). How to change 5000 schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Robinson, V. (2014, May). Keynote address. Calgary ideas conference. Calgary: Werklund School of Education. Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 423–459. Rumble, P., & Aspland, T. (2009, October 3). In search of the middle school teacher: What differentiates the middle school teacher from other teachers. Conference presentation, Australian Curriculum Studies Association, Canberra. Siegel, J., & Shaughnessy, M. (1994). An interview with Howard Gardner: Educating for understanding. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(7), 563–566. Steinberg, L. (2012, Spring). Should the science of adolescent brain development inform public policy? Issues in Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://issues.org/28-3/steinberg/ Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J.  (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press. Strahan, D., L’Esperance, M., & Van Hoose, J.  (2009). Promoting harmony: Young adolescent development and classroom practices. Westerville: Association for Middle Level Education. Tomlinson, C. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria: ASCD Publishing. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press.

70 

B. Yee et al.

Willms, J. D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement: First National Report. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Wormeli, R. (2006). Differentiating for tweens. Educational Leadership, 63(7), 14–19. Wormeli, R. (2011). Movin’ up to the middle. Educational Leadership, 68(7), 48–53. Yee, B. (2015). Leading, teaching and learning “in the middle”: An international case study narrative examining the leadership dimensions, instructional practices and contextual philosophies that have transformed teaching and learning in the middle years. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from HeiDOK.

3 Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada

The Canadian Context Describing the system of education in Canada is akin to trying to describe the nation itself—complex. It is perhaps difficult to pinpoint defining features, the country being viewed by many on the world stage as strong and stable; yet on home soil, many Canadians struggle to articulate where the essence of their country lies. [I am one of those Canadians. That being said, I feel very fortunate to live, work and raise my children in Canada. I look out my window and see the Rocky Mountains; I breathe clean air and have clean water to drink any time I turn my faucets on; my children walk to school in what I feel is as safe a neighbourhood as you will find in a large Canadian city; and, I am fortunate to have a good paying job doing something I love that also provides for my family.] But— and perhaps the one “thing” many Canadians struggle with most is that when questioned they would be hard pressed to explain what “the Canadian experience” is. In large part this is due to the fact that being Canadian is far from a singular experience shared by all. Canada is such a diverse country, welcoming with opens arms people from all nations as though they were our own. Canadians come in all shapes and sizes, © The Author(s) 2018 B. Yee et al., Engaging Adolescent Learners, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52602-7_3

71

72 

B. Yee et al.

colours and voices, and for the most part, the people tend to make “it” work. Describing the Canadian education system is in many ways the same—education in Canada is not a singular entity. It is complex and diverse, dynamic—yet in some cases so very slow to change, to reflect the world our students are growing up in. There are ten provinces and three territories in Canada, and each is responsible for all levels of education and education policy in the individual province or territory, as afforded by the Canadian Constitution. Ministers of Education from the 13 provinces and territories (some with no background in education policy making other than their own schooling experience) form The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). This group meets to discuss policy and other issues facing the education system in each province and what impact these may have at a federal level. There is no indication this group aims to align the provincial and territorial education systems across Canada. There have been times, however, when the Ministers have identified common issues of concern and agreed to make these a priority for education in each province and territory, thereby elevating the specific issue to a nation-wide one. The most recent example is mathematics. Western Canadian provinces and the northern territories agreed to collaborate on common curriculum development and went so far as to develop a common resource to support mathematics teaching and learning (CMEC 2013). Unfortunately, other than the development and dissemination of one mathematics resource, along with limited use by teachers, little else came of the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for K-9 Mathematics (2006) and the call for additional collaboration among this group. In the province of Alberta, there have been five different Premiers, or heads of government, in five years; with each new leader came a shift in direction of education in the province. Funding for education in Canada is determined by each individual province, although indirectly overseen at the federal level, and in today’s uncertain economic times, oil prices and particular inclinations of government leaders tend to impact whether new schools get built or the state of labour peace with teachers. Education funding issues are rarely about teacher salaries alone, but extend to concerns over class size, adequate provisions for resources, workload issues and professional learning opportunities. This

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  73

unpredictability in e­ ducation funding is one of the biggest concerns facing educators today, and led to a five-week teacher strike in the province of British Columbia, ending the previous school year two weeks early and delaying the start of the 2014–2015 school year by three weeks, a total of 27 instructional days lost (British Columbia Teachers’ Federation 2014). Each province has a Ministry or Department of Education, which is responsible for curriculum development, teacher certification and education policy. There are no standards or timelines for the revision of provincial curriculum; truth be told, some students are being taught the same curriculum as their parents had 25 years earlier. Similarly, reviews of and often much needed updates to provincial education policy tend to carry the same timelines as election campaigns. The structure of the curriculum differs in each province and territory. In Alberta, curriculum documents are mandated at the provincial level to be enacted by teachers. In theory, there is little room for teachers to shape the mandated curriculum to the interests of their students or their own particular teaching strengths; although in practice, there is great variability in the way the curriculum is delivered in the classroom of each teacher. The number of hours of instruction also varies by province. In Alberta, the number of hours of instruction per year is 950 for students in Grades 1 through 9 and 1000 hours in Grades 10 through 12. There are guidelines for the minimum number of instructional minutes in core subject areas in Grades 1 through 9; again, how this is carried out in individual schools varies greatly. In Alberta high schools, course credits equate to instructional hours; one credit equals 25 hours of instruction, and most core courses consist of three or five credits. By contrast, in the province of Ontario, guidelines come in the form of the minimum number of instructional minutes per week, which is 1500 for Grades 1 through 8. And in the Northwest Territories, compulsory instructional time is 997 hours per year for students in Grades 1 through 6 and no less than 1045 hours per year for students in Grades 7 through 12. Alberta’s newest Ministerial Order on the provisions for basic education in the province was signed in 2013. The previous Ministerial Order carried the date of 1998, there was another dated 1997, and before that 1994. As with revisions to provincial curriculum, there are no guidelines

74 

B. Yee et al.

or timelines for revisions to provincial education legislation. The p ­ rovinces and territories determine grade structure, and the age and grade in which school begins and ends; whereas grade configuration of schools is determined by local school boards. In many instances these configurations have little to do with any particular pedagogical philosophy and more to do with external factors like budgets and facility usage. The notion of a school board and school trustees varies as much within a province as it does amongst provinces and territories. In the school board where I am employed, seven elected members of the public serve as school trustees. Their role is to represent the interests of the public in the education system; these seven individuals are given a considerable amount of power and authority with which to act. As with the provincial Ministers of Education, many trustees’ only experience in education policy development has come in the form of their own schooling experience or their role as parents of children attending school. Teacher training is another element that varies as much within a province as it does between provinces. In Alberta, there are four major post-­ secondary institutions that offer teacher training programmes. As a school-based instructional leader, I can easily distinguish which institution my teachers have been trained in by the particular pedagogical stance they hold. My perspective is that philosophically, the teacher training programmes in the province are very different, resulting in tremendous diversity in the skills and background new teachers bring to their classrooms. While it is often easiest to identify challenges and uncertainties in things we hold near and dear to our hearts, there are many strengths of education in Canada that are worth noting. On a very basic level, public education in Canada is free. The number of both private and charter schools is on the rise, attracting parents with lower class sizes, uniforms and classroom environments often similar to what they experienced as children—choice of school setting is enticing for many Canadian parents. Education in Canada is compulsory until the age of 16 in ten of the 13 provinces/territories, and until the age of 18  in the other three. According to the most recent 2014 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Country Profiles, there is much to celebrate about education in Canada: the school enrolment rate

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  75

for children age 5–14 is 99 per cent; 92 per cent of Canadians age 25–34 attained upper secondary education; 57 per cent of Canadians age 25–34 attained a tertiary education degree; expenditure per pupil on tertiary education is one of the highest among OECD countries; beginning teachers’ salaries in Canada are similar to the OECD average (however, Canadian teachers reach the top of the salary grid in 11 years, versus the OECD average of 24 ); and, compulsory instructional time for students in both primary and secondary education is above the OECD average (although some might question if this statistic should be seen as positive factor) (OECD 2014). Results from the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests, in which 21,000 Canadian 15-year-olds participated, indicated Canadian students ranked tenth in performance on measures of overall mathematical literacy (CMEC 2013). The gap between Canada’s highest achieving and lowest achieving students in PISA mathematical results is high, pointing towards inequity in educational outcomes. In measures of reading literacy and scientific literacy, as defined by the OECD, Canadian students performed well above the OECD average, being outperformed by only five countries in reading literacy and seven countries in scientific literacy (CMEC 2013). The gap between the highest and lowest decile scores is on par with the OECD average, indicating greater equity of learning outcomes in reading and science. While Canadian students continue to perform well on the PISA tests, there has been a downward trend since 2000, which has created discomfort among provincial education leaders (CMEC 2013; OECD 2014a). Standardized testing at the provincial and territorial level is a highly debated topic and very much dependent on the government in power. [I grew up in the province of Saskatchewan, where my high school teachers were trusted to develop and mark our final exams.] These exams were valued in the same way towards university entrance requirements as provinces with standardized tests, marked by anonymous educators paid to do so. As described above, when Canada is depicted in international measures of achievement such as PISA or Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), the country as a whole tends to do quite well. However, when these scores are broken down by province

76 

B. Yee et al.

and territory, large variations often emerge in how these 15-year-olds, sampled from various schools across the provinces and territories have performed on the test. So, the question Canadians must ask themselves is if this one test, administered every three years, is a true indicator of the quality of provincial education systems, or whether it is simply another standardized test for educators, the public and politicians to either value or criticize. Further, while on the surface Canadian results in international tests of achievement would lead one to believe that both students and education systems are faring well, two notable cross-Canada measures portray somewhat different images. The Canadian Education Association’s (CEA) What did you do in school today? study has, since 2007, surveyed over 63,000 Canadian adolescents and found that although 69 per cent of students report being engaged in school, as measured through indicators such as attendance, homework behaviours, positive relationships with friends and participation in extracurricular activities, only 37 per cent reported being engaged in learning. The concept of being engaged in learning is measured by reported levels of effort, interest and motivation and perceived quality of instruction (Dunleavy et al. 2012). What does this tell us? I believe there are many ways in which we can interpret this data, but as with any data, I always feel the most important questions come in the form of “so what and now what?” (How can we look at this data as one piece of an entire data story? In which context should this data be viewed? How can we use this data to determine next steps?) This data appears to indicate that many Canadian adolescents do well in school, despite not being intellectually engaged in their learning. Perhaps even more perplexing is that of the three indicators reported to have the most significant impact on academic outcomes, only one—effort— relates back to intellectual engagement. Attendance and homework behaviours are the other two indicators found to have a positive effect on academic outcomes in the three core areas of mathematics, language arts and science. Dunleavy et al. (2012) explained, “Our purpose in this study was to illuminate the relationship between intellectual engagement and academic outcomes. Yet, in our study, students do well on school-based assessments without being intellectually engaged” (p.  6). This research finding has led to more questions than answers, calling into question

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  77

c­ urrent assessment practices and whether the learning tasks students are being given require them to be intellectually engaged: The results of our national sample of What did you do in school today? schools may indicate that traditional assessment practices are still prevalent, in that the three measures correlated with higher marks – attendance, effort and homework completion – are the very things that current research and policy say should matter least in determinations of academic success. Although these behaviours and dispositions contribute to creating the conditions for learning, they do not tell us what students know and can do as a result of learning. (Dunleavy et al. 2012, p. 7)

The “now what” for this important contribution to Canadian educational research comes in the form of a question, “Where does this lead us?” (Dunleavy et al. 2012, p. 8). Dunleavy and his colleagues (2012) point towards current beliefs about assessment and assessment practices as the first places educators need to turn their attention to: The concept of intellectual engagement resonates strongly with many educators because it represents the kinds of learning that they aspire to for all students. Yet often the most basic of structures in schools  – in this case marking practices and definitions of academic success – can work against the emergence of practices that would support higher levels of achievement and engagement among larger numbers of students. Existing models of assessment rarely measure these higher types of learning or the competencies they foster. (p. 8)

What did you do in school today? brought attention to the schooling experiences of Canadian adolescents and highlighted the importance of intellectual engagement. This was a key development in the aim to improve education outcomes for all Canadian adolescents. It is anticipated that the next phase of this cross-Canada study will continue to shed light on how to best integrate what research has revealed about adolescent development as well as what is known about effective instructional practices in order to create a coherent education strategy that will meet the needs of Canadian students in an ever-changing world.

78 

B. Yee et al.

In Canada, the National Alliance for Children and Youth is currently working to establish recommendations and policy to support Canadian early adolescents. Although the Alliance acknowledges the importance and many positive influences of the provincial education systems, it warns Canadians that the nation’s early adolescents are at risk for experiencing a variety of health and physical problems (Hanvey 2006). Louise Hanvey, author of the Alliance’s latest report on Canadian children of the middle years, indicates that the middle years of child development are as critical determinants of well-being in adulthood as the first years of life: “These children are laying down the building blocks for future well-being and participation in society” (Hanvey 2006, p.  2). Through internally created measures, it was found that statistics are on this rise for Canadian adolescents exhibiting indicators of diabetes, obesity, aggressive behaviour and other physical and mental health issues (Hanvey 2006). Using the index of vulnerability as put forth in the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, 29 per cent of Canadian early adolescents are believed to be vulnerable to all factors that challenge their well-being. Both school and family are believed to be mitigating influences in this vulnerability; it is for this reason that the Alliance calls on Canadian schools to support the growth and development of early adolescents as learners and individuals with a commitment like never before (Hanvey 2006). While seemingly fragmented in so many ways, there are many examples within the education system in Canada where individual schools and lone practitioners have heeded the call for a renewed commitment to the adolescent learner and the learning environments in which their formal schooling takes place. What follows are “images of practice” that illustrate how one select Canadian school, its teachers and instructional leaders are in many instances challenging traditional ways of thinking, knowing and doing to ensure the unique learning needs of adolescents are being met. There are many examples I could have drawn upon to highlight not only innovative practice but also much overdue philosophical shifts happening with regard to the ways schools approach working with their adolescent learners. I am fortunate that my research and experience has given me many sources of inspiration to draw from. I considered sharing images

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  79

of practice from several different schools across the vast country which I call home; however, the words of Alfie Kohn, “In a context, for a purpose” (Kohn 2015) often echo in my head when I am working with the students, teachers and parents of my school. So, I felt it best to share several different images of practice from one school, my own, to which I believe I can most “expertly” speak to and provide the reader with the necessary context behind the decisions that have been made in the best interest of our adolescent learners. The “why” behind what can be termed a “cultural shift” at this school is important. It is important to know where we have come from to understand what we are moving towards. It is my hope that the reader draws inspiration from this school, the students and the teachers; I know I do, each and every day.

Images of Practice: One School Three Lessons The school sits high upon a hill, a most wondrous vantage point, from which the Rocky Mountains can be seen to the west and an expansive view is offered of the cityscape to the south and east. I do not know if the students and teachers realize the kind of learning opportunities that present themselves by what some term the “third teacher”, the lessons that can be drawn from the physical learning space in which you find yourself. Just under 1000 students, ages 10–15 enter through the doors of the building, five days a week. The buzz begins shortly before the first bell rings and is still present when I leave the building, hours after the last student has gone home. Such is the draw and the appeal of the middle school to me. The energy of such a place of learning is undeniable and it is a different energy than one finds in an elementary or a high school. The school will celebrate its tenth year in operation this year, which is significant for many reasons. Much has changed in the world in the past decade and it was important that the school ask itself what has changed in the context of our school in that time. Certainly the demographics of the community have shifted to include a more diverse population. Vast societal changes cannot be underestimated for their impact on our students and the ways in which they approach and value learning opportunities.

80 

B. Yee et al.

A significant turnover in administrative teams had left the teachers wondering what was coming next and how long it would last. Five different administrative teams in ten years of operation never has a positive impact on any school, especially not a large school of 62 teachers, filled with students facing such a critical development stage. Sadly, this image of practice is far too common in many Canadian school systems and one that needs to be changed. School principals need to commit to a school, the students, teachers and school community. To put a year number on this is difficult; however, in many education systems overseas it is not uncommon for a principal to devote their entire career to one school, beginning first as a teacher. To be a true instructional leader of a school necessitates that one work tirelessly to build relational trust and credibility with not only teachers, but also students and the school community. To truly know a school, to understand the community, the context and culture, to identify essential process and philosophical shifts needed comes only with time. And so it was here that the real cultural shift began, with the teachers. Teachers first had to identify what their beliefs about high quality teaching and learning were grounded in. (More to come about the specific process that was used in the first image of practice.) It was important that as a staff we become comfortable with creating a professional culture of inquiry within our school, where asking questions of our colleagues and ourselves was not only acceptable, but sought out. Friesen (2009), in her Teaching Effectiveness Framework, identifies principle 5 as “Teachers improve their practice in the company of their peers” (p. 6). To be better for our students has its roots is the staff desiring to be better first for each other. Working in isolation behind closed doors, with professional conversations limited to small talk in the hallways and teachers’ lounge does nothing to challenge the status quo. It becomes easy for teachers to live in a land of “always and only perfect” rather than engaging in the type of dialogue that leads to real professional growth. Before going into detail about specific images of practice, I will include a short passage from one of the students at the school, which clearly articulates the “why” behind the supporting conditions that have been created for teaching and learning at the school. In the words of our adolescent learners, you will come to better understand the complex nature

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  81

of the schooling experience of an adolescent as we approach the two-­ decade mark of the twenty-first century. One school. Many lessons. More growth on the horizon.

Building a Learning Community: The Big Rocks I want to feel like this is my school, that I have a part in making this school a great one. After all, I will have spent five years here, by the time I am done middle school. We do surveys all the time, but now kids just think they are a waste of time because nothing ever changes. Why do they ask for our opinion when they don’t really use it? Who is it for? Who is it helping? I’m not so sure the teachers really know what it is like to be a teenager in 2016. I’m not sure they think very highly of us. I think they only think we want to post things on social media and hang out with our friends. Then again I don’t think we know our teachers either which is weird because we spend so much time together.

Making Data Meaningful for Teachers  Schools in this particular system have available to them a huge amount of data in the form of surveys, standardized test scores and the results of an extensive community engagement process. The challenge has always been what to do with this inordinate amount of information available. What do you pay attention to? We know that not everything that is of value can be measured, nor can everything that is measured be considered of value. With what lens do you examine the available data? What data is missing? All of this leads to the creation of a data story for a school, from which sound decisions regarding how to best resource your school and support the teaching and learning needs of teachers and students can be made. “Data” has become a four-letter word for many educators. Under the pressures of accountability and to demonstrate improved achievement results, teachers and instructional leaders have been inundated with increasingly complex (and sometimes questionable) ways to demonstrate the effectiveness of school-based practices. With good intentions, school-­ based instructional leaders have often made the decision to keep the results of these accountability measures from their staff. Some cite

82 

B. Yee et al.

“­ protective” reasons, not wanting their teachers to become distracted or discouraged by results that often only reflect a snapshot in time. Other instructional leaders view it as part of their job to act as a filter, ensuring teachers receive only what they deem necessary information so as to not distract from their most important work. Several problems arise with this approach. One, when relevant available data overwhelmingly indicates a particular area of practice or school operation needs to be examined, teachers do not have the necessary context to understand the ever important “why.” Often teachers are left feeling as though they can never quite get their feet under them; one change in direction after another leaves them questioning not only the vision and mission for their school, but also their own professional practice. We cannot underestimate the importance of including teachers as partners in any change initiative (large or small) that takes place at a school. Do not mistake this for a call for consensus when decisions must be made. However, presenting teachers with all available information that has informed a particular decision goes a long way to ensuring cohesion among staff. Cohesion is the important aspect, which will not always indicate consensus. Teachers need time to process information. They need the opportunity to formulate and ask questions. They need support to make necessary adjustments to their daily practice. They need to believe the change process was something they were part of. These are all important steps towards developing teacher commitment and buy-in; this starts with ensuring that teachers have an understanding of their school’s data story and what the next right steps are for their students and themselves as practitioners. Secondly, it cannot be denied that teachers are on the front lines of our school systems, deeply embedded with students and their families each and every day. Teachers are the best ambassadors schools have to help students and their families understand what is happening daily in their classrooms and why. Teachers need to not only be looked at as disseminators of information, but also primary advocates for the current educational philosophy and practice in today’s societal context. This can only be effective if teachers have access to and understanding of the available data that has contributed to school-based transformation. There are three aspects to this particular case that have contributed to a school-wide transformation in the way teaching and learning during

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  83

the crucial adolescent developmental period is approached. The first is how teachers were engaged in a critical examination of available data to determine critical areas of focus for the school year. The second was ensuring not only that student voice was at the centre of all decisions that impacted their learning, but also soliciting involvement from all students in creating a learning environment that met their needs. The last critical piece linked teacher and student beliefs about important aspects of the schooling experience in what proved to be a wonderfully transformative and healing process. At the beginning of each school year, schools are asked by the district to submit what is called a School Development and Renewal Plan. There are three key elements of this plan, which is intended to be a living, breathing and very much actionable document that reflects the current teaching and learning needs of the school: 1. Theory of action – is written in the form of an “if/then” statement. Essentially the theory of action indicates if the teachers do “this” (“this” is determined by the school based on the available data story) then student achievement will increase. 2. Instructional goal – what teachers will do to positively impact student achievement and engagement in their learning. 3. Achievement goal – the impact of the instructional goal on student learning. Previously this plan had been something created by a select number of teachers, leaving the remaining staff with little awareness of the school development plan and certainly no investment or ownership in something that is supposed to be highly reflective of the collective work of all teachers. It was obvious that a new direction for this school was needed, grounded first in an understanding of the adolescent learner and how to create a learning environment that would meet their unique learning needs. On this occasion, all teachers were presented with relevant data highlighting the needs of their adolescent learners. Tell Them From Me is a survey all schools within the school district have access to in order to administer it to their students. It looks at how numerous indicators

84 

B. Yee et al.

impact the adolescent schooling experience, including social-emotional well-being, participation in extra and co-curricular activities, and drivers of academic success. This survey yields invaluable information that is unfortunately often not followed-up upon. The “so-what and now-what” is the critical next step, which helps teachers make sense of what the data indicates are the next right steps for them and their students. Another example of why teachers tend to cringe when asked to administer yet another survey to the students is that there is often not the kind of debriefing and unpacking of the data needed to better inform school operation and teacher practice. The two data pulls from the survey yielded over 1700 student responses. This data was categorized by the school leadership team and then ­presented to the teachers. They were nothing short of stunned. According to the latest standardized test results, the school is a high performing school. It is easy for schools, school districts and national education systems as a whole to hide behind positive standardized test scores. What those tests do not reveal is a lot actually; they do not necessarily reflect how engaged students are in their learning, how well students are developing on a social-emotional level and certainly not the relevance of student learning to the current societal context they are growing up in. Test scores at the school continued to be high, so it was never deemed necessary to ask any further questions about the needs of our adolescent students being served well in their school. The results of the Tell Them From Me survey should not necessarily have been surprising. Our adolescent learners were sending us a very clear message and as a staff, we were compelled to act. We spent much time together unpacking the survey results. Some of it was not easy for our teachers to read; yet it was a necessary exercise so we could grow together as a staff to be better for our students. Our school development plan theory of action very much reflected what our students told us in the survey. Developed collaboratively with over 60 staff members, our theory of action evolved into the following: If teachers share a common understanding of the adolescent learner and what constitutes a developmentally responsive, intellectually engaging middle years learning environment, along with common practices for the design and assessment of authentic learning opportunities true to the disciplines students are studying…then students will engage with the curriculum through

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  85

thought and action, whereby they develop an orientation to create original work, solve complex problems, collaborate with others and develop self-efficacy as individuals and as knowledge-builders, which is the foundation of intellectual engagement. This statement became our touchstone—everything we did was measured against it. It guided the work of teachers within their classrooms. All professional learning supported teacher development in areas identified as necessary to be able to effectively carry out the theory of action. This common focus among a very large staff served us well in ensuring we were all moving in the same direction with the same intention of serving our adolescent learners well. The theory of action became our filter for all decisions that were made as we were constantly striving to ensure our learning environment was effectively meeting the needs of our students. Making Data Meaningful for Students  After bringing our teachers into the conversation on what the data was telling us about the student experience in our school, the next group who needed to be part of this important discussion were the students themselves. It is fascinating that student opinion is sought for so many purposes of accountability, yet the results are so very infrequently shared with them. This was apparent when I made the point of going into each of the 31 homeroom classes in my school to discuss the results of the surveys. Some students looked at me, red in the face, and asked, “Do you really read those things?” To which I responded, “every single answer.” Student embarrassment came from the fact that some students, and understandably so in many cases, had drawn inappropriate images on the survey, or included some unfiltered responses, thinking that no one would pay attention to what they wrote. I shared with them the importance I placed on their opinion and their voice in their learning. It made me feel sad that so many students felt resigned to the fact that school is something they simply have to get through for 180 days a year, that they feel no excitement in their learning. I pushed the students to think further. It is one thing to identify what is wrong, but the real measure is providing solutions for what can be done to make things better. If there is no desire to be part of the solution, then you are simply a complainer.

86 

B. Yee et al.

What followed were discussions that could have gone on all day about how to improve the adolescent schooling experience. [No, we cannot purchase a water slide for the school, but yes, it is completely reasonable to ask that the learning commons remain open during lunch for students to create peer study groups.] When students feel their voices are valued and considered as decisions impacting their learning are made, students began to take ownership of their learning, ownership of their school community, and then an amazing thing begins to happen: students become active participants in their learning. They became strong advocates for themselves and for their peers. At this time, we made the decision to form a student advisory council who would meet monthly with the principal and assistant principal to share the voices of their peers. These meetings provided considerable insight into both the climate and culture of the school, from an adolescent’s perspective. When we could we acted on what the students had to say. When we could not, we helped them understand why we could not, be it at that time, or ever. Students began to see their teachers and the school administration as partners in their learning, rather than adversaries there with the sole purpose of spoiling their fun. One of the most powerful things to emerge from the student advisory council was the student version on something the city’s mayor had challenged citizens with, “3 things for your city.” The concept is simple, but significant; identify three things you can do, big or small, which will make a difference in the lives of others. Our students believed that it was everyone’s responsibility to make their school great. They identified areas of daily school life that needed to be attended to. These things ranged from ensuring the school’s laptops were put away properly so they would be charged and ready for the next student to use, to ensuring there were enough recycle bins in the hallways that would promote good recycling habits for students. The student advisory council encouraged each student in the school to identify three things they could do to make the school a better place. And the amazing thing was that the students did, not just the council members, but the entire student body, all 958 of them. The students viewed the school as theirs to take responsibility for, and for the most part this was driven solely by the students, with the adults in the building serving to support and encourage and whenever possible ensure doors were opened for them.

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  87

Teachers and Students as One Learning Community  The last piece to bring all of this together was to help both teachers and students see that they essentially wanted the same things; to help them understand that in many ways they were not as different as they might believe. This is how we accomplished it. Simon Sinek, in a 2009 TEDx Puget Sound talk, introduced a significant, yet simple concept that we believed was missing, or had been misplaced, in our current school culture. Quite simply it was beginning with the “why.” In his 2009 “talk” he describes what he terms The Golden Circle and how most organizations begin with the “what”— what you do or what your product is. There is no soul in that, no passion and no greater purpose to the work that we devote ourselves to each and every day. When you begin with your why and have piercing clarity around that why, then there is a reason why you and your organization exist. Following this line of thought, comedian Michael Jr. (2015), shared a video entitled “Amazing Grace” on his Break Time Comedy YouTube channel. In this video he asks a school music director to sing Amazing Grace. The first request came with no surrounding setting or context. The second time he was asked to sing the song, Michael Jr. provided a complete context around “why” the man would be singing the song. Undeniably, the music director had an amazing voice, however, his whole demeanour and the way in which he delivered the song was noticeably different the second time he performed it. There was emotion and an intent behind the words he sang. And that is precisely Micheal Jr.’s message, “When you know your ‘why’ then your ‘what’ has more impact, because you’re working towards your purpose” (2015, video transcript). Showing the staff these two videos helped them understand the importance of collectively articulating our why as a school. Any time you bring a group of teachers together, be it a large staff like this of 60 or a smaller group, each teacher brings with them an entire history of experiences and expertise that has shaped their beliefs about education and the work of a teacher. It is important to recognize the very individual and personal nature of the teaching profession, yet it is also critical that there are shared beliefs that drive the collective work. These two videos set the tone for what was asked next of this group of teachers. The teachers were first asked to identify their “why”—why they get up each morning to come to

88 

B. Yee et al.

work, their purpose. (This was prefaced with a rather bold comment that their answer could not involve the phrase “to increase student achievement results.” And while it is understood that much of our accountability as a profession comes from standardized test results, this cannot be the reason why we come to work every day.) Answers included their love for children, the desire to contribute to development of a healthy society, to ensure each child had one adult in their lives who believes in them and the hope of helping their students see all they are capable of. Next, ­teachers were asked to articulate the “how”—how they make the why happen. Here, teachers identified things such as personalizing the learning experience for each student, ensuring the learning tasks they give students are authentic and worthy of their time, creating a classroom of daily inquiry, fostering positive relationships with students and developing the whole child. Lastly, teachers determined the “what”—what they do to ensure the why happens. School processes, structures and philosophies were at the root of teacher beliefs in this category, focusing on the conditions we create for teaching and learning. The school pyramid of intervention, the timetable, the progressive discipline policy, the use of technology to support teaching and learning, the philosophy of a learning commons versus a school library and the students and teacher advisory councils were some of the elements teachers identified as being essential in supporting our why and what. Using rocks (yes, rocks, large and small, see the included images), teachers were asked to write their “why(s)” on the big rocks. The “how(s)” were written on smaller rocks. The sand symbolized the “what(s),” and try as they might, our teachers were not able to write on the sand. We used a large cylindrical container to assist us with this object lesson of sorts. In the busy-ness of the work life of a teacher and the daily operation of a school, it is very easy to become hyper-focused on the what, the operational pieces. If we fill the container with the sand or the what, then there is no room for the larger rocks, symbolizing our why and our how. Simple as it may seem, and there have been other versions of this exercise circulating on the internet, it was a powerful image for the teachers to have before them. However, when we filled the container with our big rocks first, our why, and then the smaller rocks, our how, they easily fit into the container. The sand or the what then filled the spaces in between

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  89

Fig. 3.1  (a, b, c) Whys, hows and whats on rocks

the rocks and served to tie everything together. That day we learned that we must first take care of our why (Fig. 3.1). We then asked our students very similar questions; we asked them to think about their why: why they come to school, why school is important to them, or if they did not feel like school was important, why. We asked them about their how; how they, how we together could ensure their why was fulfilled. Finally, we asked students about the what; what happens for them if together we were able to make their experience in school what they hoped it could be, what proof we would have. This was by no means a simple exercise for our students; it took a considerable amount of time, helping them to linger in the uncomfortable moments of not being able to “pass” on engaging in the process, of not seeking one “right” answer. To the surprise of many, our adolescent learners wanted the same things from their schooling experience that served as our why for engaging with them in this challenging, yet amazing work we call teaching and learning. Moving forward, it was understood that we needed to work together, teachers and teachers, students and students, teachers and students; we were on the same team, wanting the same things, believing in the ways in which we could achieve our goals.

90 

B. Yee et al.

All of the elements described in this particular section were necessary to ensure there was a belief among the staff and students that we were a learning community, not at odds with one another, not requiring consensus, but aware that we wanted to be better together. The transformation in the school was powerful and well worth the time and resources it took to lay this very important foundation related to what we believe about high quality teaching and learning and how we could achieve that within our context.

 reating the Conditions for Adolescent C Discovery: Self and the Larger World I have never felt like I really belonged anywhere. And in school sometimes it feels like you have to fit into what the adults think a typical teenager should be, like they have this way they want you to act and talk and if you make just one mistake it’s like you are labeled a bad kid. It sometimes feels like school isn’t made for kids who are growing up in the world today. In regular classes like math or English, I never really got excited about learning, but I followed along and did my work because I knew I had to or I would get that label of a kid you have to watch. I also never really had a group of kids who understood me and liked the same things that I do. So then I went to my new school and there were so many choices for the kind of courses that we can take. I found my place and my people in band class. Some people think the band kids are odd, but we don’t care. We love to play music and we don’t really care what anyone else thinks or says about us because we have each other. Our teacher is amazing; maybe he is kind of odd like us, but you just know that he loves music and he loves to teach us what he knows. It’s really perfect, because you get a teacher who loves music and kids who love music. Knowing that I can go to band class every day makes me excited about coming to school and it makes sitting through math class so much easier.

There is a room in my school that I am drawn to. Every school has “that room.” It acts as a beacon, calling us back to where things make sense. There is a familiarity and a comfort in this room, where the joy of teaching and learning saturates the walls and flows out into the hallways, hoping to inspire in others the impact of our craft as educators. In my

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  91

school, “that room” is the band room. And while some might question why a room which houses a programme that can be one of the first considered for the chopping block when unstable education budgets fail us would be a sanctuary of sorts, it is unreservedly the place I return to when I need to be reminded of what great teaching and learning in a middle school should look like. The teacher is a musician—a “real” musician in his former life, a life outside the four walls of a school that I believe he still longs for. This is perhaps where the magic begins, because as an expert in the discipline he teaches to his students, he inspires in each of them, upwards of 60 in some classes, the belief that they too are musicians. The tone that permeates his classroom is that as a musician there is a way to listen to music, to feel music, to critically examine music, to appreciate music and of course to create music. Daily teachings go beyond the basics of scales and theory into the heart of what it means to be a musician: the thought processes of a musician and the essence of the discipline of music. How does a musician think about the world? What does a musician do when they hear a new piece of music or are asked to play a piece of unfamiliar music? How does a musician react when they have a less than stellar performance? What is their response when they exceed even their own expectations? This class is about so much more than “playing” music. Students are given the opportunity to engage in and explore the world of the experts. They are asked to create—to think creatively, to problem solve creatively and then to show an element of vulnerability as they express their creativity in the form of music, such a personal undertaking. There is no room for worksheets and rote regurgitation of facts in this room. The nature of a band dictates that this is not a solitary endeavour for students. Students learn the power of collaboration and how an awareness of their peers around them is necessary for everyone and the group to achieve their potential. This in many ways reflects the “real” world more than what is often seen in a traditional classroom, with students sitting in rows as the teacher delivers a monologue at the front of the class. Keith Sawyer (2008, 2014), a professor from Chapel Hill University in the United States, has long been a proponent of arts education and the transformation of schools through the deliberate fostering of creativity in students. It seems perhaps rather second nature 16 years into the

92 

B. Yee et al.

t­wenty-­first century that we need to discuss the role creativity plays in healthy development across the developmental span, yet I would argue that increased accountability measures that come in the form of standardized tests leave little room for creativity in the classroom. Sawyer (2008) believes that it is most often music, drama and art teachers whose pedagogical approaches foster creativity in their students. He cites three reasons for strengthening arts education programmes in schools: 1. The arts in and of themselves are important and to be educated means to have exposure to and grounding in a wide variety of disciplines, including the arts. 2. Exposure to arts education develops important cognitive skills, most notably creativity, in students that serve them well in their learning across all subject areas. 3. The integration of the arts across other subject areas leads to more effective learning and deeper understanding in those areas. It is therefore a puzzlement to me why courses that fall into the arts education category are considered by many to be lesser programmes of study. This particular image of practice began with a quotation from an adolescent student, who articulates his struggles with trying to fit into what he feels is a predetermined pattern of acceptable adolescent behaviour and courses of study that our schooling system has created. It further illustrates the long-standing division that has existed in schools between “academic” and “non-academic” courses and those who teach these courses. Not only for many families, but also for school systems and teachers alike, there exists a hierarchy among the programmes of study, mathematics and the natural sciences often topping the list, with the languages and arts easily seen as unimportant or not as worthy of our time and attention. Ken Robinson (June 2006) discusses this very thing in his memorable first Ted Talk, which brought this idea that schools kill creativity to the forefront of educational reform debates. I have wrestled with this message for quite some time, never quite being able to reconcile if in fact the blame lay with the schools themselves, or perhaps is a reflection of

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  93

s­omething else—that something else being societal and cultural values. While doing research in Finland, a conversation with one principal resonated with me on this particular issue. I asked him about the success of the Finnish education system. He replied that first, Finnish society is successful and the education system is an indicator of the culture it sits within. So, a question I have had since my time in Finland is this…is the health of the education system in a country reflective of the health of its greater society? Does what the greater society values reflect what is valued in our schools? If so, we may have much to be concerned about. Promoting Creativity and Discovery  In this large middle school, many steps have been taken to create the conditions for learning that promote creativity and depth of learning across a wide array of disciplines. The move to large blocks of learning time, which allow students to linger with their learning in the core disciplines of study (mathematics, science, language arts and social studies), have allowed students to gain daily exposure to the fine and performing arts, physical education and also career and technology foundation (CTF) courses (upward of 100 courses fall into this category such as natural resources, web design, marketing, robotics, construction, culinary arts, fashion design…the list goes on. More on this later.). Some may ask what constitutes “large blocks” of learning time. The answer for me is found in what presents the least interruption to students’ learning time as is possible. The use of a bell to signal the start and the end to learning is a practice of old that needed to be changed. The incessant movement of students from class to class within a large school significantly impacts not only the amount of learning time, but also the quality. Moving students through different classes every 45 minutes, five days a week, was not a practice we felt served our adolescent learners well. There are many ways to approach scheduling in a school, and in all reality, no one schedule is perfect. Six different versions of a schedule were created for this school, each with its own benefits and challenges. The only course that really needs to have a specific slot in the schedule is physical education, because of a shared use of one space. Other than this block of time, the remainder of the day is left for the teachers to

94 

B. Yee et al.

organize as they see fit. Certainly there are parameters around the total number of instructional hours per year targeted for different subject areas, but this is left to the grade teams to negotiate how it will be divided appropriately. If a particular grade team wants to take advantage of an upcoming federal election and structure the learning around that for several days, they have the freedom to do this. There are teams of specialists in the fine and performing arts areas as well as physical education who ensure the exposure our students have in these areas of study is of the highest quality. These teachers often collaborate with core subject teachers to provide students with authentic integrated learning opportunities whenever possible. When the school moved towards this model of organizing for learning, some questioned if students needed such wide exposure to areas of study outside of what is often referred to as the “core.” Would students who did not consider themselves “artsy” thrive in an environment where this became part of their daily learning? The same was asked of students who were not necessarily “technologically savvy.” How would they benefit from courses such as applied technology or digital literacies? (Although one might question if a technologically “unsavvy” adolescent exists in 2016). It is interesting that for the most part these questions came from parents, thinking, understandably so in many cases, that they knew their child better than anyone, including the school and the child themselves. However, it can (and should) be argued that one of the central undertakings in adolescence is discovery. Much can be said about what constitutes a middle school philosophy, and while many versions exist in the forms of checklists and position papers, the heart of the middle years philosophy is creating a developmentally responsive learning environment. A developmentally responsive learning environment responds to the needs of the adolescent learner; and what we know about the adolescent developmental period is that in many instances they do not know what they do not know. They certainly have many ideas about what they think they may like, often influenced by the onslaught of advertising they are bombarded with and also by equally unknowing peers. As an instructional leader of a middle school, I believe I have a responsibility to provide my students with learning opportunities across a wide variety of areas of study. Only then can they make informed choices about what they are

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  95

interested in further exploring or developing and what they now have the experience with to make an informed decision. Connecting the Learning The CTF programme of study is one of Alberta’s newest and is reflective of the type of curriculum the province hopes to deliver through the ongoing curriculum re-development process. This programme of study is designed for the adolescent learner and is aligned with Canada’s National Occupation Classification focusing on 28 different occupational areas. The intent of this programme is to provide the adolescent learner, throughout their time in middle school, with exposure to a wide array of learning experiences that may inform later career choices. In high school, student then have over 1000 courses in the Career and Technology Studies (CTS) area to choose from, many leading to advance post-secondary credentialing and/or apprenticeships. Departing for past curriculums with hundreds upon hundreds of specific outcomes, the CTF programme of study is founded on three essence statements with 14 outcomes: CTF is exploring interests, passions and skills while making personal connections to career possibilities. • I explore my interest and passions while making personal connections to career possibilities. • I use occupational area skills, knowledge and technologies. • I follow safety requirements with occupational areas and related technologies. • I demonstrate environmental stewardship associations with occupations areas. CTF is planning, creating, appraising and communicating in response to challenges. • I plan in response to challenges. • I make decisions in response to challenges. • I adapt to change and unexpected events.

96 

B. Yee et al.

• I solve problems in response to challenges. • I create products, performances or services in response to challenges. • I appraise the skills, knowledge and technologies used to respond to challenges. • I communicate my learning. CTF is working independently and with others while exploring careers and technology. • I determine how my actions affect learning. • I develop skills that support effective relationships. • I collaborate to achieve common goals (Alberta Education 2016, p. 1). More information on the Alberta Education CTF programme of study can be found at: https://education.alberta.ca/career-and-technologyfoundations/program-of-studies/ The structure of this programme of study has given teachers incredible freedom to design learning experiences for their adolescent learners that are relevant to the current societal context students are growing up in, personalized based on students’ own interests, and are integrated and support their learning across multiple programmes of study. I believe our experience in the world is very much integrated; we incorporate knowledge and skills from multiple domains as we move throughout our day. Yet in schools, we often go to great lengths to “silo” the learning experience for students. A student’s daily schedule in many schools often reflects this. They move from one class to another every 45–50 minutes, being asked to focus on one subject area, only to turn that thinking off as they move to the next class. I do not believe this is reflective of how adolescents learn best, and certainly does not support what we as a school identified as sound pedagogical practice for adolescent learners. We have asked our teachers to consider meaningful points of integration across the subject areas they teach and when possible, ensure their instructional design process incorporates multiple disciplines of study. What this has done for our students’ learning experience in our school is profound. Students who struggled with finding the value of mathematics in their

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  97

lives now use these skills in a very practical manner as they re-design “failed” structures in the Amatrol lab, also adding relevance to the ­structures and forces unit in Grade 8 science. In the broadcasting class, students develop presentation and public speaking skills, and how to use green screens and the available technology to convey important information they have written the script for to an audience. These skills are not only relevant in this particular course, but are also applicable in other subject areas as students develop the skills to communicate their learning in meaningful ways. These are only a couple of examples of how this approach to working within the mandated provincial programmes of study have provided out adolescent learners with authentic and meaningful learning experiences where they can discover and develop new skills and knowledge, applicable not only within the walls of our school but in the world beyond. Supporting this approach to programme delivery that promotes discovery and fosters creativity, we have been very intentional about ensuring student voice inform their learning experience and their next right steps in their development as learners. All students have learning plans, housed in a digital application, that both student and teacher contribute to. Students include their learning and personal growth goals for each term, information about how they believe they learn best, along with artefacts of their learning. Teachers contribute information related to what they know about how the student learns best, strategies for how to best support and extend the learning of the student, along with priority learning cycles that need to be addressed. The learning plan is accessible to students’ families, who we consider to be valuable partners in supporting student learning. As students transition from grade to grade within our school and then on to high school, the learning plan ensures that new teachers have the necessary background information on the student to best support their learning. We have found that for many students, the learning plan provides them with both a means of expressing what they know about themselves as learners and also a way to communicate with their teachers about their hopes, their fears and what supports they need. Developing self-advocacy skills in our adolescent learners and ensuring our teachers genuinely attend to student voice and choice in their learning has been a priority for us.

98 

B. Yee et al.

Cultural Shift Away from Indifference  The final undertaking we felt was needed to support the development of student discovery and creativity in their learning was in the form of a cultural shift of sorts. In the current school context, we were concerned about the indifference students sometimes demonstrated towards their school, the community, each other and even themselves at times. Rather than imposing rigid policies with accompanying negative consequences that often do not take into consideration the range of developmental understanding and readiness in a school of almost 1000 adolescents, we believed that building leadership capacity and responsibility in our students would serve us better than a more punitive approach. With the support of the student advisory council, we asked students to identify all of the things they felt were not working well for us in our school community. The very same things that concerned teachers also concerned students. Issues like poor recycling behaviour, taking better care of the school building itself, building cultural acceptance, developing a more positive image of students in the community and the use (or inappropriate use) of technology and the school canteen topped the lists. We then grouped students according to the issues they felt most strongly about and matched them with teachers who shared those passions. During the last hour of the day on Fridays, we move into “connect groups.” These are multi-age groups where teachers work with students to develop leadership capacity in students across the identified areas. Students identify the most pressing issue in their responsibility area and create plans for how to address that problem area. For example, the students who identified the school canteen as their area of focus worked with the school districts nutrition guidelines to come up with a way to serve better, more appealing food to students that would be prepared by our own students taking the culinary arts class. They developed weekly, cost effective menus to provide for our students and served as caterers for numerous large school events. They connected with local bakeries to donate day old products that could be used in creative ways for sandwiches, breading for chicken strips and a new favourite: pull-apart cinnamon buns. The students targeting technology use in our building were frustrated with the way school technology was treated. Laptops often had keys

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  99

­ issing, which students had for some reason taken off. Laptops not being m returned to their proper location and plugged in to charge after being used was a chronic problem. Students created the “tech team,” who would be responsible for doing a sweep of the building in the last five minutes of each school day to ensure laptops were in their proper location and were being charged. They also made it their policy to speak to students who were misusing school technology and when necessary involve the teachers and school administration. This group started a blog that housed information about the latest applications students could use to support their learning and other interesting websites they believed their fellow students might enjoy. When it came time to order new technology for the school and purchase new software applications, this grouped served as an advisory body. There was a dramatic improvement in the way students viewed technology as a support in their learning and most noticeably, the condition of the school’s technology at the end of the year. The last example I will share, although there are many more, comes from the school “do-crew.” One group of students was concerned about all of the things in need of repair at the school that just never seemed to get done. Under the supervision of teachers, this group of “handy” students set about fixing chairs with wobbly legs, ensuring the bookshelves did in fact have all of their shelves and sanding and staining the benches that had become an eyesore at the front of the school. They developed an online logging system where teachers could enter items within their classroom that needed to be fixed and on Fridays, the crew would set about to accomplish as much as they could. A wonderful thing starts to happen when students begin to take responsibility for their school—they begin to develop pride in their school and pride in their ability to affect change. Problems we once had were eliminated or reduced dramatically because students now had a hand in making their school a place they were proud of. It was no longer the case that if a computer was broken, someone, unknown to them, would fix it, or if they broke a chair, well there must be other chairs somewhere, or if they did not pick up their garbage from lunch, a teacher surely would. No, it was the students who became champions for making their school the best it could be. The transformation was nothing short of amazing.

100 

B. Yee et al.

 ommunity Connections: A Sense C of Belonging I feel pressure all the time to be someone I’m not. I feel like my friends pressure me to do things and act in ways that maybe I’m not okay with. I think my parents want me to be a certain way so people will think good things about our family. And then at school the teachers expect you to fit into what they think a perfect teenager should be. It’s all so hard. I’m just trying to figure out who I am and what I want to do and how can I ever really be sure when everyone else is putting this pressure on me. Sometimes I just want things to be quiet in my head so I can figure it out on my own and just be who I am supposed to be without all the outside pressures. The biggest pressure for me right now is probably my friends. I worry that I will lose them if I don’t just accept and follow along with what they do. School is a pretty lonely place without friends.

The final image of practice that is important to share from this school context is the intentional work that was done to connect our students with the larger community. We felt it was an important factor missing from the culture of the school and one we felt would have multiple benefits. One, there was long overdue work that needed to be done to change the negative perceptions held by many community members about our adolescent students. Two, we felt something that was missing from many of our adolescent learners was the understanding that they are connected to a larger community; something greater than themselves and their close group of friends. In their current social context, so much of the communication they do is at arms length, through text and via social media. One begins to question the impact this communication “distance” has on an adolescent’s perceptions of accountability for their actions and a sense of real emotional connection with those around them. Lastly, in a school of almost 1000 students, it is unrealistic to believe that we have the breadth of expertise on staff to encompass the unique passions of each student. The community in which a school is situated is an excellent, and often underused, resource to call upon to ensure students are provided with opportunities to connect with and build relationships with experts in the fields in which they demonstrate interest. These community partnerships

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  101

have proved to be invaluable in our school context as we work to ensure all students feel that the school they attend is truly “their” school; a school where they belong, one where they feel the adults seek every means to understand and support them as developing individuals and learners. There is a sign that hangs outside of the school, in plain sight for all to see. It reads, “No Scooters, No Rollerblades, No Skateboards.” Every school in the district displays this same sign. It did not really occur to me until very recently the impact this sign has on many students. With a school population of almost 1000, it is quite fascinating to see the students arrive at school each morning. Eleven buses pull up to the school, along with the onslaught of parents dropping their children off, breaking numerous traffic laws as they try to manoeuvre their child into the most advantageous position closest to the school. It brings me great pleasure to see how many students choose a more active means to get to school, walking, riding their bikes, and yes, via scooter and skateboard. Students who ride their bikes have large bike racks out in front of the school where they can lock up their bike and have easy access to it at any time. They do not fit into the categories addressed by “the” sign. Those students who ride a skateboard or scooter have to go to great lengths to hide them away, trying to stuff them in a small locker or ask to leave them in a holding spot in the office until the end of the day. What this seemingly innocent attempt at ensuring student safety (or so I am told) has done is alienate an entire population of students from a school that is supposed to be a safe place for them to grow as learners and developing beings. I had the great pleasure one school year to work with a group of Grade 9 boys, 18 in all, who very much fell into this category of students who had become disenfranchised by a school system with inflexible rules and processes that excluded them. Some might label these boys the “trouble makers,” while others had washed their hands of them, believing they had been given one too many chances to fall in line with school expectations. It was puzzling that in many instances the standards by which these boys were being judged were nonsensical; arbitrary rules, established when these boys were just out of diapers, reflecting a society that was much ­different from the one they now find themselves in. These boys are feisty, they have opinions, they want to be seen for who they are and not forced to fit into the mould of what some adults deem the “typical” adolescent.

102 

B. Yee et al.

To be very frank, we adults need to do away with this notion that there is a typical adolescent by which we critique all others and those who do not live up to our views of how adolescents should talk and think and act are looked at with disapproving eyes. My work with these boys lasted five months. During that time I quickly realized that my first big obstacle with them was to earn their trust. Something or a series of “things” in their schooling experience had resulted in them being untrusting of their teachers, not believing anything they said. Research tells us that in order for adolescents to engage in the learning process, they need to feel safe in their learning environment (Yee 2015). If they believe their teacher to be unreliable or unpredictable (justifiably so or not) the likelihood that they enter into a deep and meaningful learning space is greatly diminished. It started out very slowly with things as simple as starting the class with everyone, including me, putting their cell phones in the middle of a larger conference room table we used to meet around before dispersing for the work they would do in that class. If I asked them not to use their phones while I was talking, then I certainly was not going to have access to mine. This surprised them, but also served to quickly earn some points with them. My next action shocked them even more, as I asked them to come up with a list of things that “light them up”; things that they would pay to learn about and participate in. My promise to them was that I would help them pursue these passions. My only caveat was that would need to come up with a way to use these passions to in some way give back to the community. The boys were quite convinced that in no way could I have the connections, nor the ability to keep my promise. Loving a challenge, I asked them not to underestimate me. The group came up with many different areas they were interested in and as you would expect with a group of 18 boys in Grade 9, many commonalities emerged. The one group of boys who lived, breathed and dreamed about skateboarding proved to be the greatest challenge, enough that at one point I felt I might not be able to keep my promise to them. And it is here where we must go back to “the” sign: No Scooters, No Rollerblades, No Skateboards. The boys had decided that they wanted to use their love of skateboarding to give back to their community by providing introductory lessons for other students in the school. Without a

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  103

doubt, these boys are athletes. The athletic ability it takes to perform the manoeuvres they do on their skateboards is nothing short of extraordinary. They are healthy, strong and confident and very much support and encourage one another as they attempt to perfect their next “trick.” Are these not qualities we want for all our students? Yet, these boys are immediately outcasts because “the sign” excludes them. I sought the assistance of two businessmen in the community, we will call them Jake and Brandon. At one point in their lives, and maybe in some ways now, they are very much like these boys. As adolescents over a decade ago, Jake and Brandon loved to skateboard and snowboard. They encountered the same challenges with public perception related to skateboarders and the skateboarding culture as the boys in my school do now. The story of their “rise” to the point they find themselves at right now was what inspired my students. Many hard lessons along the way made Jake and Brandon realize that if they wanted to build their lives around skateboarding and snowboarding, they could not just expect it to be handed to them. After graduating from high school, they both went on to university, where the skills they learned and the connections they made helped them arrive at their next step, which was to open a business that would cater to young skateboarders and snowboarders. Jake and Brandon spoke to the boys about what is entailed in creating a business from the ground up. The boys were shocked as Jake and Brandon detailed all of the not so glamorous details such as months in the beginning where they ate nothing but Kraft Dinner or the times when they did not receive a pay cheque, because they had to ensure their employees were paid first. They spoke about work ethic and the responsibility they all have in creating a positive public perception about those who skateboard. Jake and Brandon are young and smart (and much cooler than I could ever be) and captured the boys’ attention the moment they walked into the room. The boys spoke about their frustration, feeling marginalized and stated that no matter what they did, people would not change the way they saw them and felt about them. Together with Jake and Brandon, they discussed ways they could begin to help others see them differently. Jake and Brandon helped them understand that it is one thing to identify the problems, but unless they were willing to put some work into providing solutions, they were doing nothing more than complaining. I was not

104 

B. Yee et al.

sure where things would lead to next. However, the following day, the boys arrived at my office with a proposal. They had created a well-thought out and detailed plan for how they would teach other students to skateboard. Highlighted in their proposal in big bold letters was their desire to get “the sign” taken down. To them, the sign read like a “Keep Out” warning. Now it was up to me to try and find a way to make this happen. There were only two things standing in my way and they found themselves in our school district’s Legal and Risk Management Departments. What happened from here were a series of email exchanges and meetings in which I had to help the departments understand how our aversion to risk as a school district was in fact in many ways a detriment to students, alienating an entire population of them and barring other groups from meaningful learning opportunities. A whole other conversation ensued related to the risks associated with activities like football and downhill skiing, which are deemed acceptable, but not skateboarding. Apparently the experiences our students are permitted to partake in all have to do with who or what organization can assume insurance responsibility. I learned a lot through this exercise. I went back to the boys with a revised proposal, much less than what they had hoped for, but a start nonetheless. I will never forget the comment of one student who was visibly disappointed. He said, “You know, this is not what I wanted, but it is a small step. We’ll just have to show them who we are and what we can do and then keep coming back to ask for more” (Student anecdotal, May 2016). The accepted proposal outlined a showcase event where these boys would be able exhibit to others in the school community their talents. Every day leading up to the showcase, the boys would go out and sweep the compound area where they would be skateboarding to ensure it was free from debris. On the day of the event, Jake and Brandon came out to support the boys along with other members of the district senior leadership team who were there to ensure everyone’s safety. What happened was pure magic. For two and a half hours the boys skateboarded. They were exquisite. They were gentlemen and good sportsmen. I had not realized the creativity and problem solving that was so inherent in what they do. They would create obstacles for each other and then come up with ways to overcome them. Yes, sometimes they fell, but each time

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  105

they got up and showed the determination to come at the obstacle from another angle. The school community saw these boys as talented, having unique skills to contribute to the larger group, and the boys saw themselves as part of their school community, perhaps for the first time in a long time. Jake and Brandon stayed connected to the boys, offering them the opportunity to work for them over the summer to teach skateboarding lessons at their store. There was another group of boys I was working with who wanted to start their own t-shirt company with unique airbrushed designs they had created. Jake and Brandon offered to display their t-shirts in their store and mentor them in creating a business plan. This community connection was so important in validating for these boys that they were in fact worthy of being part of the school community. I was able to keep my promise…as for “the sign,” it may take some more time to have it taken down. Every Student Matters  The demographic area in which the school is situated has shifted over the course of the last few years, and with this the school has seen as rise in students engaging in more risky behaviour, often with severe legal ramifications. The number of suspensions that were issued by the office was increasing steadily, as were a wide variety of behaviours, which negatively impacted the learning not only of the student engaging in the behaviour, but were disruptive to the learning environment for all students. Of particular concern was the number of students finding themselves at school under the influence of drugs and alcohol, along with the number of students involved in outside of school hours encounters with the local police. We knew something needed to be done, and that something might require that we think outside the box. Steinberg (2014) in his book Age of Opportunity reminds us of the ineffectiveness of traditional drug and alcohol education programmes, which serve only to provide to adolescents information which they already know, and do nothing to change the context in which adolescents find themselves. This is what we tried. The John Howard Society has long been a fixture in Canadian society, working to raise awareness of and improve the criminal justice system in

106 

B. Yee et al.

the country and support those impacted by crime. Schools across the country have long been able to access the services of the John Howard Society to increase student understanding of the justice system as it relates to specific outcomes in the provincial and territorial curricula. The local John Howard chapter was currently working in high schools, providing individual youth advocates for at-risk students along with a programme, tied to provincial curriculum, titled “Take Back Control.” With the support of the school family liaison, the school proposed that the John Howard group tailor this programme to our students. Before we jumped into anything, we spent a considerable amount of time meeting with them to help them understand the problems our students were facing and the behaviours they were engaging in. It was important that they know our students as well as we did in order to understand how to best connect with each of them. After receiving parental consent, the youth advocates from the John Howard Society began their work in our school. The programme continued to evolve throughout the year as the needs of our students changed and emergent issues needed to be addressed. They began with weekly sessions targeting a group of 12 students. As the year progressed and they developed relationships with the students, the youth advocates began to work with the students in different ways, based on their individual needs. The youth advocates were available to the students at all times. They wanted the student to feel comfortable reaching out for help should they ever find themselves in a situation where they needed a trusted adult. Youth advocates accompanied students on field trips, escorted students to their court dates and also took them for a walk or for lunch when the students needed time to decompress. Students entered into the programme initially quite sceptical, but grew to eagerly anticipate the weekly group sessions and often stopped by my office to ask when their youth advocates would be in next. Although this programme had never before been attempted in a middle school, we could not have asked for a better outcome in many ways. The expertise of the John Howard Society youth advocates certainly contributed to this, as did our open communication policy. We made the commitment to keep in constant communication with each other with regards to our students. If something happened at school that we believed would benefit the work the youth advocates were doing with

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  107

our students, then we ensured they had that information. Likewise, if the youth advocates had information they believed was important for the school to have, then that was shared as well. Successful community partnerships take time and commitment from all those involved. With the support of this community partnership, many of our at-risk students began to understand there were alternate positive paths for them to pursue. These students and their families, many who had contentious prior relationships with the school, began to see the school as a place of hope, where all students mattered and all students would be given every opportunity to thrive and experience success. I remember shaking the hand of one father whose son had been part of this programme at the end of the year. He looked at me with a tear in his eye and said, “Thank you for not giving up on my son.” We have learned how important it is for students and parents alike to understand that as a school, we never give up on learners and will hold onto hope for families until they can find it again themselves. What Will Be Their Legacy?  The previous images of practice showed how connecting with the larger school community had a tremendously positive and in some cases life altering impact on two smaller groups of students. To connect the larger student population with the surrounding community, we used the opportunities afforded to us by moving into an open, flexible schedule on our late student entries on Friday. We built on the work first proposed by the Student Advisory Council to the larger student body based on three things students could do to make their school a better place. The focus of what we called our “Legacy Project” was what students could do to give back to the community in which their school is situated. Our students are very aware that in some cases the community has a negative perception of them. Students are also very good at identifying problems; however, we wanted to ensure that they developed even greater skills in solving the problems they see. We believe that the best way for our students to change their relationship with the community is through consistent patterns of positive behaviours. Providing our students with opportunities to show the community that they are kind, conscientious and hard working adolescents is important work for us as a school.

108 

B. Yee et al.

Using the Design Thinking (IDEO 2012) process, which could be described as a structured process for creative problem solving, we posed the following question to students: “How might we give back to our community so that….” The “how might we” statement is a key element in the Design Thinking process, as is first building empathy and understanding for the problem you are trying to solve. After empathy and understanding were built around issues the community might be facing, we took students through a process of “plussing” used by Disney’s Pixar animation group (Gogek 2014), as a means of generating and building on the ideas of others without shutting down the creative process. The premise is simple; students sit across form one another and share ideas that they have individually generated on sticky notes. As one student shares his/her ideas, the other student “plusses” them, using phrases like, “yes, and” in order to build on each other’s original ideas. After students had generated a list of attainable ideas about how they could give back to the community, we used a Google Form where students signed up for what they wanted to pursue further. Teachers selected which legacy projects they were most excited about and became teacher facilitators for those groups. Our Legacy Day took place on a Friday in May. Students engaged in work around community beautification, such as building planter boxes, “up-cycling” old garbage cans by cleaning and painting them and creating stunning pieces of fence art that would be hung on the fences surrounding the school, inviting the community in to see the great work our students do. A larger group of students went to the local seniors’ residence where they put on a talent show for the residents, hosted a tea, played games with them and painted window planters for their individual rooms. Another group of students spent the day with young refugees, helping them to acquire English language skills and introducing them to the community in which they now live, in the hopes of showing it as a safe and welcoming place. A significant number of students had identified their desire to give back to those in need in the community who were struggling with the current downturn in the provincial economy. This group organized a clothing drive that resulted in 28 bags of clothing being collected. Students also baked muffins and decorated bags with messages of hope and love to place them in. On Legacy Day, students

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  109

delivered the clothing they had collected along with the muffins to the local shelter for families in need. The list of work our students engaged in that day goes on and on, as does the positivity that surrounded it. Our students returned to the school changed that day. The work they had engaged in had not only positively impacted the larger community but also helped them see that they can in fact make a difference in their community and in how that community sees them. It was delightful to see the school’s Twitter feed filled with positive messages from community residents. There is something quite profound that happens when adolescents, who can be quite idealistic and are developing such a strong sense of social justice, realize that their actions, good and bad, can make lasting impressions. On this day the students were determined to cement their legacy in the community as a positive one.

Lessons Learned: From a National Perspective Is there anything that can be found in the systems of education in Canada that have contributed to or detracted from how the nation views or approaches early adolescent learning and middle level learning environments? This too is a complicated question to answer in a simplistic way; some provinces have been much more intentional than others in attending to the unique developmental and learning needs of early adolescents through provincial educational policy, resources and support. There are three key factors on a national scale which I believe have impacted the advancement of early adolescent learning and middle level learning environments in Canada as a whole: 1. The absence of a national curriculum has placed the responsibility for curriculum development and the timeline for renewal on the individual provinces and territories. Some provinces develop curriculum at a departmental or ministerial level; others do this in consultation with provincial universities; while others approach it in an almost business-like model, awarding tenders to those with the best proposal bids. As mentioned previously, in some provinces parts of the curriculum have not changed in 25 years, calling into question the e­ ffectiveness

110 

B. Yee et al.

of a policy of individual provincial and territorial curriculums in preparing Canada’s youth for the world they will face outside the nation’s schools. 2. The absence of national standards and regulations for teacher training has left individual post-secondary institutions to create teacher training programmes as they envision them. This has hampered the development of consistent, quality teaching in the nation’s schools and has certainly impacted public trust in the quality of education Canadian children receive. Further, only a very select number of Canadian post-­ secondary institutions offer teacher training programmes addressing the specific needs of early adolescent learners and middle level learning environments. 3. The absence of a commitment on a national scale to use what current Canadian research has revealed about early adolescent growth and development as individuals and learners to establish middle level learning environments that will best support their needs. Without clearly articulated provincial/territorial and national philosophy and policy related to leading, teaching and learning in the middle years, education for early adolescent learners will remain inconsistent across Canadian schools.

Lessons Learned: From a School Perspective While giving each province and territory the opportunity to create the vision and govern the direction for the education of its youngest citizens, the lack of federal regulation of education in Canada has created the situation where the schooling experience of learners across the country, especially that of adolescent learners, unfolds in very different manners. What I hope these three in-depth images of practice from the context of one school show is how an intentional approach to teaching and learning in the middle years can transform the schooling experience for adolescent learners. Three important lessons should be taken from these images of practice:

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  111

1. The importance of building a culture of ongoing professional learning and growth, along with the need to bring our adolescent learners into the conversation on how to improve their schooling experience. When the topic of teacher professional learning is discussed, students are rarely considered valued and contributing members in the conversation. Most current research related to professional learning includes the use of student artefacts of learning to focus teacher discussions and guide next steps (Dufour; Timperley). I would argue that to be well informed and effective, teacher professional learning must include not only student work, but also the voices of the students that teachers face each and every day. A school learning community must extend beyond the notion of teachers to involve the students. If we want to know the effectiveness of teacher practice, we must look to multiple sources of information. Student work certainly provides one perspective, but the actual voices and opinions of our students adds another important perspective. Working together with our adolescent learners, and having clarity around our collective “big rocks” has allowed a transformation in the school beyond what could be done were it the teachers acting alone, with good intentions, trying to improve the schooling experience of our students. 2. The second image of practice focused on ensuring the learning environment in our school was one that would foster in our students a sense of wonder and exploration as they learned about themselves and the larger world. In order to do this there were certain philosophies, such as our belief in the importance of students engaging in interdisciplinary learning opportunities similar to the work experts in the fields they are studying are doing, and certain structures, such as the timetable, that needed to be in place to create what we believe are the optimal conditions for adolescent discovery through learning. The plasticity of the adolescent brain during this developmental period places schools in a unique (and perhaps precarious) position to create an ideal learning environment where it will develop essential faculties and grow in ways that will serve students as they transition into later adolescent years and into adulthood. This does not happen through worksheets and seatwork, but through a deliberate (and often ­difficult)

112 

B. Yee et al.

examination of what is currently working well in a school and what processes and philosophies no longer serve. 3. It seems almost a cliché to continue to refer back to the old proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child,” but it holds true in every way in today’s societal context, especially during the adolescent developmental period which requires a multifaceted wrap-around approach to ensure the healthy development of our youth. Not only was the school able to build successful community partnerships that supported our adolescent learners, but we also ensured that our students developed an awareness of their place in and responsibility to the greater community, ensuring they were not only on the receiving end of the goodwill of the community, but also finding ways for students to give back munity. It is crucial that our adolescent learners understand they are part of something much larger than themselves. During adolescence, adolescents begin to develop an identity of their own, apart from their families. As they experiment with what “feels” right, with what they believe “suits” them and hopefully with what aligns with the values and morals that have been instilled in them, the peer groups they are connected to can be tremendously influential. The values and behaviours espoused by peer groups are often reflective of the communities in which adolescents are growing up and what that community considers acceptable ways to think and be. With the approach “they are all our children,” we have begun to establish an entire community that is watching out for our students not in a critical sense, but in a manner that lets them know they have a community pulling for them to be successful.

References Alberta Education. (2016). CTF program of studies. Edmonton: Alberta Education Publications. British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. (2014). News release: BC teachers ratify agreement, end strike. Retrieved from http://bctf.ca/NewsReleases. aspx?id=35447

  Multicultural and Multifaceted Canada 

  113

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2013). Measuring up: Canadian results of the OECD PISA study. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Dunleavy, J., Willms, J. D., Milton, P., & Friesen, S. (2012). The relationship between student engagement and academic outcomes. What did you do in school today? Research Series Report Number One. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching effectiveness: A framework and rubric. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Gogek, D. (2014). Plussing  – How Pixar transforms critiquing into creating. Retrieved from http://www.thinklikeaninnovator.com/plussing-how-pixartransforms-critiquing-into-creating/ Hanvey, L. (2006). Issues affecting the well-being of Canadian children in the middle years – 6 to 12: A discussion paper. Ottawa: National Alliance for Children and Youth. IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators. Retrieved from http://designthinkingforeducators.com/ Kohn, A. (2015, September). What does it mean to be well-educated. Retrieved from https://www.alfiekohn.org/article/mean-well-educated-article/?print=pdf Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). Canada: Education at a glance, country note. Paris: OECD Publishing. Robinson, K. (2006, June). Do schools kill creativity. TED. Sawyer, R.  K. (2008). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Philadelphia: Perseus Books. Sawyer, R.  K. (2014). How to transform schools to foster creativity. Teachers College Record, 118(4), 1–23. Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt. Yee, B. (2015). Leading, teaching and learning “in the Middle”–An international case study narrative examining the leadership dimensions, instructional practices and contextual philosophies that have transformed teaching and learning in the middle years. Retrieved from http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/19718/

4 Germany: A System Undergoing Change

The German Context The German school system has been undergoing significant reforms as it works to challenge long-held beliefs about the country’s traditional tiered system of schooling. Once believed to be a symbol of national strength, the sifting and sorting of children into one of three tiers of school at the age of 10 is now believed by many to be a limiting factor in potential for student growth and development (OECD 2011). In response to what has often been described as the “PISA shock,” Germany has, since the initial Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study (2000), seen a steady increase in PISA scores in literacy, mathematics and the sciences. In spite of common features of the school systems across Germany, the country has a decentralized system of education, with 16 Länder Education Ministries being in charge of school curricula, teacher education and teacher recruitment. The constitution of Germany, known as Grundgesetz (Basic Law), outlines the fundamental values and structures of the Federal Republic of Germany. In Article 7 of German Basic Law, the Länder are recognized as the supervising body of their school systems. © The Author(s) 2018 B. Yee et al., Engaging Adolescent Learners, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52602-7_4

115

116 

B. Yee et al.

The Basic Law also makes provisions for so-called “joint-tasks” of the German Federation and the 16 Länder. One such task is the co-operation between the federal government and the Länder to assess the performance of the education systems in each Land against various national and international measures—and based on this, jointly create recommendations. Another significant area of joint responsibilities is the development of common standards for the internationally-known German “dual system,” in which students receive vocational training as an apprentice in a company while also attending courses at a vocational school. The dual system is widely acclaimed for integrating young adults into the labour market and is often cited as the primary reason for Germany’s low youth unemployment. To understand traditional German views and approaches towards early adolescent teaching and learning, one must understand the origins of the country’s education system. Germany was one of the first nations that aimed to provide free basic education to all citizens (OECD 2011). Wilhelm von Humboldt, believed to be the architect of the German Gymnasium, and Georg Kerschensteiner, credited with originating the German dual vocational training concept, where “the education system would fuse schooling and apprenticeship in the workplace” (OECD 2011, p. 203), held different views about the role of the education system and those who should be served by schooling. Whereas Humboldt’s reforms focussed on a rather exclusive notion of education geared towards the upper echelons of society, Kerschensteiner was concerned with education for the working people (Kerschensteiner and Gonon 2002). At the beginning of the twentieth century, four years of free compulsory basic education was provided for all students. Following these four years of primary education, students were streamed into one of three types of schools closely aligned with social divisions of the German feudal system: the Volksschule (later: Hauptschule) was designed for the majority of students, which at the time were also those with the lowest academic abilities; the Realschule was to serve students of higher ability who were likely to acquire qualifications in fields such as clerical and technical work. The Gymnasium was reserved for students with the highest academic abilities who would go on to take the German matriculation examination, the so-called Abitur, a precondition for access to higher

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  117

education and professional careers (OECD 2011). Around 1900, less than 2 per cent of any age cohort attended a Gymnasium. As late as 1969, less than 11 per cent of an age cohort in West Germany graduated from a school providing access to university education. Those rates have been changing rapidly in line with the changing labour markets and have now gone beyond 45 per cent of an age cohort in most of the Länder (Bosse 2016, pp. 45–46). The strong German economy of the 1960s and 1970s created an initial shift in the way the public viewed the three-tier system. Employers could now offer apprenticeships to students who had passed the Abitur, and there was pressure from families to ensure children worked hard enough to at the very least attend the Realschule. The Hauptschule was increasingly seen as an unattractive option by most parents (OECD 2011). Another opportunity to overhaul the three-tier secondary school system in Germany presented itself with the collapse of communism in 1989: East Germany had abolished the distinctions among secondary schools and (with the exception of some special schools for the gifted and talented) all secondary schools there became comprehensive schools (OECD 2011, p. 207). In the western part of the country, the perception remained that it had a top-performing education system, although there were until the first PISA study no systematic measures to assess the West German education system in relation to the rest of the world (OECD 2011). In 1997, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder decided that Germany would participate in international comparative studies of student achievement. The results from the 2000 PISA assessments shocked the country (OECD 2011) and presented yet another opportunity for Germany to examine long-held beliefs about secondary schooling. The notion that the different types of schools could be seen as philosophically distinct, accommodating certain “types of students” in order to prepare them for very different career and life paths was increasingly seen as untenable. These early PISA results showed German students lagged behind in every measured area, with the performance of the most at-risk students aligned with some of the worst-­ performing countries in the world (OECD 2011). Socio-economic background, along with German language ability was strongly tied to student

118 

B. Yee et al.

performance on the PISA assessments, indicating children of immigrant families were particularly at risk (Sliwka 2010).

 owards a More Inclusive and Fair School T System: The Introduction of a New Kind of Secondary School As a response to PISA, politicians saw the tiered school system as no longer responsive to a “modern knowledge-based economy [that] would most need a work force with a very high level of education across the board” (Bulmahn as cited in OECD 2011, p. 208). Political parties operating on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum worked together through the Council of Ministers to make possible changes possible that would not have likely occurred prior to the 2000 PISA results. One specific response to PISA was the introduction of a new type of secondary school, the “Gemeinschaftsschule.”1 Different from the “Gesamtschule,” a type of comprehensive school using tracking, this type of school is conceived as a “community school”2 teaching all students together in mixed ability classrooms and diversifying instruction according to students’ zone of proximal development on the classroom level  (Baden-Wuerttemberg Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports 2014). The idea of the “Gemeinschaftsschule” is based on the concept of the Finnish school which was perceived to be an effective and successful model of schooling as a consequence of Finland’s spectacular results in the first PISA study. The focus in Gemeinschaftsschule is on mixed ability learning groups, with individualized support provided for all students so that they can experience success. More than half of the German Länder have completely replaced Hauptschulen and in many cases, Realschulen with the new type of inclusive school, postponing the decision about academic versus vocational career path until the age of 16 and broadening access to the Abitur for students from different social backgrounds. For outsiders, it may seem surprising that the Gymnasium (as the  The Länder currently use different names for this type of school, for example Gemeinschaftsschule, Sekundarschule, Oberschule. 2  The German word “Gemeinschaft” means “community.” 1

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  119

“­academic” type of school) is being left untouched by current governments. It can be described as a stronghold of upper-middle-class culture in Germany, and many politicians fear that turning the traditional Gymnasium into a comprehensive Gemeinschaftsschule would equal “political suicide” because of the voting power of middle class citizens. There is at the moment no broad political consensus for abandoning the Gymnasium in favour of turning every school in Germany into a Gemeinschaftsschule. Nevertheless, equity in German education is being vividly debated and several steps have been taken to make the system more equitable. In all but two Länder, it is now up to parents to decide which type of school they want for their child. The standards at the Gymnasium are high, but access has become more equitable by giving up the system of primary school teachers deciding who is suitable and ready to receive a Gymnasium education. Since the 2000 PISA results were published, the systems of education in Germany have been in a constant state of reform and restructuring. Following the 2000 PISA results and the call for increased transparency and accountability, the Council of Ministers from the 16 Länder developed and agreed to national performance standards and competencies in core subject areas (OECD 2011). Further, in 2006 the Council developed common learning assessments used to compare the education systems in the 16 Länder to each other, as well as to international standards (OECD 2011). The Institute for Quality Development in Education (IQB), based in Berlin, was established in 2004 to monitor progress towards identified educational outcomes. Many Länder have increased the number of instructional hours for students, moving from the traditional half-day format to full-day school (OECD 2012, 2014b). The Länder ministries are also in charge of curriculum development. The Council of Ministers have agreed to enhance awareness of how the various subjects connect to the world of work outside of school (European Commission 2014). This so-called competence-based education is changing the teaching style to focus more on student cognitive activation and learning engagement. Adolescents’ sense of belonging and connection to school and learning, as measured through various PISA indicators, has declined in most countries, but rather surprisingly this has not been the case in Germany. Between 2003 and 2012, German students reported a

120 

B. Yee et al.

20 per cent increase, from 70 to 90, in their sense of “belonging” to schools (OECD 2012, 2014a, b). Various reforms introduced since 2000 have served to decrease the impact of socio-economic status and immigrant background on student achievement (OECD 2012, 2014a, b). PISA results in both reading and science have increased since 2000 to above Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2013) averages, although the portion of students achieving at the highest proficiency levels has not seen a significant increase. Despite these initiatives to increase options available to families related to their choice of schools, over half of the variation in student performance on PISA assessments in Germany can be attributed to which school in the tiered system students attend (OECD 2012).

Images of Innovation in Learning: The German School Award and Other Reform Initiatives In retrospect, the “PISA-shock” seems to have triggered a range of innovations in the landscape of schooling for adolescents in Germany. While the Länder governments introduced top-down policy reforms including new measures for a systematic quality monitoring and school improvement, some of the most interesting changes have been initiated bottom­up from the grassroots level of individual schools. Post-PISA, innovation has become a buzzword in German education, but the reality of what is considered innovative differs widely across schools. Some schools have gradually moved through incremental changes whereas others took much bolder measures to make schools work for adolescents. A period of experimentation and innovation on the school level began in 2000 and replaced a long period of stasis and stagnation in German schooling lasting from the mid-1970s until 2000. Innovations in schools have been encouraged and supported by several public-private initiatives. The most prominent of these is the German School Award (Deutscher Schulpreis), which was started by a group of influential foundations under the leadership of the Robert-Bosch-Foundation in 2006 (www.deutscher-schulpreis.de). Six schools from all over Germany

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  121

are selected each year by a jury of experts for their potential to motivate students to learn and achieve results on a high level. So far, an impressive number of schools which were able to enhance student learning through innovative pedagogies—some of them under dismal circumstances— have won the award. The prize is awarded by the Chancellor or the President of Germany and the winning schools receive significant media attention. The criteria underlying the selection for the award reveal that educational philosophies developed in non-mainstream schools over the course of the twentieth century are now moving centre-stage and are increasingly shaping the public understanding of what constitutes a good school (Sliwka and Yee 2015).

Criteria Underlying Selection for the German School Award Achievement: Students at the school need to achieve outstanding learning results (in relation to their base line) in the core subjects (mathematics, languages and sciences), in the arts (e.g. drama, fine arts, music or dance), in sports or in other areas (such as national student contests). Diversity: The schools need to have developed effective ways and means to work productively with educational disparities, different student interests and talents, diverse cultural and national backgrounds, diverse educational backgrounds of families, and the gender of their students. They need to contribute to the compensation of educational disparities and support individuals in their learning systematically and continuously. Quality of teaching: The schools need to motivate students to take charge of their own learning process. They enable their students to learn in hands­on ways focusing on deep understanding and let students experience learning in authentic learning environments outside the classroom. The schools continuously digest new knowledge to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Responsibility: The schools do not only advocate but actually find ways to enhance respectful behaviour, violence-free conflict resolution and care for the school and its environment. They support and request active participation and democratic engagement, citizenship and community in the classroom, the school and beyond. School climate, school life and partners in the community: The schools need to show a positive climate and an active and stimulating school life. They are schools that students and teachers like to attend and parents enjoy visiting. The schools maintain meaningful relationships with their partners outside the school and with the public at large.

122 

B. Yee et al.

Schools as learning organizations: The schools need to practice innovative and result-driven forms of collaboration within the school team, their leadership practice and the democratic management and enhance the motivation and professionalism of their teachers effectively. They perceive the creative use of the curriculum and the organization and evaluation of learning as a core task and commit to it in a sustainable manner. (www. deutscher-schulpreis.de)

The criteria of the German School Award reflect some of the changes schools for adolescents in Germany have undergone in the past 15 years. To take a closer look at how the five core practices we refer to in our framework (learning, teaching, professional learning, leading and researching) constitute effective ecologies of practice for the schooling of adolescents, I will now examine four school cases from the metropolitan cities of Hamburg and Berlin and two smaller towns in Northrhine-­ Westfalia and Bavaria. All four schools have redefined in bold ways what it means to be learning as an adolescent learner in a German secondary school. They have won awards and received public attention, they are known beyond their immediate environment and receive considerable numbers of visitors. It is important to note that the four cases I chose for the book do not (yet) represent the mainstream of current practice. Instead, they work as reference cases for the discussion about “next practice” in adolescent learning and are currently being discussed publicly and to some extent controversially. When analyzing these and other cases of schools which are currently reinventing cultures of learning for adolescents, it becomes apparent that the most visible and bold changes concern the use of time and space in the context of schooling. The traditional uses of time and space as developed in the context of the industrial model of schooling (with its rigid temporal and spatial order of organizing learning) were increasingly seen as limiting student agency and stifling their learning engagement (Boekaerts 2010). In all four school cases, creating cultures of learning that “work” for adolescents has in turn influenced cultures of teaching, teacher professional learning, leading and researching. Although my focus will primarily be on the analysis of learning, I will provide some contextual discussion on how changing learning as the core business of schooling is interdependent

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  123

with and to some extent dependent on associated changes in teaching, teacher roles, professional learning, leading and researching.

Images of Innovation: Changing Structures of Time and Space to Enhance Adolescent Engagement in Learning  ase I: Gymnasium Alsdorf/Alsdorf C (Northrhine-Westphalia) Students at the Gymnasium Alsdorf, situated in a small town near Aachen in the Western part of Germany, get to sleep longer. They can choose if they prefer to attend the first lesson in the morning starting at 8 a.m. or if they would rather stay for an additional lesson in the afternoon. After a trial phase lasting one school year, the secondary school close to the Dutch border has decided to institutionalize their system of “flexible timing” for their learners. Research evidence backing the school’s new time structure is ample. For years, chronobiologists have been publishing research findings on the mismatch between the timing of a typical school day and adolescents’ changing sleep patterns. Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg from the University of Munich calls the school “Germany’s first school taking into account the inner clock of adolescent learners.” “Adolescents function differently from adults,” he says. In its synchronization with the day-night-rhythm, the inner clock of most adolescents is running late up to the age of 20. Adolescents cannot fall asleep as early as adults. The fact that they tend to fall asleep late but need to be in school at 8 a.m. causes what he calls a “social jetlag.” The early start of the school day is very hard for threequarters of all adolescents, according to Roenneberg. “During the first lessons in the morning, some of them are almost asleep,” he claims. They also miss out on an important part of sleep that is needed to consolidate what they have learned the previous day. Sleep researchers, he says, have been asking for a delay in school starting times for quite some time now.

124 

B. Yee et al.

Luca, an adolescent at the schools says: “The first lesson in the morning has been so cruel for me. I was never fully awake.” He has opted to arrive at the school for the second lesson and to stay longer in the afternoon. Other students, like his co-student Milena have decided differently: “I don’t have a problem getting up early therefore I decided to be here for the first lesson. It gives me more free time in the afternoon.” Hers is a minority opinion at the school. Almost two-thirds of the students opt for the later start of the school day. This flexible time structure has become possible because of the school’s concept of teaching. The school uses the Dalton-Plan, a reformist pedagogy developed by American educators Helen Pankhurst (1922). As a young school teacher in the early years of the twentieth century, she noticed that student motivation and the willingness to help each other increases when they are given freedom for self-directed learning. The core of the Dalton pedagogy is the learning assignments. Gymnasium Alsdorf has defined a certain number of teaching hours per week to be so-called Dalton lessons. In the more traditionally taught lessons students are given access to a range of different assignments and projects, which they then work on independently or in small groups during the ten weekly Dalton lessons. Students do not only choose where to work but also what to work on. All assignments and projects they plan to work on in a particular week need to be written down in their weekly plan. In the tradition of Dalton pedagogy, they are free to choose what to do when. Different teachers, all specialists for two subjects, are available in different school rooms during the Dalton lessons. Students are given a choice of which teacher’s room they want to work in. “The matching works very well,” claims the school principal. “Different students enjoy working with different teachers. It all depends on the chemistry between the teacher and the individual students.” Adolescents need to take full responsibility for working on their assignments independently and are accountable for what they have achieved during these lessons. If the assignments are not completed on time and to a high standard the freedom to participate in the Dalton model can be withdrawn and students may have to take more traditional lessons for a certain period of time. If a teacher observes significant knowledge gaps during “regular lessons” they can limit or withdraw a student’s freedom of choice in “Dalton lessons” and assign specific

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  125

tasks to be rehearsed or completed. This might be a strict rule to learn the past tenses in English or to repeat and practise certain content in mathematics. Joelle and Julia, 16 years old, both decided to come for the first lesson in the morning. They work on a biology assignment together and have chosen to come to the classroom of a teacher who is a math and biology specialist. That way, they can use him as a mentor and a resource whenever they need help. When the work is done and the Dalton lesson is over they ask the teacher to stamp their assignment sheet. Luca prefers to sleep in and comes in the afternoon instead. “I used to have more free time for gaming in the afternoon, but now I’ve chosen to sleep longer in the morning and work longer in the afternoon,” he explains. In 2013, Gymnasium Alsdorf won the “German School Award” for its innovative techniques of enhancing student motivation for learning. To balance freedom and choice with discipline and accountability and let adolescents make important decisions about what they want to learn, when they want to learn and with whom they learn best, was seen by the jury presenting the award as a successful strategy to strengthen adolescents’ self-regulation skills, a crucial developmental task for young people between 12 and 16 years of age.

Case II: Evangelische Schule Berlin Zentrum (ESBZ)/Berlin Evangelische Schule Berlin Zentrum (ESBZ) might be called the “enfant terrible” of German schools. The Lutheran school in the heart of Berlin turned what it means to be an adolescent in a German school upside down. There are no grades until students turn 15 and no traditional teacher-centred instruction. The school has also abandoned timetables for the core subjects. To learn, students go to so-called Lernbüros, learning offices, to work on assignments in teams or on their own. The school has established learning offices for mathematics, German and English. Students have to work on the learning outcomes prescribed by the state curriculum of Berlin but they get to decide which subjects they want to study for each lesson. The learning offices are equipped with a range of books, digital and hands-on learning materials. A teacher trained in the

126 

B. Yee et al.

subject is present to consult, to help with the selections of tasks and materials to work on and to provide explanations whenever needed. Exams do not take place at set times, but each unit has to be completed with an exam and students decide when they are ready to take the exam. That way, students get to study at their own pace. The school is a “Gemeinschaftsschule,” teaching students of different ability levels. While German school systems are still struggling to make schools more inclusive and accommodate the needs of students with disabilities, Evangelische Schule Berlin Zentrum has pursued an inclusive philosophy since its inception in 2007 after Lutheran parents in Berlin had started the initiative to found a fully inclusive and modern school in the heart of Germany’s capital city. Today, more than 80 per cent of the school funding comes from the state of Berlin, school fees are low and means- tested, so that 5 per cent of the students are completely exempt from fees. The school now teaches about 500 students and offers both the Abitur and the middle-level “Realschulabschluss.” While the school day starts with a few minutes of worship, only one-third of the school’s students are baptized Christians. Thirty per cent have a migrant background and 7 per cent come from families who do not speak German at home. Because of its bold ways of embracing diversity, the school has also been acknowledged as a suitable school for gifted and talented students. In 2013, it was awarded the Karg-Award for its concept of delivering high-­ level education to gifted and talented students. When talking to students at the school, and not just those who are particularly gifted, one thing that is striking is how confident and outspoken they are. Fourteen-year-old Anton, for example, managed to talk Germany’s railway operator, Deutsche Bahn, into giving a group of adolescents free tickets for a trip to the UK. The students were planning their three-week-long “challenge project.” Anton and his team plan to go to Cornwall to study coastal economies and also make use of their time to practise their spoken English. Another group of students decided to delve into fashion design. The girls asked the grandmother of one of them, who lives in a rural area outside of Berlin, if she could teach them sewing. They intend to produce dresses in the style of Coco Chanel. The school has introduced two types of three-week-long projects. One is called “project responsibility,” a social or ecological community service project, the

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  127

other “project challenge,” a project that students perceive as personally challenging so that it will help them to learn new things and cross new thresholds on their way from child to adult. In small teams, the a­ dolescents need to plan their projects themselves and present their plan to the teachers and the parents. For the challenge, students aged 12–14 are given €150 and sent on a three-week adventure. Some go abroad (where they need to find hosts to keep their expenses down), some go kayaking on the many lakes north of Berlin; others produce a CD, a film or work on a farm. The core idea of the school represents a radical vision of what schooling for adolescents is about in the twenty-first century. The globalized and digital economy is causing radical transformation of labour markets and ways in which we live together and communicate with each other. The school perceives the ability to motivate oneself to learn as the most important skill a school can pass on to its students. The ability to self-­ regulate helps young people succeed in a labour market and a world in which they are given endless choices but are also condemned to achieve the necessary knowledge and skills to make these choices work for themselves. To enable adolescents to become self-sustaining, fulfilled and happy adults who find their way in an increasingly open and complex reality, the school’s idea has been nothing less than to “reinvent” schooling for adolescents in the transition from child to adult. “The mission of a progressive school should be to prepare young people to cope with change, or better still, to make them look forward to change. In the 21st century, schools should see it as their job to develop strong personalities” (The Guardian 2016). The school encourages its students to come up with alternative ways of showing which knowledge and skills they have acquired, so they can code a computer game or teach German to Syrian refugees as proof that they have achieved the learning outcomes prescribed by the official Berlin curriculum. Germany has a long tradition of alternative educational models going back to the interwar years of the Weimar republic. Montessori and Steiner schools are widely available as forms of alternative education provision across the country. What is new and different now as these educational approaches are becoming more mainstream is the fact that student freedom to self-regulate is embedded in a system of consistent and clear rules

128 

B. Yee et al.

and expectations. Some students who are lagging behind in achieving core learning outcomes have to attend school on Saturdays (in spite of Germany abandoning teaching on Saturdays in the 1970s), to catch up during a teacher-supervised session called “silentium” (meaning quiet time). “The more freedom you have, the more structure you need,” explains the school principal, Margret Rasfeld. Results in the final Abitur exam have contributed to the school’s reputation. Obviously, it is able to walk the talk. In 2015, school leavers taking the Abitur at Evangelische Schule Berlin Zentrum achieved an average grade of 2.0, 0.4 points above the national average, although 40 per cent of the cohort had been advised not to continue to Abitur before they joined the school. The most challenging part of creating this new type of practice ecology has been to find suitable teachers for the school’s bold pedagogy. A school like this only works if there is a constant process of experimenting with, reflecting on and further developing pedagogy. To support the culture of student learning with a strong ethos of professional learning and researching, the school leadership has set up a so-called education innovation lab. In an interview with the Guardian (2016) the principal explains: “In education, you can only create change from the bottom – if the orders come from the top, schools will resist. Ministries are like giant oil tankers: it takes a long time to turn them around. What we need is lots of little speedboats to show you can do things differently.” As an “education lab,” the school-based think tank tries to keep innovation and reflection going through two different means: the school’s teachers and students develop innovative learning and teaching materials for the school and other schools who want to follow this new model of learning. In addition, the school encourages visitors to come to the school. Many teachers, even innovative ones, would hesitate to pronounce such an invitation out of fear of being overburdened and distracted from their core business. Evangelische Schule Berlin Zentrum (ESBZ), however, sees the reception of visitors as a win-win situation and a genuine learning opportunity for its students. It is students like 14-year-old Anton who teach workshops to visiting teachers, parents and school principals who want to learn about ESBZ’s innovative philosophy and methods. The principal is convinced that giving her students this kind of

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  129

learning opportunity will make them even better prepared for the twentyfirst century. Three of the school’s students, teenagers Alma, Jamila and Lara-Luna, even wrote and published a book about the school: “Wie wir Schule machen: Lernen, wie es uns gefällt,” meaning: “How we make school: Learning as we like it” (De Zárate et al. 2014).

Case III: Stadtteilschule Winterhude/Hamburg Stadtteilschule Winterhude, a Gemeinschaftsschule in Hamburg, has become well-known for its innovative learning projects for adolescents. The highly diverse school with students from many ethnic backgrounds and a significant proportion of recent immigrants has been seeing itself as a “reformist school” for more than a decade. Teaching takes place in mixed-aged groups and personalized learning is seen as a key pedagogy of the school: “Each one in his or her speed. We do not want our students to have to wait for others to catch up or to feel under pressure to take short-cuts in their learning. Our student body is just too diverse,” explains a teacher. Winterhude school was one of the first in Germany to devote significant amounts of time to project-based learning. Every 8th and 9th grader in the school participates in ambitious projects, putting musicals and dance performances on stage, travelling through Denmark on Inline skates or building canoes, for example. For many of the school’s students, these projects open horizons they would not have had access to given their family background. A project that has been reported on widely and has become a “classic” is the crossing of the Alps on foot. Each summer, several weeks before the school holidays, a group of 8th, 9th and 10th Grade students age 13–15 set out on this three-week-long trip. They have to apply for it by handing in a written application letter, in which they make clear why they are seeking this highly demanding experience for themselves. Every year, a male teacher and a female social worker accompany the group. “To cross the highest mountain range in Europe on foot with 13 kilograms on your back and zero experience in mountain hiking, that is crazy,” the teacher explains. “It’s a real challenge and therefore exactly the right thing for adolescents in the middle of puberty.” They set out from Hamburg, an economically flourishing and highly diverse port

130 

B. Yee et al.

city in the north of Germany. It takes 14 hours to travel to Bad Tölz in Bavaria, where the real journey starts: three weeks on foot, seven or eight hours of hiking every day, even when it is raining. Smelly clothes and crying a few times are part of the experience. The students can spend up to seven Euros per day on food and accommodation. Anyone who has travelled to the Alps as a tourist knows that you do not get very far on seven Euros per day. You need to be creative and ask farmers if the group can sleep in the hay barn for free. Emotions run high on this trip and they are not always the same emotions for everyone: Andrea lost some of her money last night at the mountain hut, where she was buying food, and is close to tears. At home she could go cuddle with her mom, but no family member is here to comfort her. “I hate it, all of it,” she says and points to the blisters on her feet. “I want to give up.” The teacher is quite relaxed. “That kind of experience is normal on a trip like this. It’s part of the experience of overcoming difficult situations. All this is a core part of the learning experience and most of them will get over it.” Tom seems happy. He loved the sunrise they saw early in the morning. “You don’t get to see it that way in Hamburg.” And the pizza they were able to buy at a bakery today was delicious and cheap at the same time. Aladin seems less content: “I’m a little bit fed up with sleeping in the hay,” he admits. Eleven girls and four guys, age 13–15 have successfully applied to the trip this year. They have to work together as a team during the three weeks. Make sure their money lasts until they get to their destination in Italy, find places to sleep that are safe and free of charge or at least cheap, find and prepare inexpensive food for themselves and help each other through difficult hours and days so that they all make it to Southern Tyrolia, on the other side of the Alps in Italy, together. Each student got 150 € for the trip from their parents. In addition, the school allowed them to do fundraising in advance to be able to pay for the train trip to Bavaria and the return trip from Italy to Hamburg and to earn some money for a few decent nights in hostels with warm showers. In the weeks before the trip, the students sold cakes at the school festival and wrote to companies in Hamburg to raise money. Their efforts have been quite successful: they managed to earn an additional 4500 € for the entire group. The teacher and leader of the group have been taking this trip every year for more than ten years. He is an outdoor kind of person and clearly enjoys the

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  131

experience: “At this age,” he claims, “they have a lot of other stuff in their heads, apart from mathematics and German lessons. They are confused, have a crush on somebody, observe every little change of their body with a certain anxiety. They can be moody, noisy and extremely funny. But none of this is a reason not to teach them,” he explains. “Over the course of these three weeks they learn more than they would in school at the same time,” he explains. “Fundraising, housekeeping, reading maps, working in a team and getting over difficult situations, alone and together.” Initially, parents at the school were very sceptical, but when they saw how proud and confident their children were when they returned to Hamburg, the news of how valuable this experience could be quickly made the rounds. “We don’t have our parents’ credit cards,” says Andrea. It took her an entire day and a night to get over the loss of her money. But in the end, the group decided to give her some of the money they had raised together and her friends shared their food with her. “It was a good experience to know that you can rely on each other in a situation like this,” she sums up her experience. Sometimes, when they sleep in hay barns, it gets really cold at night. They need to dig into the hay with their sleeping bags. They tell each other stories and sometimes they sing together. And when they get up, quite early in the morning, to continue their hike, they are rewarded with beautiful sunrises in the Alps. “Just like in a commercial on TV,” says Joe. “Here, their actions have immediate consequences,” explains the teacher. “In the first days of the trip some of the students each year spend too much of their money on sweets and other luxury items. When they notice that their budget is not going to last for the entire three weeks, they have to eat bread and really simple food. After that, they begin to watch their budget more carefully. One lesson they all learn is to appreciate what their parents have been doing for them, simple things like cooking and washing their clothes, things they have taken for granted.” On every trip, homesickness peaks on one day, typically about one week after the students have begun the hike. The teacher already knows the pattern and smilingly calls it the “homesickness day.” “Somebody begins to cry and then others join in,” he explains. The situation is quite challenging for the teacher and the social worker: they take out the application letters

132 

B. Yee et al.

and remind the teenagers why they chose this particular project out of a range of 15 different projects, most of which take place in Hamburg. The transition of the Alps on foot has the reputation as being “the hardest” of the projects. Every year, about four times as many students apply for it as there are places available. The school chooses the students who can credibly explain why they want to push themselves to their limits. The ones that are here had said that they wanted to face the challenge to solve problems and overcome barriers without the help of their parents. “See, that’s exactly what you are here for,” explains the teacher. Just before they reach Bozen, the capital of the Northern Italian province of South Tyrolia of about 100,000 inhabitants and the end of their trip, they are happy and excited and can be teenagers again: “When we get downtown, we will go shopping. There is some money left.”

 ase III: Franz-Ludwig-Gymnasium and Kaiser-­ C Heinrich-­Gymnasium/Bamberg In Bamberg, a beautiful old Bavarian city with hundreds of heritage homes in the centre of town, innovation can be found in the Gymnasium. Both the Kaiser-Heinrich-Gymnasium and the Franz-Ludwig-­ Gymnasium have embraced the concept of Service Learning to change the adolescent learning experience. What makes these schools unique compared with many other more academic types of schools in the German context is that each of them is pursuing a “big project” and each of the students at the schools gets to work in the project. At Kaiser-­ Heinrich-­Gymnasium, taking part in a service learning project is mandatory in Grade 9. The school offers a variety of different service projects but most of them revolve around the school’s primary commitment: to contribute to the preservation and restoration of Bamberg’s rich cultural heritage. The Kaiser-Heinrich-Gymnasium decided to commit to its project after the deputy principal of Bamberg’s other Gymnasium was made the new principal at this school. Previously, he had been vice-­ principal at the Franz-Ludwig-Gymnasium, and it was there that the story of service learning in Bamberg begun to unfold about 15  years earlier.

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  133

One of the school’s students at the time had a brother who was disabled and working in a small company run by the “Lebenshilfe,” Germany’s main provider of working opportunities and life support for severely disabled adults. Because of the student’s connection to Lebenshilfe, her class started to do service learning projects in co-­ operation with this non-profit organization. This initial project was the seed for many more projects to develop in the following years. Students at the Franz-Ludwig-Gymnasium built an instrument, a small wooden harp, in their music lessons and this served as a prototype for an instrument built in one of the Lebenshilfe workshops by the disabled adults. Another group of students in their German lessons developed a board game on the German author Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and his famous drama “Faust,” which was then produced and sold by the disabled adults in the Lebenshilfe workshop. From there, the project further evolved and the co-operation between the teenagers at Franz-Ludwig-­Gymnasium and the adults working in the Lebenshilfe workshops became a continuous feature of the Gymnasium’s pedagogy. In their German classes, adolescents produced brochures and other marketing materials to market the products produced at Lebenshilfe. They wrote articles and even organized a press conference to help the nonprofit Lebenshilfe get more media attention. A group of students improved the Lebenshilfe website and included a feature allowing for the products built in the workshops to be sold online. During joint sports and music events throughout the school year, adolescents from the Gymnasium meet with the disabled adults to spend quality time together. They travel to cities like Munich, Nürnberg or Regensburg together, because it is common in Germany for student in Grade 9 or 10 to go on a week-long school trips. At Franz-Ludwig-Gymnasium, this means that healthy teenagers and mentally or physically disabled young adults go on trips together. “The first time, before we met,” writes 15 year old Jonas, “I was quite nervous. I did not know if I should smile or talk to them. I had never spent time with somebody paralysed and sitting in a wheelchair. In retrospect, that seems funny, because now Peter, a guy working at Lebenshilfe, has become one of my best friends.” The cooperation between the school and the Lebenshilfe, which started with a single project, developed over the years to form a strong and continuous

134 

B. Yee et al.

bond between the two institutions. Today, taking part in service learning is a core part of what it means to be an adolescent in Franz-LudwigGymnasium. Many teachers teaching subjects as diverse as music, physical education, German, mathematics and biology are involved in the co-operation and almost every year, new joint activities are emerging. What has been unique about this school is that so many of its teachers have joined in and become involved over the years. “It’s almost as if our school and the Lebenshilfe are siblings,” explains one of the teachers. The origin of service learning at Franz-Ludwig-Gymnasium is more recent. It started with the vice-principal of Franz-Ludwig-Gymnasium being appointed principal of the Kaiser-Heinrich-Gymnasium. “When I first came to the school as the new principal, I noticed that something important was missing in the students’ learning experience. We did not have a service learning philosophy,” he explains, “and therefore a crucial lifeline connecting the lives of adolescents with the world surrounding them and the many worthwhile projects to work on was simply not there.” Based on his experience at the other school, he had by then come to the conclusion that working on handson service projects in real life could provide adolescents with genuine opportunities to grow their personality and self-esteem. He quotes a study by the American psychologist James Youniss, who writes about the so-called transcendence effect. Adolescents who are given opportunities for selfless community service, working on real problems and working for people with authentic needs “transcend themselves,” implying that the experience enables them to think beyond the narrow world of an adolescent, which often revolves around questions about one’s own body, attractiveness, popularity in the peer group and status symbols. Studies by Youniss and his colleagues showed that adolescents at schools where community service projects are part of the curriculum were able to leave these narrow questions behind in order to reflect on questions of social justice, the organization of society and the history of human development (Metz and Youniss 2005; Reinders and Youniss 2006). The new principal at Kaiser-Heinrich-School decided that his school also needed a big project, a real commitment, just like the commitment

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  135

to co-operate with Lebenshilfe at his previous school. He was able to engage his staff and they came up with a big idea: the Kaiser-Heinrich-­ Gymnasium would devote itself to helping preserve the old town of Bamberg with its more than 1200 heritage houses and historical monuments. Impressive projects have been realized since this decision was taken more than ten years ago. The school has adopted particular monuments, such as the “Apfelweibla,” a monument of a woman carrying apples. By means of different fundraising activities (such as concerts and Christmas markets) the school raised more than 400,000 € to help renovate this and other historical monuments. Service learning is hands-on but also academic. Teachers try to connect the projects to the curriculum as much as possible. Tenth graders have published a book about one particularly old part of town called “Menschen im Sand,” for which they interviewed people living in centuries-old heritage houses and did a photo documentation. Foreign languages play an important role in all of the German Gymnasium and most students at this type of school learn two or three foreign languages. At Kaiser-­Heinrich-­Gymnasium, the commitment to Bamberg’s cultural heritage has also created authentic learning opportunities for language learning. Many tourists come to the town and the school’s students have translated leaflets about certain heritage quarters and monuments into French, English and Spanish. Groups of teenagers have even begun offering guided tours in these languages for tourists. “It’s great to be part of this” explains Julia, a 16-year-old. “I live in this city every day and now I feel that I am actually contributing to its development, not just consuming it.” Interviewing the teachers at both schools about service learning, it becomes clear, however, that Bamberg is not representative of German schools as a whole. All of the teachers I talk to agree that service learning should be seen as a core part of what constitutes learning for adolescents. “This is where they gain confidence and visibly grow,” explains one of the teachers. “It’s crucial to provide them with authentic tasks and real challenges. They want to be treated like adults, who can do this,” says another. While service learning has been disseminated more widely in German schools in recent years, Bamberg is still exceptional in that both schools have adopted big, continuous and ambitious service projects, in which all

136 

B. Yee et al.

adolescents and most teachers are involved in active ways. “It’s almost as if service to the community represents what it means to be learning as an adolescent,” sums up one teacher.

References Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. (2014). Changing schools in Baden-Württemberg. Retrieved from http://www.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/bw-gestalten/schlaues-baden-wuerttemberg/schule/gemeinschaftsschulen-im-land/ Boekaerts, M. (2010). The crucial role of motivation and emotion in classroom learning. In H.  Dumont, D.  Istance, & F.  Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice (pp. 91–108). Paris: OECD. Bosse, D. (2016). Herausforderung des Gymnasiums zwischen Abitur und Inklusion. In C.  Fischer (Ed.), Eine für alles? Schule vor Herausforderungen durch demographischen Wandel. Waxmann: Münster. De Zarate, A., Tressel, J., & Ehrenschneider, L.-L. (2014). Wie wir Schule machen: Lernen, wie es uns gefällt. München: Knaus. European Commission. (2014). Eurypedia, European encyclopedia on national education systems: Germany. Retrieved from https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/ fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Teaching_and_Learning_in_ General_Lower_Secondary_Education Guardian. (2016, July 1). No grades, no timetable: Berlin school turns teaching upside down. The Guardian, Friday. Kerschensteiner, G., & Gonon, P. (Eds.). (2002). Der Begriff der Arbeitsschule. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Metz, E., & Youniss, J. (2005). Longitudinal gains in civic development through school-based required service. Political Psychology, 26, 413–437. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Germany: Once weak international standing prompts strong nationwide reforms for rapid improvement. Paris: OECD Publishing. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Germany: Programme for international student assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2012. Paris: OECD Publishing. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  Germany: A System Undergoing Change 

  137

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014a). Germany: Education at a glance, country note. Paris: OECD Publishing. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014b). Education policy outlook: Germany. Paris: OECD Publishing. Reinders, H., & Youniss, J. (2006). School-based required community service and civic development in adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 2–12. Sliwka, A. (2010). From homogeneity to diversity in German education. In Effective teacher education for diversity: Strategies and challenges (pp. 205–217). Paris: OECD. Sliwka, A., & Yee, B. (2015). From alternative education to the mainstream: Approaches in Canada and Germany to preparing learners to live in a changing world. European Journal of Education. Special Issue: Learning to Be— Idealism or Core Business? 50(2), S. 175–183.

5 Finland: Towards the Future School

Finnish Context Finland is known globally for two things: first, Santa Claus who is living in Korvatunturi in Lapland, near the Russian border; and second, education. A huge success in the international Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results in the early 2000s raised Finnish education to the core of educational discussion all around the world. Finland’s top rankings in not only one category but in all three main test categories—literacy, mathematics and science—has led to many questions as to the origins of this success. The answers lay in two main categories: the developmental history of Finnish compulsory school and teacher education. In Finland, PISA results were of more importance for others than teachers and experts in the field of education. Many stakeholders, especially from the business world, had been criticizing Finnish compulsory school since the 1970s. They were worried about the efficiency of the Finnish school and questioned the quality of learning. The PISA results ended this critique. Teachers and other experts in education had a very realistic attitude towards PISA results, although the same could not perhaps be said of other stakeholders. Educators had been developing their © The Author(s) 2018 B. Yee et al., Engaging Adolescent Learners, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52602-7_5

139

140 

B. Yee et al.

work based on aims set down in the Finnish national core curriculum. PISA was only four letters for most in the field of education, and PISA was also a system most had only heard of for the first time in the early 2000s. The professional development work of teachers in Finland has for some time been grounded in many reasons other than success in PISA surveys (see e.g. Sahlberg 2015; Rautiainen and Kostiainen 2015). Finland is a Nordic, social welfare state, founded in the 1950s–1980 after World War II.  Before this era, Finland was an agrarian country. After World War II, there was a shift in the population density, as young people moved to the nearest cities, capital areas or abroad, seeking job opportunities that were no longer available in the Finnish countryside. Hundreds of thousands of people moved to Sweden, while others made longer journeys to Australia, Canada and the United States. The biggest reason for the migration was unemployment. Finland industrialized in the 1960s and the economic structure changed rapidly from primary production to secondary. At the same time, the political climate was changing. Before the Second World War, the communist party was an illegal political movement acting underground. The result of the war changed the situation dramatically. The Soviet Union had strong power in Finland, even if they could not occupy Finland during the war. With the help of Soviet Union, communists returned to mainstream politics. The communist party together with social democratic party, now became opposing powers fighting for control in the country. As with other Nordic countries, Finland began to develop a societal worldview according to the principles of equality, justice and economic welfare for all citizens. The aims of the new welfare state resonated very strongly with education in the 1960s. Education was believed to be a tool for change, because of the school’s prime position for socializing children in the values of society. If society were to set a new direction, it had to change its educational system according to the new aims. Left-wing politicians began discussing the need for school reform in the 1950s, but the criticism grew more harsh in the 1960s, which was a turning point not only in the development of Finnish basic education, but the educational system as a whole. Left-wing politicians demanded more justice and equality in the school system, which had its origins in the nineteenth century and had remained relatively unchanged for a

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  141

­undred years. This education system divided pupils into different h streams of schools after four years of basic education; according to leftwing politicians it served to maintain the old order of society. Instead, nine years of compulsory school for all was suggested, as well as a financial security system which would give economic opportunities for all children to study beyond compulsory school, should they choose to do so. The reform was radical and based on the idea that every citizen should have either vocational or academic education and secure work opportunities based on this education. This strategic thinking has been the cornerstone of Finnish society for decades. The highly educated Finnish population view the nation’s education system with the utmost respect. Teachers’ status in Finland is extremely high, with the teacher training programmes being among the most attractive Masters’ programmes in the universities. Basic education has not been at the centre of political struggle since the 1970s. Instead, the country’s political parties share similar beliefs related to the development of Finnish compulsory school. Finnish compulsory school is also a symbol of trust in society. Teachers’ autonomy in their work is considerable, as well as each individual school’s autonomy. Assessment is not based on a national test but on teacher expertise. Finland does not have any controlling system concerning teachers or schoolwork, like Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) in England. In spite of this freedom and autonomy, schools in Finland have developed and evolved in very similar ways. Social cohesion among teachers is high, with the underlying understanding being that the nature of a teacher’s work emphasizes cohesiveness and collaboration. On the other hand, differences between small rural schools and the schools in suburban Helsinki can be enormous. Nevertheless, the differences in learning results have been small between schools. Compulsory school has two parts. The first six years are considered primary school, and grades seven to nine are considered secondary school. Since the early 2000s, basic education has been intended to be seen as one entity; now, more than ever, pupils from grades one to nine are found under one roof, with one school administration. There remain, however, some structures which serve to create unwanted division in schools such as teacher qualifications based on different university studies. Prospective

142 

B. Yee et al.

teachers (Grade 1–6) are educated in the faculties of education. Their major is education, with all teachers requiring and earning a master’s degree, one of the reasons why the status of prospective teachers in society is so high. Subject teachers (Grades 7–9) are educated in other faculties and their major rests in the discipline of the subject(s) they are teaching in the school. Prospective subject teachers will earn a minor in pedagogical studies (60 course credits), which gives them the qualifications needed to be a teacher in secondary school. Finnish children begin school in the year they celebrate their seventh birthday and finish their formal schooling at the age of 15–16. Private schools are rare. Children will begin their school career in the nearest school run by the city. All compulsory schools follow the national core curriculum for basic education prepared by the Finnish National Agency for Education every ten years. This curriculum development occurs after the national government has set the direction and overarching framework for essential learning outcomes for all students receiving basic education. This structure defines the subjects studied during compulsory school. After the national core curriculum for basic education has been approved, individual cities develop their own, which adapts the curriculum to the local context. Most recently, the national core curriculum for basic education was implemented at the beginning of August 2016 and contains some major differences compared the previous curriculum (2004), because of the critiques levied against compulsory school, which has been strengthened during past few years. Finnish school has two faces. On the one hand, Finnish students continue to produce excellent results in international comparative surveys like PISA, while on the other hand, it is emerging that pupils have only minimal power in the decision-making process in the school, and broader schools have a very thin participatory culture (see e.g. Raiker and Rautiainen 2017). One of the most democratic countries in the world seems to have one of the most undemocratic systems of schooling. Also, school satisfaction of Finnish pupils is low according to WHO (World Health Organization) surveys throughout the 2000s. These results are partly explained by the structure and efficiency of Finnish schools. Basic education reform in the 1970s stressed individual learning and pupil’s right to access support and resources if

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  143

challenges in earning should become apparent. In practice, teachers’ focus was on those pupils who could not achieve the aims of learning without support and help. Furthermore, teachers stated that they did not have the time or resources to develop localized content to support the aims of education for democracy and other large-scale aims of Finnish compulsory school. Consequently, this is one of the gaps the most recent curriculum tries to change; and change, is one of the key themes in the new curriculum: stronger participatory culture, new learning environments including digital environments, among others. At the moment, these goals are challenging because of the cost saving measures being implemented across all public sectors, including education. Even if the money is only a part of making the change successfully, it is of course one of the factors every school has to take account when planning for the future. As described earlier in this chapter, Finnish compulsory school is unique in the international context. Before the 1990s, the Lutheran religion, Finnish language and Finnish culture, including historical incidents, had strongly united the Finnish people. However, over the past 25  years, this cultural uniformity has begun to crumble. Finland has become more multicultural, especially in the capital area of Helsinki, and the different living conditions between big cities and rural areas have become more visible. What about the question of Finnish adolescents in contemporary Finland? School should be made for them, though it has lot of other reasons to exist, too. Homer has said that “young people are invariably thoughtless” and even if it is the older generations’ “duty” to criticize youths’ way of living, there are some threats as well as advantages for adolescents in Finland. Obesity, poor physical fitness and the time adolescents spend with digital devices like smartphones and tablets concern both parents and politicians. On one hand, digital devices have been seen as one of the bridges which could bring adolescents and schools closer and potentially raise feelings of school satisfaction among adolescents. Others, however, are sceptical of this trend and instead of increasing the use of digital devices in school, would like to minimize the use of digital learning environments and materials.

144 

B. Yee et al.

Finnish basic education is undergoing big change, which means the future of the school is of great interest to society and its stakeholders. All aspects of schooling in Finland seem to find their way into the daily public debate via newspapers, TV programmes and social media. Fortunately, the key message is that school really matters. One of the more tangible forms of change is new school buildings as well as renovated buildings. The physical school structure reflects not only the aims of school but also the “big picture” of how Finland is re-envisioning next steps in education via emphasizing experimental culture, student well-being, participation and commitment to the community, and engaged learning. In the following chapters, new experiments are presented, along with solutions emphasizing the new kind of school—the future school in the Finnish context. They all represent visions which are unique, but at the same time strongly committed to the general aims of the development of school in Finland. All examples reflect the desire and effort to engage adolescents as more active stakeholders in their schools. This chapter concludes with an example from teacher education.

 dolescents as an Active Group A in the Planning of New Learning Environments Almost all school-aged children in Finland go to the nearest school run by the city. Only a handful of private schools following alternative pedagogies operate in Finland, such as the Rudolf Steiner or Freinet schools. There are also a small number of state-run schools for pupils with specialized learning needs. All Finnish universities operate a primary and/or secondary school which partners with its teacher education programme to provide practicum experiences for the teachers in training. The teacher training system in Finland is a unique one developed in the 1860s. The first Teacher Education College was founded in Jyväskylä in 1863, and began operating its own school for students in 1866. The system was similar in Helsinki, where the subject teachers were educated at the university. Teacher training schools serve not only to develop new teachers, but they also have a special position in the developmental work

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  145

of Finnish primary and secondary schools. Training schools serve as “laboratories” where pre-service teachers, in-service teachers and teacher educators engage in action research, testing out new pedagogical theories. Jyväskylä Training School is the oldest training school in Finland. There is a primary, secondary and upper secondary school housed adjacent to the university, with all these levels focusing on the developmental work of new, especially digital, learning environments over the past five years. These processes are strongly based on the participation of pupils and students of the training school. It has been a collaborative project where the school’s pupils together with researchers from the University of Jyväskylä experiment with and model new ways of student-centred planning of learning environments. The first space the researchers experimented with was a model for a science classroom. The aims for the project were: –– change a classroom and the hall next to the class into an inspiring, stimulating and comfortable learning environment where the use of modern technology is easy, –– combine formal, phenomenon-based learning of science with informal learning, and create possibilities for different learning processes which are independent of time and space. (Mäkelä et al. 2013, 275) The process began with the brainstorming of ideas, opinions and perceptions of what constitutes a good learning environment, followed by a long period of studying, where students constructed different visions of new classrooms. Those visions (plans) were collected for exhibition, where other pupils and students could vote for their favourite. After voting, students continued working together with experts on critical evaluation of the visions. Finally, the plans were sent for review by the architects, who created the final plans for the classroom and hallway spaces. These new learning spaces were constructed in 2013. Researchers’ work in this process was to facilitate and conceptualize students’ work. This kind of collaborative planning by students, with the help of experts, reflects the way of learning in the 2000s, incorporating the skills of the future such as creativity, collaborative work, critical thinking,

146 

B. Yee et al.

inquiry-based and phenomenon-based approaches and broader skills people need to live together in a democratic society. This brings us to the question of if and how new learning environments can impact the development of the learning culture. Students and pupils were asked after the use of the new learning environment: have there been any changes in the learning? According to their own experience, the results were controversial. Forty one per cent of students thought it had changed, but 42 per cent could not say if there had been changes or not. Further, only 17 per cent were certain there had not been any changes when the before and after learning contexts were compared (Mäkelä et al. 201, 285). Because of the encouraging results of this project, Jyväskylä Training School has continued to design learning spaces according to the same model, where pupils’ and students’ role is active. This extends to all learning contexts from primary to secondary school (see eg. Mäkelä and Helfenstein 2016).

Towards Schools Without School Desks The health and physical condition of adolescents has long been a topic of discussion in Finland. Further, new scientific research pointing to the dangers of long periods of sitting has raised awareness in many schools and places of work. These results, together with the fact that school satisfaction among adolescents is at an all-time low, has set in motion a string of actions within the Finnish education system. On a national level, the focus has been on school yards, where the amount of sports equipment and active play structures have been increased as well as the incorporation of different kinds of short active breaks during the school day. The Finnish Schools on the Move project is coordinating and innovating new kinds of school days at the national level (https://liikkuvakoulu.fi/english). In this context, old-fashioned classroom designs with rows of school desks, where pupils stare at the necks of schoolmates, are not the best possible design to achieve the goal of active citizenship. Many schools in Finland and around the world are trapped within a design of classical school architecture, because they were designed for the purpose of control

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  147

and discipline. Classical school architecture is based on long corridors where classrooms are side by side and the only connections to corridors are through closed doors. While enormous renovations can and are being done in these old school buildings, the most important shift is, of course, the emerging new learning and teaching cultures that these new environments are reflecting. Classrooms and schools without school desks are actually quite a new phenomenon in Finland. Primary school teacher Maarit Korhonen was the first to write about this and also give the public images for these new ways of thinking. For many years, she had witnessed and been told about the total frustration both teachers and students felt regarding the old-­ fashioned classroom design, and so one day she decided to take all the school desks out of her classroom with the help of her pupils. She brought in couches and beanbag chairs instead. The transformation of Korhonen’s teaching and learning space has been well documented (see e.g. 2014). She has also become a vocal figure in public debate related to education reform. Many teachers have since become interested in her idea of the “classroom without school desks.” The driving force behind Korhonen’s idea was to create a more comfortable school for pupils, and also the development of more individual learning processes. Korhonen emphasizes pupils’ right to follow their interests and broaden their skills of self-expression. Korhonen stresses that these seemingly superficial changes in classroom design get to the core of education reform. Is it possible to build a strong school community which emphasizes individuality? Does strong individuality create strong communality? Korhonen is just one example of one teacher’s intent and hard work towards the necessary change and goals, which are in many ways completely different from the existing social norms in school. It is also a good example of developmental work coming from the bottom up. Classrooms without school desks are not only some individuals’ experimental work but also part of a larger strategy, where whole schools are changing their way of living and learning. Tuomela Primary School is located in Hämeenlinna. It is the first school in Finland without any desks in the entire school. The school was built in 1955 and underwent a total renovation between 2013 and 2016.

148 

B. Yee et al.

The school is now without classrooms and corridors. Instead, there are large open areas for all grades. All classes at the same grade level work in a common, open area. These areas are very changeable and multifunctional. Every class has its own tipi-like space for their work together. Pupils do not have desks but boxes for their schoolbooks and other equipment. Behind the change of Tuomela primary school were ideas and goals similar to those of Maarit Korhonen; they aim to create inspiring learning environments which support creativity, courage, risk-taking, while at the same time making them stronger as individuals and as a community.

Dream of a Strong Community Tuomela Primary School began its work in the renovated school in August 2016 and while the physical structure has changed, the school understands it will take several years to see the permanent philosophical and pedagogical results. A similar process involving a radical shift in a whole school community started in Ritaharju School in Oulu. The new school building opened in 2010 and many in Finland viewed it as a miracle. The grand entrance hall, which also served as a multifunctional teaching and learning space, branched off into rooms which students could use during their leisure time in school, such as for console games. This was a marked difference in thinking about and planning for students’ whole school experience. Classroom doors were open and pupils could decide by themselves how to study and where as they were practising new skills and concepts taught in class, collaborating with other students or completing other school work; some pupils took a more leisurely approach, laying around, while still engaging in their learning, some took advantage of the variety of different learning environments available to them around the building and some pupils chose to work at their school desks. Pupils could be seen working as individuals, with a partner or in larger teams. Team-oriented working is one of Ritaharju School’s theoretical and strategic goals. Ritaharju School is exceptional in many ways. The new physical structure of the building was only the beginning of a complete shift in how the

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  149

learning environment would impact not only teaching and learning within the school, but extend to the larger community. Head teacher, Pertti Parpala, had a vision of the future school and more broadly, a vision of the school as a centre of the modern “city village.” He created a framework where all the members of the school community would be dedicated to a teamwork approach and collaborative professional learning. This was viewed as a significant change as head teachers in Finland do not have any formal power or authority to direct their teachers’ team according to their own pedagogical philosophies and principles. Parpala was able to invite new teachers to her team and guide the school’s pedagogical development. It could be said that he was building a teacher dream-team to make her vision come alive. Where teachers were organized to work in teams, pupils were too. The school is using Professor Liisa Keltinkangas-Järvinen’s classification of temperaments based on her well-documented research (see e.g. Keltinkangas-Järvinen 2006). It helps teachers in their understanding of their learners as individuals. Temperament is not the element which defines and dominates the learning processes, but it does give teachers insight in their work, as well as gives learners more ownership concerning their own learning processes. This idea is closely aligned with the education for democracy movement in Finland. Education is based on a broad consensus of trust among all stakeholders. Now some schools are trying to create a culture where trust in children is greater than before, which also resonates strongly with Lawrence Stenhouse’s idea of “teachers as researchers.” Using the concept of the “school as a research community,” it is believed that inviting all learners, especially adolescents, into this learning space will be of great benefit to all involved. Ritaharju School has manifested itself as “a center of the modern city village.” After the Second World War, a lot of school buildings were built in the countryside all around Finland. Those buildings became the centres of the villages, especially for the large number of youth born immediately after the war. Most of those schools were closed in the 1960s‑70s because of the migration of the population from the countryside to larger cities and abroad. Nevertheless, the idea and experience of the school as the centre of the community stayed. Even if there are fewer and fewer small rural schools in Finland, they remain symbols for ideal communality.

150 

B. Yee et al.

Based on the idea of the school as a centre for the community, Ritaharju School has a public library, a youth outreach centre, as well as activities, like clubs, for small children and senior citizens, all under the same roof.

A Step Towards Phenomenon-Based Learning Ritaharju School often has weeks when pupils learn according to the principles of a phenomenon-based approach, but it is not part of the everyday life here. Phenomenon-based learning was at the centre of discussion during the period when the new national core curriculum for basic education was made. This curriculum is still based on what we think of as traditional school subjects, but the spirit emphasizes a larger thematic approach towards learning. As a compromise, the national core curriculum includes larger themes, where the focus is on phenomena, which stress future skills and multidisciplinary perspectives. Phenomenon-based learning is seen as one of the bridges connecting adolescents to school work in a more engaging way, even if today it seems more like a vision and a brilliant idea than a widespread reality. Radical phenomenon-based experiments in schools or other educational institutions are rare, as well as research related to the benefits of phenomenon-­based learning. In this sense, phenomenon-based learning is at the centre of pedagogical experimental culture. Nevertheless, phenomenon-based approach has always been part of education, though it has not been conceptualized as such. For example, the Socratic method in Plato’s dialogues includes elements which are common for a phenomenon-based approach. Also, as a concept, the phenomenonbased approach remains controversial for some and there is no one shared model among experts. According to the Longman Dictionary, phenomenon is defined in the following way: Phenomenon: something that happens or exists in society, science, or nature, especially something that is studied because it is difficult to understand. (Longman Online Dictionary of Contemporary English 2016)

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  151

The Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä has a phenomenon-based curriculum for teacher education programmes. Also, many schools are now moving towards a more phenomenon-based approach to teaching and learning, such as the Alppila School in Helsinki (part of Pasila Compulsory school since 1.8.2016) (Saukkonen et  al. 2017). Teacher education has a special position in Finland. It is highly respected and one of the most popular programmes in all universities year after year. Teachers’ status in Finnish society is high and one reason for this is the highly academic nature of the education degree; a Masters’ degree is required for all teachers from primary to secondary schools. Teacher education is research-based, which means not only that education is based on the newest research, but also teacher educators engage in research as part of their studies. The role of teacher education programmes is also shifting, creating new visions for future learning and the schooling experience of the youth. Teacher training programmes should not be thought of as a socializing ritual, instead they should foster critical thinking in new teachers. This shift needs to begin during the teacher education phase, not after it, with new teachers, professors and students working closely together (see Fig. 5.1). Teacher education in Jyväskylä emphasizes phenomenon-based learning via the phenomena of interaction, co-operation, communality, inquiry-based learning and society. At the centre of the picture is the slogan think big, experiment bold! The phenomenon-based curriculum is the biggest of the experiments made at the Department of Teacher Education in Jyväskylä in the past decade. Behind the change was the idea that teacher education programmes could provide better solutions for the challenges of our time both in school and teacher education via a more holistic approach. Finnish teacher education has been criticized for year because of its fragmentary nature (see e.g. Nikkola et al. 2008). It is also an attempt to have a more open and democratic culture inside teacher education. Inquiry-based learning has been one of the concepts emphasized for years in teacher education, however it has also been more of idea and theory than one put into daily practice in Finnish classrooms. Again, a phenomenon-based curriculum narrows the gap between ideals and

152 

B. Yee et al.

Fig. 5.1  Big Picture of Teacher Education at the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä

reality, because it emphasizes curiosity and becoming engaged in authentic learning experiences throughout the learning process. The Teacher Education Department implements a phenomenon-based curriculum: the goal of studying is an attempt to understand the phenomena and problems related to learning. This requires the ability to combine various scientific theories and authentic viewpoints deriving from everyday experiences because the phenomenon of learning cannot be profoundly understood from a single viewpoint. The goal of the Teacher Education Programme is to support students’ professional development so that they become autonomous and ethically responsible experts who are able to critically analyse and reform the culture of school and education as well as their own activities. The goal is to create a strong academic identity and the basis thus formed for teachers to contribute to scientific and professional development in their own field. The work of a teacher requires both mastery of practical procedures and the ability to justify the choice of a particular way of working. At the core of a teacher’s work lies the understanding and supporting of a pupil’s and a

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  153

group’s development. The dialogue between theory and practice takes place particularly during teaching practice periods, which offer a holistic view of a teacher’s work. (Curriculum plans 2014–2017)

Learning environments and school architecture are also important elements in teacher education. In Jyväskylä, the Department of Teacher Education has been developing one model (scenario, vision) of a future school, based on interaction within the community as well as with society and inquiry-based learning. This model is an idea, but also an abstract construction of the future school. Spaces in schools should be seen as consisting of physical, intellectual, social and emotional features. At the heart of the school community is space, where members of the community can get together, share ideas and develop new ones. The leaning space has to be open, but at the same time there should also exist sheltered spaces in which smaller groups can work. In the second space, students, together with their teachers, can develop their ideas further by using different study methods, especially inquiry-based learning. If the “product” from the second space is something students want to share in the community with other stakeholders, they can do so in the third space. The products can be very different, like art, drama, enterprise or voluntary work, but the key is that a school contains learning spaces that can be multifunctional (Jääskelä et al. 2012).

High Participation, Excellent Learning Results Developmental work in schools has focused on participatory culture, learning environments and building a broader approach towards learning. This is becoming more and more challenging as half of the sixth grade pupils (at the age 12) report having difficulty finding meaning in their schooling experience and instead, are focusing their energy somewhere else (Salmela-Aro et al. 2016). These statistics stress the need for ongoing discussions between all members of the school community. Creating authentic, engaging learning for adolescents connected to the contexts they are growing up in cannot be done by adults alone; the co-­creation of learning between teacher and student has become increasingly important.

154 

B. Yee et al.

The new national core curriculum for basic education and the discussion surrounding its development has created a necessary shift in the ways schools have organized for teaching and learning. Schools have more co-teaching, projects with multidisciplinary approach and incorporate the expertise of other stakeholders in the surrounding community and larger society. The enthusiasm of teachers and adolescents, too, was novel in many schools in autumn 2016 when the new national curriculum was implemented. This is important, because school architecture only creates the frames for new kind of schooling, and stays empty without a new spirit of community and commitment to change. However, there are some challenges which might dictate the need for more radical changes, like exclusion of the adolescent voice from proposed changes. Should school do better at preventing this trend than it does now? (Myrskylä 2012.) In September 2016, the Ministry of Education and Culture released a new programme for the compulsory school of the future. It outlines the direction for schools, presented in this chapter, especially learner-centred learning, participation and a more experimental culture in school communities (OKM 2016.) The message to the student teachers’ association (SOOL) is the same. They released goals for teacher education programmes of the future, and while the context is slightly different, they have a similar vision for what development is needed to ensure the education system meet the needs of teachers in training and students in school (SOOL 2016).

 cologies of Practice for Enhancing Adolescent E Learning Engagement in Finnish Schools The development of Finnish schools is based on both systemic thinking and the experimental work of individual teachers and school communities. If this relationship is productive, the national frame can support grass-root development work, and the work from “bottom” can support national strategic work. The Finnish educational system is flexible, especially at the grass-root level in classrooms and school communities. The

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  155

systemic level however is much more complex. Consequently, the national government in Finland (2015–2019) is trying to both improve and simplify the development of the national level education policy via two large-­ scale projects: one, the new comprehensive school; and two, the teacher education forum. Together with the new national curriculum for basic education, these projects aim to create new kinds of ecosystems, where co-operational culture between different stakeholders is much stronger than it is now. The focus is on “relatings” according to the ecologies of practice concept of Kemmis et al (2014). On the other hand, relatings are not possible without new practices in doings or shared interpretations in sayings.

Learning Groups of prospective teachers were faced with a new kind of challenge in Korpilahti School, 30 kilometres south of Jyväskylä, in November 2016. They had planned six hours of lessons for adolescents (14-year old pupils) according to the principles of inquiry-based learning and gaming. Pupils in Korpilahti school were organized into four groups and each group had to solve an imaginary problem that took place in Helsinki (a bomb attack). The school was modelled on the city; corridors became streets and classrooms were transformed into replicas of buildings, such as a bar, restaurant, police station, and so on. Social media tools that students were familiar with played an integral part in this project, as teachers used blogs, Twitter, Facebook and websites. Students and teachers played different roles as citizens of the city. After intensive work, the groups had to present an informed report addressing the question “which group was behind the attack?” It is precisely this kind of learning task that the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä has been developing and implementing for the past few years. This is one way to create a new kind of learning culture where co-operational work, inquiry and problem-based learning in different learning environments are emphasized. Interventions can be based on the idea of gaming, like in Korpilahti, but they can also be more authentic, long-term projects, for example, looking at issues that impact the school directly and its

156 

B. Yee et al.

surrounding community. Even if this image of practice as well as examples described earlier in the chapter remain the exception to the norm, they are a reflection of a new culture, which would not be possible without new thinking about teaching and learning.

Teaching Student teachers were leading the project in Korpilahti from the conception of the idea to the assessment of student learning. They created a manuscript for the game and constructed all of the elements needed for the project. They used social media to support the four student groups and give feedback as they could not get together physically. This project would not have been possible without co-operation and these experiences should be strong in teacher education. Hence students can reflect in the intersubjective spaces (Kemmis et al. 2014, p. 95) from the viewpoints of teacher as well as learner. According to them, the teacher’s role in the Korpilahti project was more like “producer” than teacher (in the traditional sense). Students felt they created environments for adolescents to learn and become interested in the topic. Community building was also a major part of creating this new teaching culture. Besides building the teachers’ community within the school, student teachers inspired the adolescent learners to become active participants in their own learning.

Professional Learning Changing the culture of a school demands a collaborative approach towards work and new kind of professional learning. Finnish schools continue to be dominated by more individual teacher work than on co-­ operative practice. Also, teachers’ pre-service and in-service educations have been separated for decades. This unbreakable separate tradition was one reason why the teacher education forum was created in 2016, attempting to enhance the interaction between pre-service and in-service teacher training. New professional learning should be based on the openness of all stakeholders to meet and create a new culture together as well as share and discuss experiences, challenges and shared concerns. In this

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  157

sense, the Korpilahti project also served as an intervention to break apart these separate working cultures: teachers, student teachers and also university researchers worked and learned together in the context of a real school (Kemmis et al. 2014, p. 128). This type of collaboration is problematic in the current context. At the moment teachers’ working time is based on the number of lessons delivered and time for co-operation is marginal. Existing structures support the old system based on individual work, not a new kind of culture based on teams and collaborative work. In many ways, schools are becoming more autonomous units. The head teacher plays a key role when schools begin to undergo this cultural shift.

Leading Some stakeholders questioned the “doings” in Korpilahti from different viewpoints based on the notion of teaching and learning of subject areas rather than concepts such as co-operation and critical thinking. The head teacher’s support for the group was extremely important because they could continue the experimental work in peace. During the past decade, school-based leadership has become a key element of educational development in Finland. According to developmental programme for Teacher Education (Ministry of Education and Culture 2016), leading in the future will be based more and more on teams, shared leadership and communality. Its focus is on long-term developmental work in pedagogy and school culture. Like learning and teaching, leading is seen in the centre of “sayings, doings and relatings” as the example from Ritaharju highlights.

Researching Finnish teacher education is based on research (research-based teacher education). In Korpilahti, prospective teachers first read books concerning theory and practice, especially inquiry-based learning, in history teaching. They then construct pedagogical experiments where they transferred their understanding of the new kind of history teaching into reality. After this intervention they wrote a research-based article which

158 

B. Yee et al.

will be published as part of a book consisting of similar articles from other prospective students. One of the main objectives in teacher education is to develop the competence of reflective practitioners, as well as the attitudes and skills needed to study phenomena from multidimensional perspectives. It could be said that these shifts in teacher education have not yet had enough time impact to schools. The work of Finnish teachers is still based more on individuality than on communality and schools are not yet the learning organizations they should be according to principles and priorities set for both teacher education and schools. The challenge of course is to get all stakeholders to work together in new ecosystems, which represent a type of future laboratory based on broad co-operation, experimental atmosphere and research.

References Curriculum plans 2014–2017. Department of Teacher Education: University of Jyväskylä. https://www.jyu.fi/edupsy/fi/laitokset/okl/opiskelu/luokanopettajakoulutus/luokanopettajakoulutus/Curriculum2014_English.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2016. Jääskelä, P., Klemola, U., Kostiainen, E., & Rautiainen, M. (2012, June 7–8). Constructing the future school community – The scenario of an interactive, agency building and creative learning environment. Conference Proceedings: The Future of Education, Florence, Italy. Simonelli Editore – University Press. Keltinkangas-Järvinen, L. (2006). Temperamentti ja koulumenestys. Helsinki: WSOY. Kemmis, S., et  al. (2014). Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer. Korhonen, M. (2014). Herää, koulu! Into: Helsinki. Longman online Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2016). http://www.ldoceonline.com/. Accessed 1 Sept 2016. Mäkelä, T., & Helfenstein, S. (2016). Developing a conceptual framework for participatory design of psychological and physical learning environments. Learning Environment Research. An International Journal, 19(3), 411–440. Mäkelä, T., Lundströn, A., & Mikkonen, I. (2013). Oppimistilojen yhteissuunnittelua  – opiskelijat aktiivisina osallistujina. In S.  Nenonen, S.  Kärnä, J.-M. Junnonen, S. Tähtinen, & N. Sandström (Eds.), Oppiva kampus. How to co-create campus (pp. 272–287). Tampere: Suomen Yliopistokiinteistöt Oy.

  Finland: Towards the Future School 

  159

Ministry of Education and Culture. (2016). Opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisohjelma. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture. Myrskylä, P. (2012). Hukassa – keitä ovat syrjäytyneet nuoret? EVAn raportteja 19/2012. http://www.eva.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Syrjaytyminen. pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2016. Nikkola, T., Räihä, P., Moilanen, P., Rautiainen, M., & Saukkonen, S. (2008). Towards a deeper understanding of learning in teacher education. In C. Nygaard & C. Holtham (Eds.), Understanding learning-centred higher education (pp. 251–263). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. OKM. (2016). Uusi peruskoulu – ohjelma. Oppijalähtöisyys, osaavat opettajat ja yhteisöllinen toimintakulttuuri. http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/ osaaminenjakoulutus/peruskouluuudistus/oppimisymparistot/liitteet/Uusi_ peruskoulu_ohjelma_09092016_final.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2016. Raiker, A., & Rautiainen, M. (Eds.). (2017). Educating for democracy in England and Finland. Principles and culture. London: Routledge. Rautiainen, M., & Kostiainen, E. (2015). Finland: Policy and vision. In T.  Corner (Ed.), Education in the European Union (pp.  91–108). London: Bloomsbury. Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish Lessons 2.0. What can the world learn from educational change in Finland. New York: Teacher College Press. Salmela-Aro, K., Muotka, J., Hakkarainen, K., Alho, K., & Lonka, K. (2016). School burnout and engagement profiles among digital natives in Finland: A person-oriented approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 704–718. Saukkonen, S., Moilanen, P., Mathew, D., & Rapley, E. (2017). Power, democracy and progressive schools. In A. Raiker & M. Rautiainen (Eds.), Educating for democracy in England and Finland, Principles and culture (pp.  81–92). London: Routledge. SOOL. (2016). Tavoitteet opettajankoulutukselle 2016–2019. http://www.sool. fi/site/assets/files/1320/tavoitteet_2016-web.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2016.

6 Ecologies of Practice

Through current research evidence, anecdotal experiences portrayed in the research to praxis sections and country-specific images of practice, we hope the chapters of this book have highlighted the tremendous potential and power of the adolescent developmental period. Education systems, schools and teachers all play important roles in how the schooling experience of adolescents unfolds. Since such a significant portion of their sense of self develops through their interactions and explorations with people and ideas at school, we can no longer leave to chance what happens during the middle years of learning. Bringing the science and research of adolescence and adolescent schooling to life through the lens of story was the best way we believed we could help our readers see just what is possible when we deliberately create a learning environment suited to the unique developmental needs of these learners. The images of practice brought to life in the pages of this book cross cultural and linguistic borders of countries, whose education systems reflect policies and practices deeply rooted in long-held beliefs about what it means to be an educated citizen of the country. Common to the images of practice from all three countries, however, is the constant search for how to ameliorate the schooling experience for adolescent learners by challenging the existing © The Author(s) 2018 B. Yee et al., Engaging Adolescent Learners, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52602-7_6

161

162 

B. Yee et al.

discourse on what is believed to be possible during the middle years of learning. In this final chapter of the book, we will return to the work of Kemmis et al. (2014) as we examine, through the lens of the five interdependent ecologies of practice, essential elements of education systems, schools and educators that are responsive to the unique developmental and learning needs of adolescents. We will weave country-specific images of practice along with the shifts in prevailing discourse into the key elements of schooling practices (student learning, teaching, professional learning, leading and researching) identified by the framework. Further, we will draw attention to the practice architectures within the education systems of the three countries which manifest themselves in the form of nuances in the prevalent ways of sayings, doings and relatings. We believe these subtleties that are very much tied to culture and country-specific norms are just as significant in the transformative process as more overt, large-­ scale reforms labelled as innovation. The intent is to showcase, in a very practical manner, how attending to the concepts of this comparative framework and challenging the status quo with regard to teaching and learning in the middle years can result in significant and meaningful transformation in the schooling experience for adolescent learners.

The Ecology of Student Learning in Canada In a Canadian context, much attention has been paid to the question of what it means to be an educated citizen in the context of a rapidly changing world. What becomes immediately evident is that a traditional model of schooling, born from the industrial age with a one-size-fits-all, approach does not serve our students well in the current societal context. How do we ensure the child born this year can adapt to the many changes ahead? As importantly, how do we help children discover and pursue their passions? How do we help them make successful transitions to adulthood? And how do we help them become lifelong learners who contribute to healthy, inclusive communities and thriving economies? (Alberta Education 2010, p. 4)

  Ecologies of Practice 

  163

These questions and others surfaced in the Canadian province of Alberta as educators, industry professionals, parents and other stakeholders came together in the form of education roundtables to reflect on two seemingly simple statements: what is the value of education; and, what will it mean to be an educated Albertan in the year 2029 (McKinsey 2009). What became very apparent was that the current education system was not in a position to adequately prepare a new generation of students for a rapidly changing future; a future which in many cases has proven to be highly unpredictable. Inspiring Education, A Dialogue with Albertans (2010), was the result of this mass public consultation process. Charted in this steering committee report was a long-term, big picture, vision for education in the province through to the year 2030. In May of 2013, a new Ministerial Order delineating foundational beliefs about the role of education in Alberta was signed into law. Outlined was a very different direction, one that reflected a significant shift in philosophy about the purpose of basic education, moving away from the accumulation of mere knowledge towards the development of essential competencies. And, if you share the belief of many that the school, as a microcosm of society, reflects the value system of that same public it serves, this new ministerial order is certainly positioned to support a renaissance of sorts in the education system serving Alberta’s youth. “The goal of this Student Learning Ministerial Order for an inclusive Kindergarten to Grade 12 education is to enable all students to: be Engaged Thinkers and Ethical Citizens with an Entrepreneurial Spirit” (Alberta Education 2013, p. 2). The statement, taken from the new ministerial order, highlights these very important philosophical shifts: Whereas education in Alberta will be shaped by a greater emphasis on education than on the school; on the learner than on the system; on competencies than on content; on inquiry, discovery the application of knowledge than on the dissemination of information, and on technology to support the creation and sharing of knowledge than on technology to support teaching. (Alberta Education 2013, p. 2)

No longer will it be adequate to impart students with knowledge alone, facts and a narrow set of skills. The role of the teacher and of the student,

164 

B. Yee et al.

in what can be best described as a learning partnership, must evolve to support this new way of learning in an ever-changing world. Characteristics that may have once been reserved for describing the outcomes of alternative education programmes have now been articulated as foundational to the large-scale public education system in Alberta. For example, students in Alberta are learning to be: Engaged Thinker[s]: [one] who thinks critically and make discoveries; who uses technology to learn, innovate, communicate, and discover; who works with multiple perspectives and disciplines to identify problems and find the best solutions; who communicates these ideas to others; and, who, as a life-long learner, adapts to change with an attitude of optimism and hope for the future. (Alberta Education 2010, p. 5)

Students are also learning to develop the qualities of an: Ethical Citizen[s]: [one] who build relationships based on humility, fairness and open-mindedness; who demonstrates respect, empathy and compassion; and who through teamwork, collaboration and communication contributes fully to the community and the world. (Alberta Education 2010, p. 6)

And, students are learning to embrace an: Entrepreneurial Spirit: [one] who creates opportunities and achieves goals through hard work, perseverance and discipline; who strives for excellence and earns success; who explores ideas and challenges the status quo; who is competitive, adaptable and resilient; and who has the confidence to take risks and make bold decisions in the face of adversity. (Alberta Education 2010, p. 6)

While you would not find many in the province who would disagree with the vision put forth in the 2013 Ministerial Order, what remains to be seen is how this seemingly undebatable philosophical shift will be ­operationalized. A very real concern is that as with many sound concepts in principle, it is the implementation phase where good intentions fail.

  Ecologies of Practice 

  165

The Ecology of Student Learning in Finland As in a Canadian context, the question of educating citizens in the context of a changing world is a big question in Finland, too. Twenty-first century skills, like life and career skills, learning and innovation as well as information, media and technology skills, are at the core of this process. These skills are also emphasized in the new national core curriculum for basic education (2014). Besides by this individual goal, the new national core curriculum stresses engagement with the society and stronger participation in the communities in which adolescents are living. Finnish schools have had two faces for several decades. The fact is that the country shows good learning results in international surveys like Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), and on the other hand, a low participatory culture in schools (according to e.g. the International Civic and Citizenship Study). The big question in Finland is, how to combine good learning results with high participatory levels. According to Professor Juha Suoranta (2003, 137–138) Finnish schools have had three different phases in their history. First, school of discipline, where the teacher had strong routines and rules for schoolwork and the learner was subordinate. The school of discipline stressed national cohesion and uniformity. Second, the school of individuality, which began in the 1970s when nine-year comprehensive schools for all began in Finland. The school of individuality emphasized individual learning processes and teachers’ support of these processes. The change from the school of discipline to the school of individuality was huge, because the whole basis of education changed from masses to individuals. The third phase is called the school of co-operation, where communality based on problem-based learning, justice and hope are emphasized. Juha Suoranta’s analysis exposes well the tensions behind Finnish school culture and learning. Because of the long tradition based on the school of discipline, the creation of a new culture is hard, and words in the curriculum have been implemented in everyday life in schools only slowly. With the new curriculum (since 1.8.2016) the strategy has been different. Changes concerning cross-curricular themes, new assessment

166 

B. Yee et al.

cultures and the learner’s position at the centre of learning processes are so huge that teachers cannot continue with their old routines. What are the most important changes from the perspective of adolescents concerning their learning? How do we try to inspire adolescents to become owners of their own learning processes? According to our new curriculum, the following objectives are needed to: • • • • • • •

Increase pupils’ interest; Include pupils’ participation in different activities; Increase the meaningfulness of school; Make possible for each pupil to experience success; Learn in different learning environments; Inspire learning; Study multidisciplinary learning modules.

In the Finnish learning culture, where classroom design has been traditional and teacher’s role in the learning process dominant, this new turn demands changes at all levels of education, especially in attitudes. School should be seen more from the perspective of adolescents in co-­ operational school rather than traditional routines, where adolescents are more subordinates than equal participants.

The Ecology of Student Learning in Germany Germany has undergone an interesting shift in terms of what educators discuss and pay attention to. Because the German education system has for a long time relied on sorting and sifting students—at the age of ten— into the supposedly “right school” for them, a lot of attention has in the past been paid to the structure of the school system. Types of schools, the vocational “Hauptschule,” the middle-tier “Realschule” and the academic “Gymnasium” each developed and defended their own rationale, often in distinction to and with a certain implicit disregard for the other types. Until the PISA-Shock of 2000, there was little communication and hardly any co-operation and exchange between these pillars of German education.

  Ecologies of Practice 

  167

The problematic results of the first PISA study, especially with regard to student equity, had one immediate effect: politicians were suddenly ready to set aside significant budgets for sound empirical research on what happens in classrooms and schools. This so-called empirical shift has had long-ranging consequences: More and more research studies were published and showed that the type of school a child attended did actually matter as much as the quality of instruction in individual schools, the “deep structures” supporting the learning process. The so-called supply-usage model developed by German researcher Helmke and Schrader (2014) has been widely used in the German context to explain that learning does not happen automatically but rather needs to be understood as an active choice students are making. The “supply” teachers are making is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for student learning. To what extent and at what level of depth students make use of the given supply depends on many factors, some of them residing in the individual student. The research on supply and usage in learning has led to an enhanced interest in student motivation: how can learning be organized to motivate adolescents to actively use and embrace the supply made by the school? The model most widely embraced by German practitioners working with adolescents in schools is the “motivational theory of self-determination” as developed by American researchers Deci and Ryan (2000). It sees intrinsic motivation as depending on the extent to which three basic psychological needs are being satisfied: • Competence: Does the learning environment enable the students to control the outcome of their learning and to experience mastery? • Relatedness: Does the learning environment enable adolescents to interact, to feel connected and supported and to experience caring for others? • Autonomy: Does the learning environment enable adolescents to make certain decisions themselves and to have agency over their own life? Schools not labelling students at the young age of ten, are increasingly seen as better able to enhance intrinsic motivation for disadvantaged students, which has resulted in the gradual introduction of more comprehensive types of schooling. In addition to the motivational side of

168 

B. Yee et al.

learning, what really matters seems to be what researchers call the “deep structures” lying hidden below the surface of what is happening in the classroom (Kunter and Trautwein 2013, pp. 76–78). While it is easy to observe classroom interaction at the surface level (to look, for example, at different teaching methods individual teachers are using), what really enhances student learning are the more invisible factors. Three key factors have been identified by German research (Kunter and Trautwein 2013, pp. 78–102): 1. Cognitive activation: The single most important factor in creating effective and stimulating learning environments for adolescents turned out to be the quality of cognitive activation. To what extent is the teacher able to get all adolescents actively interested and involved in the learning process? Are the students “engaged” in their learning? Do they find the learning process interesting and relevant? To what extent do they see themselves as agents of their learning and develop a sense of ownership? Is the learning environment only activating a small part of the adolescents in the class or do teachers manage to motivate all learners? 2. Classroom management: It turned out that effective learning requires teachers who are able to manage interaction processes in the classroom really well. No matter if students were involved in a teacher-student-­ dialogue according to the Socratic method or if they were doing project-­work in small teams, what mattered for their learning outcome was the extent to which a teacher managed the process well. Do teachers make sure that the learning aims are transparent, that the time in class is maximally used for learning, that students understand the meaning of what they are supposed to work on and that learning takes place in a safe and undisturbed environment? Constructive support: What really makes a difference for the outcome of learning, it turned out, is the amount of support and scaffolding teachers provide individual learners with during their learning process: To what extent are teachers able to teach adaptively, so that different learners get the level of support they need? Do they differentiate tasks and break down complex assignments in smaller units for all students to be able to succeed?

  Ecologies of Practice 

  169

Do they fade and move to the background to let students who are competently working on a task experience their self-efficacy? Do the students receive ongoing formative feedback that helps them understand where they stand in their learning and what they can do to improve? Because of the country’s long tradition of sorting students into groups of supposedly similar ability, generations of teachers in Germany have been trained to teach what they saw as homogeneous groups of students by means of a “one size fits all” approach. Internal differentiation and scaffolding have not been within the core of the teacher repertoire and there is still little knowledge and experience on how to do this well. (Trautmann and Wischer 2011)

To learn well, adolescents need to develop intrinsic motivation which is most likely when they experience themselves as competent, relating to other individuals and to some extent autonomous. Teachers can best support adolescent learning when they activate them cognitively by creating syllabi that seem interesting, challenging and meaningful.

The Ecology of Teaching in Canada Engagement is one of those terms that often falls into the category of educational jargon, one where everywhere you turn, a slightly different definition emerges. The work of the Canadian Education Association (CEA) in 2007 began to shed light on this widely used, yet often misinterpreted concept, and assist Canadian educators in their understanding of what “increasing student engagement” would entail. What did you do in school today? was a multi-year study that included the voices of over 63,000 Canadian adolescents. It was “designed to capture, assess and inspire new ideas for enhancing the learning experiences of adolescents in classrooms and schools, using an expanded framework for thinking about student engagement and its relationship to learning” (Willms et al. 2009, p. 6). Emerging from this expansive study was a new understanding of engagement, one that built upon the concepts of academic and social engagement and further expanded to include the notion of intellectual

170 

B. Yee et al.

engagement. Academic engagement was defined as: “participation in the formal requirements of schooling” whereas, social engagement was said to be, “a sense of belonging and participation in school life (2009, p. 6). The third element of engagement, intellectual engagement was described as, “A serious emotional and cognitive investment in learning, using higher-order thinking skills (such as analysis and evaluation) to increase understanding, solve complex problems, or construct new knowledge” (2009, p. 6). It is this deep connection to and ownership of learning that has a significant impact not only on students’ quality of lives at school, but on the quality of students’ daily lives outside of them as well. The basic tenets of intellectual engagement target the same ways of thinking and the same ways of being that encompass the phrase, “learning to be.” The pursuit of intellectual engagement elevates teaching and learning in the classroom beyond a traditional stand and delivers structure to one that necessitates a shift in the role of the teacher, to a designer of learning, and asks the student to become a co-creator in that learning partnership. Students are developing metacognitive skills not in isolation, but in the context of deep disciplinary understanding in a broad range of core and exploratory subject areas. Two very practical tools have emerged from the What did you do in the school today? research that have supported instructional leaders and teachers as they work to create school and classroom contexts that lay the foundation for the development of intellectual engagement. The Teacher Effectiveness Framework outlines five core principles of effective teaching, teaching that fosters the development of student intellectual engagement and also the emergence of pedagogies responsive to the changing demands on education systems around the world (Friesen 2009). 1. Effective teaching practice begins with the thoughtful and intentional design of learning that engages students intellectually and academically. 2. The work that students are asked to undertake is worthy of their time and attention, is personally relevant, and deeply connected to the world in which they live. 3. Assessment practices are clearly focused on improving student learning and guiding teaching decisions and actions.

  Ecologies of Practice 

  171

4. Teachers foster a variety of interdependent relationships in classrooms that promote learning and create a strong culture around learning. 5. Teachers improve their practice in the company of peers. Surrounding these five core principles, and infused into each of them, is the effective use of the technologies of our time for both teaching and learning. (Friesen 2009, p. 4)

The second tool that has significantly impacted the way teachers in one urban Alberta school district design learning to foster intellectual engagement is the Discipline Based Inquiry Rubric. This rubric outlines eight dimensions to support the design of learning for students intended to excite and engage them and lead to deep understanding of the discipline they are working within. Through the lens of the discipline based inquiry rubric, teachers ensure they design worthwhile, authentic learning opportunities that are true to the disciplines, rather than what Viviane Robinson, Distinguished Professor in Learning Development and Professional Practice, from the University of Auckland, often terms, “happy, busy, lovely” activities that are sometimes seductive for teachers and students, but often result in no deep learning (Park 2014). What are some key lessons to be learned from this research? To borrow a quotation from Jardine et al. (2008), “What began with such enthusiasm and hope around a century ago in the organization and imagining of schooling has simply worn out…” (p. 14). Test scores alone cannot predict teacher effectiveness, nor can they be seen as an indicator of how students “feel” about their learning experience and subsequently how well students are being prepared for life beyond school. In fact, using a Canadian context, international test scores might give one the impression that all students are deeply engaged and invested in their learning. Willms’ (2003) research on student engagement suggested that high standings by Canadian students in international measures are not necessarily matched by high levels of student engagement. Above all else, this research has shown us how very multidimensional, yet crucial to student success (in school and beyond), the concept of engagement is. In order for schools to support the needs of all students as they learn to be learners in a very

172 

B. Yee et al.

complex world, the school and classroom environments must attend to all three dimensions of engagement, academic, social and intellectual, and the many facets of teaching effectiveness and the design of learning that fosters it.

The Ecology of Teaching in Finland The Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare is collecting a large data concerning adolescents and youth’s health and life in Finland every year from different age of pupils from Finnish comprehensive school (School Health Promotion Study). Questionnaire includes also questions of pupils’ experiences of teachers and teaching. According to those results in 2015 nearly half (49 per cent) of 8th and 9th grade students experienced teacher are not interested in their thoughts and opinions. Every third feels teachers are not supporting and encouraging students to express their views and opinions and 37 per cent feel they do not have any part or role in the development of the school culture. Though percentages are lower than they were 10 years ago (School Health Promotion Study 2006), results are describing teacher-centred classroom culture where the voice of teacher is strong and the voice of adolescents is quiet. The experiences of adolescents described above are different compared to the spirit of the Finnish national core curriculum or other visions of Finnish future school, which stress strong concord between teachers and students. This contradiction is explained partly by strong cohesion among teachers based on tradition and shared idea of teacherhood and professionalism. Only partly, because teachers’ pedagogical freedom is extremely large in Finland. Because of this freedom, diversity in classrooms is enormous and we do not have big qualitative data concerning teachers’ work, because it is difficult to get data which is comparable. In this context, again, two faces can be found: old school, where traditionalism is strong, and new school, where teaching is based on curiosity and experimental work by the whole community. From these viewpoints, teaching in Finland’s future looks different from what it is now and according to Rautiainen and Kostiainen (2015), the following transfers are changing the culture:

  Ecologies of Practice 

  173

• From static state to dynamic agility, where experimental culture is strong. • Extending perspective from the present and near future to the long-­ term future, where radically future-oriented scenarios are possible. • From conventional views of time and space to new ways of constructing time and space, because existing spaces do not sufficiently support future teaching. • From structured systems to open systems, where teaching will be taking different shapes in new learning environments. At classroom and school level, in practice these directions mean teaching which is under experimentation and studying, such as co-teaching, digitalism and co-operation with other stakeholders.

The Ecology of Teaching in Germany Until quite recently, the common notion of what it meant to be a teacher in Germany was quite narrowly focused on instruction. This is still reflected in teacher working conditions. As civil servants, teachers do not have a contract describing in detail the various professional roles and expectations implied by the current international understanding of the teacher professionalism. Instead, the state only defines the number of lessons each teacher is supposed to teach per week, their so-called Deputat. It is thus not surprising, that teachers have in the past primarily defined their role as transmitters of a canon of knowledge defined by the curriculum. However, this narrow understanding of what it means to be a teacher has been widely challenged in post-PISA Germany. The past 15 years have seen controversial public debates on the role of teachers not only as enablers but also as preventers of learning. Some reformers went so far as to demand the complete abandonment of the term “teacher” because they saw it as embodying a philosophy that values teaching more than learning and prone to reducing the learner to a passive object rather than a self-determined and self-regulating agent of his or her learning (Kahl and Fratton 2014). These reformers suggested replacing the term “teacher” with alternative concepts such as “learning coach,” “learning guide” or

174 

B. Yee et al.

“learning companion,” which in turn led to controversial debates with more conservative educational lobby groups who feared the end of schooling (Felten 2016). A similar culture war on the semantics of schooling focused on the shift from input-driven curricula, so-called teaching plans (Lehrpläne), to outcome-based curricula describing competences students should reach by a certain age. This shift took place after the first PISA study, when German policy makers had the impression that the input-driven curricula the country had used were outdated and had not delivered the same highquality results as the more modern outcome-based curricula more successful countries had already introduced much earlier. Whereas certain progressive groups in education perceived competence-standards as the holy grail of modern education (Hunziker 2017), more conservative groups feared that the supposedly vague notion of what “competence” means and the multiplicity of competences students were expected to develop would distract from the core responsibility of education, namely to enable “Bildung” seen as a process of working through a handed down and stable canon of knowledge (Liessmann 2014). These public debates on what it means to be teaching in today’s schools both in terms of teacher roles and the aims of teaching have been thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating. After years of controversial debate the tone is becoming less biting. The supposedly antagonistic positions between the proponents of the classical “teacher” with a focus on “Bildung” versus the more progressive “learning coach” with a focus on competences are becoming more integrated and nuanced. The controversial debates manifest a substantial learning process the entire German school system is undergoing as it is moving from the industrial model of schooling inherited from the nineteenth century to schooling suitable for the knowledge age.

 he Ecology of Professional Learning T in Canada While the concept of teacher professional development is not new, emerging research on the sustainability of educational reform has underscored the important connection between a continuous cycle of professional

  Ecologies of Practice 

  175

knowledge building and improved student learning outcomes (City et al. 2009; Stoll et al. 2006; Timperley 2008). The professional learning community or PLC, typically enacted as a series of highly structured meetings (often for the purposes of accountability), is now being reconsidered—an opportunity to re-imagine the principles, processes and context for more effective teacher professional learning. The work of Timperley et al. (2007), Timperley (2008), Bolam (2005), Stoll (2006, 2008, 2012) and their colleagues has illuminated both the positive impact of sustained professional learning among teachers within and between schools along with the complex interplay of individual, schoolbased and systemic factors that influence the development and direction of professional learning networks. In a 2012 international examination of how to best prepare teachers and develop leaders for the changing landscape of education worldwide, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Andreas Schleicher described the need for teachers to become “active agents of their own professional growth” (p. 73). Processes for building teacher capacity which are embedded into a school culture of continuous professional learning are now considered to be the most effective ways of supporting teachers, as they learn from their colleagues and alongside their colleagues by engaging in metacognition related to their own practice (Jackson and Temperley 2007). In our increasingly interconnected world, where schools are subject to growing systemic pressures for improved student achievement and where classrooms are becoming more diverse, the principles of developing both the individual and collective capacity of teachers within a school environment of continuous professional learning is supported by numerous pieces of research. For education systems in many countries this presents a new notion of how to positively influence sustainable improvement in student, teacher and system outcomes. It would be misleading to portray the Canadian Education system as having one approach towards the professional learning and development of the nation’s teachers. Multiple factors, such as the number of days devoted to professional learning, the content and focus of professional learning and the funds available to support professional learning, vary within the individual school districts among the ten provinces and three territories in Canada. Current provincial and territorial beliefs

176 

B. Yee et al.

related to the importance and direction of teacher professional learning and development often surface as fiercely debated issues during contract negotiation times, usually seeing teacher unions and departments of education at odds with one another. The previously referred to Teaching Effectiveness Framework (Friesen 2009), emerging from the cross-Canada, multi-year What did you do in school today? shed light on the importance of teacher professional development. The fifth principle of effective teaching practice is that teachers improve their practice in the company of their peers. Just as the “sage on the stage” view of the teacher imparting wisdom to a room filled with students in neat rows is no longer seen as an effective pedagogical strategy, teachers, teaching in isolation, behind locked doors with blinds drawn does nothing to support the continuous growth that is fundamental to a teacher’s pedagogical practice. This shift in discourse has caused one school district in Alberta to re-­ envision how to best support and facilitate the processional growth and learning of its teachers. Ten “system” days are devoted to professional learning each year, allowing for the teachers in the over 250+ schools in the district to collaborate, cross-pollinate and create support networks. Further, written into the latest collective agreement is a clause indicating that the staff at each school will have the discretion to determine the professional learning focus for five of these ten days. While certainly not mandated, it is very common for staff to devote these five days around professional learning in support of school development plan goals. The professional teachers’ union also requires all teachers to create a yearly teacher professional growth plan (TPGP). A common positive trend that has emerged is the alignment of teachers’ TPGP, with both district and school-based goals. This alignment has served to create a shift in teachers’ beliefs about the effectiveness of their professional learning along with the ways in which professional learning is carried out. An approach towards professional learning that sees it not as an event that happens when an outside expert is brought in to deliver a “sit and get” presentation, but rather as teachers engaging in continuous cycles of dialogue with colleagues and ongoing professional practice reflection has been much more effective in creating a culture of teachers as learners in our schools.

  Ecologies of Practice 

  177

 he Ecology of Professional Learning T in Finland Teachers’ status is high in Finland. In addition, teaching programmes at the universities are one of the most popular among all the university applicants. Also, Finnish teacher education itself has a very good reputation not only in Finland but all around the world. But what happens to teachers after their graduation? Have you heard of high profile in-service teacher training in Finland or professional development? Probably not. Traditionally, pre-service teacher education’s role has been extremely emphasized in Finland because of the nature of the teaching profession. Teachers’ credentials are based on individual effort and according to this idea, their professional development has been constructed according to the need and will of the individual teacher. In practice, some teachers have invested in their professional development, and some have not. On the other hand, in-service teacher education in Finland is constructed around separate days or courses, which have helped individual teachers with their classroom work but not the school community as a whole. This state of professional development and in-service teacher education has come under critique, especially over the past decade (see e.g. Heikkinen et al. 2015). It has been criticized not only from the viewpoint of individuality, but also because it is considered fragmentary, unsystematic and old-fashioned. Times have changed rapidly in the past 20 years, and this has had a direct influence on teachers’ work. Also, the idea of teacherhood has changed from an individual culture towards co-­ operational culture. During the past ten years, the basis of professional development and in-service teacher education has also been changing in Finland. Individual courses are still part of the “tray,” but more and more professional development consists of building a community together with other teachers in the school. The contemporary idea of professional development in Finland has at its base the idea of the school community’s own developmental work, which resonates strongly with the acute questions in a school’s everyday life, but also for the local, national and international

178 

B. Yee et al.

questions of school, learning and education. In this sense, a new ideal for professional development is intellectual community, which studies its conditions of work from different perspectives. It is not possible without time for co-operational work, which head teachers are spending more and more time on in schools. This demands very professional and systematic leading by head teachers and strong confidence in the capacity of the teaching community.

 he Ecology of Professional Learning T in Germany For several decades, the professional learning of teachers in Germany has followed the traditional paradigm of instruction and reflected the predominant teaching mode used in schools and universities. Individual teachers took part in seminars offered by state-run institutes for teacher professional development. In those courses they were acquainted with knowledge and rarely got the opportunity to practise skills and reflect on the transfer of their professional learning into classrooms. When they returned to their schools, the long-term effects of this kind of learning on teacher practices were minimal (Lipowsky 2016). Similar to the findings of international research (Timperley 2007, 2008), German research on effective teacher professional development (Lipowsky 2016) has revealed the deficits of the traditional instruction model of professional learning. As it did not reflect what is known about effective adult learning, it remained largely ineffective. For professional learning to impact the actual practice of teaching and learning in schools, it needs to be ­embedded in everyday teaching practice and connected to the strategic aims a school is working on. Positive results are most likely if teachers work together in professional learning communities on an ongoing basis and focus on specific outcomes. Two types of evidence drive effective professional learning: on the one hand, teachers need to take into account the most current research on what works in education; on the other, they should, for their joint work, use data collected in the school and monitoring evidence made available to the school by the education system. To perceive their professional

  Ecologies of Practice 

  179

learning as relevant and meaningful, teachers need to experience a sense of agency which is effectively supported if they are given sufficient time to use collective inquiry and deliberation and experiment with new ideas and practice what they have learned. This process requires a delicate balance of challenge and support provided by school leaders and system administrators: it works best if professional development is experienced as a cognitively stimulating process, in which teachers perceive their professional growth as personally meaningful while at the same time experiencing it as a collaborative enterprise, a group effort that carries individuals through difficult and challenging tasks and provides them with a network of expertise and mutual support. The paradigm shift from the individual to the collaborative, from the one-off event to continuous collaboration, from the instruction model to the co-construction model of professional learning has been a rough and unfinished one in the German context. Multiple barriers remain to be removed for the system-wide implementation of this type of professional learning in a school system that has traditionally treated teachers like lone fighters in the classroom and has organized schools in the form of loosely-coupled systems, in which co-­ operation and joint learning was the exception rather than the rule. Adolescents will certainly gain from the ongoing change in how professional learning is perceived and organized. They benefit, as we have demonstrated earlier in the book, from a support network of adults who pull together to make learning environments work for students.

 he Ecology of Educational Leadership T in Canada Rumble and Aspland (2009) put forward four core attributes of the middle years teacher supported through their own research study, which they suggest form part of any pre-requisite search for a teacher of adolescents. These core attributes, the capacity to forge a middle school identity, a designer of wholesome curriculum, a specialist in adolescence, and a capacity to sustain middle school reform and support systems for the middle school teacher, should perhaps be applied more broadly to also include the search for middle school principals. The practice of many

180 

B. Yee et al.

education systems to hire school-based instructional leaders, principals and assistant/vice-principals, who have little to no background in working with teachers, students and their families in middle level learning environments in puzzling to me. A search of recent job postings for middle school principals and assistant principals in Canada turned up several which listed as the only criterion assistant principals with a given number of years of experience or current principals desiring a transfer. There was no mention of specific expertise in middle level learning or a passion for working with adolescents and their teachers. The multi-year, cross-Canada What did you do in school today? study presented findings which should have been cause for concern for those leading and teaching in Canada’s middle schools. Responses elicited from over 63,000 Canadian adolescents revealed only 37 per cent of them reported being intellectually engaged in their learning, encompassing survey measures of interest and motivation, effort, and perceived quality of instruction. With this percentage decreasing throughout the middle years of learning, one must ask why a more widespread, intentional look at the processes, policies and people supporting our nation’s middle years learning environments has not been called for. In her book, Student-Centered Leadership, Viviane Robinson (2011), presented five leadership dimensions that were found to have the most significant impact on student achievement outcomes. The five leadership dimensions, establishing goals and expectations, resourcing strategically, ensuring quality teaching, leading teacher learning and development, and ensuring an orderly and safe environment, are most effectively practised when an instructional leader understands the context of teaching and learning in their school. A clearly articulated vision for early adolescent learning should be viewed as an essential undertaking of instructional leadership and a sign that the instructional leader understands well what is needed to create a developmentally responsive, intellectually engaging middle level learning environment. Creating the conditions for teaching and learning to unfold is the central task of the student-centred leader. This happens when principals have the necessary skills, knowledge, expertise and experience to act in the capacity of the instructional leader for the middle years teachers and students they serve.

  Ecologies of Practice 

  181

The findings from these two pieces of research reinforce the importance of searching for the “right fit” instructional leader to advance teaching and learning in Canada’s middle schools. Attention must be paid to current research along with paradigm shifts occurring in education systems around the world that indicate our collective thinking related to instructional leadership in middle level learning environments needs to shift in order to better serve this population of teachers and learners. Newly emerging images of teaching and learning in the middle years must form the basis for developing, selecting and cultivating those who will lead the schools that serve our adolescent learners.

 he Ecology of Educational Leadership T in Finland New lines for teacher education (OKM 2016) stress not only life-long learning as a basis of professional development but also leading of the educational institute as one of the corner-stones in the process of making schools more efficient learning organizations than they now are. According to new lines for teacher education (OKM 2016): • Strategic leading will be developed via education focused on educational leadership but also as part of pre-service teacher education; • Teachers’ role as part of the leading processes will be strengthened as well as head teachers’ large-scale educational leadership; • Head teacher support will be strengthened by networks and teams using means such as education, regular meeting and mentoring. Also, more participatory and team-based leading will be developed. Historically, head teachers have been seen as an administrational part of the school system, where their major role is organizational and they are also deputies of school with other municipalities and stakeholders. Slogan “head teacher is one of us, who take care of administration” is the-oft heard definition of a head teacher’s position and work in the school defined by teachers. In fact, head teachers have been in charge not only

182 

B. Yee et al.

of administration but also economics and pedagogical development of the whole school. Pedagogical leading has played an especially minor role just because head teachers have not had enough resources for the same. This immense amount of work in head teachers’ everyday lives is one reason for the attractiveness of a head teacher’s position. It is more and more difficult to find qualified and motivated teachers to continue their career as head teacher, even if there is more support and education than earlier. Like teachers, head teachers are also carrying the culture of individual labour in their work. New kinds of working cultures such as shared leadership or teachers’ and adolescents’ participation in the ­leading processes are being implemented slowly in everyday school routines. Also, head teachers’ education has changed in the last 15 years. Those, who want to focus on educational leadership can obtain degrees, for example at the Institute of Educational Leadership at the University of Jyväskylä, which gives university-based training in educational leadership and also supports the development of research around the phenomenon of educational leadership. More and more head teachers’ work in Finland will be based on research-based education, just as teacher education in Finland in general has moved in this direction.

 he Ecology of Educational Leadership T in Germany It is only recently that the leadership paradigm in Germany has shifted from a transactional one to a transformational one (Leithwood 2006). For decades, school principals had been seen as individuals in charge of management and administration rather than innovation and change. That changed quite rapidly when PISA data revealed that schools had failed to support their most needy students. Even before the inception of major school innovation initiatives like the German School Award, charismatic school principals had begun to emerge with visionary ideas on how to turn schools into places where adolescents, independent of their social background, could learn well and be successful. Among the first of these publicly visible school leaders were Enja Riegel and Margaret

  Ecologies of Practice 

  183

Rasfeld, both heads of large secondary schools. They saw the unsatisfactory results and a general impression of stagnation and low student motivation in the German education system as a fit occasion for radical school change. In the 1990 and the early years of the new millennium, both women became well-known for their new ideas about schooling. Enja Riegel made project-based learning and formative assessment (using a criterion- rather than a social-reference norm) core parts of her state school’s culture when these ideas were still widely seen as genuinely “alternative.” Margaret Rasfeld at Evangelische Schule Berlin-Zentrum introduced the “Lernbüros,” where students could individually work on reaching targets in core subjects with the support of teachers. She also implemented three-week long project phases in the middle of the school year, during which teams of students had to work on a self-designed ambitious “challenge project” or do service learning in demanding “responsibility projects” in their local communities. Both school leaders became authors and published their ideas in bestselling books (Riegel 2005; Rasfeld and Spiegel 2012). The fact that school principals of ordinary state schools became public intellectuals can be seen as a crucial turning point. More and more school leaders dared to develop bold ideas, many of them especially targeted at meeting the needs of adolescent learners. This emergence of strong instructional leadership was enhanced by public reform initiatives like the German School Award and other such incentives created on the level of Germany’s 16 states or regions. It now became not only accepted but officially approved to emerge from the anonymous crowd of school administrators to show strong instructional leadership and present a school’s work confidently to the outside world. While this development was generally positive and inspired many other schools to step forward, there was one problem: as there was no strongly developed culture of collaborative inquiry and distributed leadership, several of the charismatic principals acted on their own, often quite successfully for some time but in some cases failing to create momentum that turned others into leaders and made the change sustainable beyond one strong individual. This was partly to be explained by the fact that leadership training for school principals in Germany had always focused too narrowly on the administrative and

184 

B. Yee et al.

managerial side of the principalship and neglected psychological aspects of innovation and change. In addition, there were significant structural barriers, which remain partly in place until the present day: German teachers are expected to teach a comparatively large number of lessons per week.1 Teachers’ work contracts do not contain weekly hours for joint planning, lesson study and school improvement. While there is a middle level leadership in larger secondary schools, many small schools do not have formal leadership positions beyond the principalship. The lack of respective training in addition to structural barriers account for the fact that distributed leadership and collaborative school improvement are still weakly developed in the German context. A closer look at the schools which have won the German School Award since its inception in 2006 reveals that a strong individual at the top is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for sustainable innovations in schools. The more than 60 schools which have so far been formally acknowledged for their high-quality work are a diverse group: primary and secondary schools, in urban and rural ­settings, many working in underprivileged contexts, but some in well-to-do neighbourhoods and towns, many of them serving immigrant communities but some in traditional white farming towns. Given all of this diversity, it is striking to what extent the winning schools share a set of features when it comes to their leadership: • All of the schools have leaders who have been able to imagine a school reality that works for children and adolescents of diverse backgrounds and preconditions; • They are strong communicators who manage to empower others to act as leaders and in doing so encourage distributed leadership; • The school leadership teams of all award-winning schools collaborate closely and find the time for joint planning and work in spite of the structural barriers in the system; 1  The average German teacher teaching adolescents in a secondary school has a teaching load of 26 lessons of 45 minutes duration. Many of these lessons are combined to 90 minute block lessons today, but the overall teaching load in Germany is still comparatively high by international standards.

  Ecologies of Practice 

  185

• The leadership teams in these schools have successfully focused on learning, with the learners and their motivation to learn a key focus for attention. For schools to be welcoming and effective learning environments for adolescents, they need imaginative and strong school leaders, who do not act alone but inspire leadership in others. Because good schools for adolescents in the twenty-first century do look and feel quite different from what these leaders would have experienced themselves when they were young, they need to be bold and courageous in breaking the mould of what schooling is all about.

 he Ecology of Educational Research T in Canada One of the most significant pieces of research to emerge from Canada in recent years related to the adolescent experience in school was the CEA’s What did you do in school today? study. While on the surface, Canadian results in international tests of achievement would lead one to believe that both students and education systems are faring well, two notable cross-Canada measures portray somewhat different images. The study has, since 2007, surveyed over 63,000 Canadian adolescents and found that although 69 per cent report being engaged in school, as measured through indicators such as attendance, homework behaviours, positive relationships with friends and participation in extracurricular activities, only 37 per cent reported being engaged in learning. The concept of being engaged in learning is measured by reported levels of effort, interest and motivation and perceived quality of instruction (Dunleavy et  al. 2012). What does this tell us? I believe there are many ways we can interpret this data, but as with any data, I always feel the most important questions come in the form of “so what and now what?” (How can we look at this data as one piece of an entire data story? In which context should this data be viewed? How can we use this data to determine next steps?) This data appears to indicate that many Canadian adolescents do

186 

B. Yee et al.

well in school, despite not being intellectually engaged in their learning. Perhaps even more perplexing is that of the three indicators reported to have the most significant impact on academic outcomes, only one, effort, relates back to intellectual engagement. Attendance and homework behaviours are the other two indicators found to have a positive effect on academic outcomes in the three core areas of mathematics, language arts and science. Dunleavy et al. (2012) explained, “Our purpose in this study was to illuminate the relationship between intellectual engagement and academic outcomes. Yet, in our study, students do well on school-based assessments without being intellectually engaged” (p. 6). This finding has led to more questions than answers, calling into question current assessment practices and if the learning tasks students are being given require them to be intellectually engaged: The results of our national sample of What did you do in school today? schools may indicate that traditional assessment practices are still prevalent, in that the three measures correlated with higher marks – attendance, effort and homework completion – are the very things that current research and policy say should matter least in determinations of academic success. Although these behaviours and dispositions contribute to creating the conditions for learning, they do not tell us what students know and can do as a result of learning. (Dunleavy et al. 2012, p. 7)

The “now what” for this important contribution to Canadian educational research comes in the form of a question, “Where does this lead us?” (Dunleavy et al. 2012, p. 8). Dunleavy and his colleagues (2012) point towards current beliefs about assessment and assessment practices as the first places educators need to turn their attention: The concept of intellectual engagement resonates strongly with many educators because it represents the kinds of learning that they aspire to for all students. Yet often the most basic of structures in schools  – in this case marking practices and definitions of academic success – can work against the emergence of practices that would support higher levels of achievement and engagement among larger numbers of students. Existing models of assessment rarely measure these higher types of learning or the competencies they foster. (p. 8)

  Ecologies of Practice 

  187

What did you do in school today? brought attention to the schooling experiences of Canadian adolescents and highlighted the importance of intellectual engagement. This was a key development in the aim to improve education outcomes for all Canadian adolescents. It is anticipated that the next phase of this cross-Canada study will shed more light on how to best integrate what research has revealed about adolescent development as well as what is known about effective instructional practices to create a coherent education strategy that will meet the needs of Canadian students in an ever-changing world.

The Ecology of Educational Research in Finland Educational research is an essential part of the educational ecosystem in Finland. The roots of educational research are strong in the country’s history. Education also holds a strong position at the universities in Finland. In addition, some faculties of education undertake a broad co-operation with other faculties concerning research in the field of pedagogy of subjects in the school. The idea of “teachers as researchers” also includes subject teachers. Adolescents are at the core of educational research in Finland for many reasons, mostly because of their good learning results in international surveys but also because of the problems they face in school, especially participation culture and their satisfaction with the learning offered in schools. The problem is, how new research results are to reach schools and teachers. Another problem is the wide variety of the educational research available and how it is used to inform current practice. Currently, research based on the perspectives, experiences, and expertise of researchers in different phases of their career is still rare. This will change in the future because the Finnish government is demanding all the universities to profile their activities and put resources into the research of the most successful groups. Behind this shift is a vision of how research could be more successful in the international context and also have a greater impact on society. Finding balance between large-scale research and new small-scale research is a challenge for the future. At the moment, many research projects are still based on the work of one to three researchers, sometimes operating in isolation from the current realities of students’ and teachers’ experiences in schools.

188 

B. Yee et al.

One solution for these two challenges is to strengthen the co-operation of stakeholders in education. The more visible development researchers are, the more direct the line from the researcher’s desk to a school’s reality. Together with student teachers who are both practising teachers’ work and also researchers’ skills, they can create an exceptional ecosystem, which will promote not only educational research, but also school development and teacher education.

 he Ecology of Educational Research T in Germany One of the most positive outcomes of the German PISA-Shock of 2000 has been the turnaround of the German education system with regard to the role of educational research for policy making. Up until the beginning of the new millennium, educational research had a hard time competing with medical and technical research for scarce public and private research grants. Research on schooling was marginalized in small faculties and fragmented in small sub-communities and research paradigms. The PISA-Shock triggered what is now called the “empirical turn” in ­educational research (Buchhaas-Birkholz 2009). Suddenly there was a significant public interest in studies analyzing causalities and correlations in education. Educational research results in some cases even made it into the leading newspapers and the evening news. Both the state (on the national and the Länder level) and private foundations were now willing to provide substantial amounts of funding and support for educational research. The questions that drew the most attention were equity issues in particular, with regard to vulnerable groups such as recent immigrant students and questions related to school improvement. Hand in hand with the new focus on empirical research went the introduction of substantial forms of education monitoring, both on a municipal and on a state level. Achievement and equity data were now reviewed and presented in ways that provoked debates on social justice and equitable access to education, especially for vulnerable groups like recent immigrants. Policy initiatives by the state and local municipalities focused on changing the sorting and

  Ecologies of Practice 

  189

sifting policies in favour of a more equitable and permeable school system. Vulnerable adolescents and the support they need to achieve higher levels of education were getting more attention than ever before in post-­ war Germany. Even if Germany has been consistently advancing in PISA, progress with regard to equity is still slow. As a consequence of this, more and more schools are beginning to collect data themselves and use collective inquiry to come up with suitable measures and interventions to support adolescents in their learning. For a long time, “research” in the German context signified a scholarly activity conducted in universities. Anglo-American traditions like “action-­ research” done by practitioners were frowned upon as unprofessional and lacking methodological rigidity. It is a positive development for the “ecology of research” in the German context (Altrichter et al. 2017) that this narrow view of what it means to be a “researcher” is now being challenged by teachers beginning to do practitioner research in their schools. This bottom-up change adds to a rich landscape of research ranging from large-scale empirical research to the research reviews in the context of educational system monitoring to grassroots-level practitioner-driven research in the context of school improvement and teacher professional development. Research on all these different levels is the key factor ­turning a static and languishing school system into one that has become rather dynamic in recent years.

The Way Forward: Closing Thoughts There is a lot of pressure to leave readers with something inspirational in the final phrases of a book. We remember our original intent: for this to be a book that practitioners would carry with them, with dog-eared pages, highlighted passages and notes scribbled in the margins. We wanted this to be a book that you would want to gift to your colleagues, to teachers new to the profession, a book that would never collect dust on your bookshelves or find its way into a banker’s box tucked away in some storage space. We hope that what we have offered has been a provocation of sorts. A presentation of current research, perhaps in a new form, along with images of current practice and shifts in discourse that have caused

190 

B. Yee et al.

you to pause and consider the current state of adolescent learning and development in your context. The way forward is simple; we cannot continue to look at adolescent learners simply as older versions of primary students, nor a younger version of secondary students. They are unique learners in their own right. They are deserving of and require intention, care and support around all facets of their interaction and experience with schooling. As educators, we transform the adolescent learning experience through first acknowledging their unique learning needs and then seeking to better understand how their educational experience can in fact be transformed through the learning environment we create in our classrooms. As instructional leaders, we create the conditions within our schools that support the philosophies and processes most conducive to adolescents’ growth as learners and developing individuals. As a community of teachers, we ensure that collectively, we continue to develop as professional learners, with the lens of always seeking to be better for our adolescent learners. Through research we continue to question and seek answers to the question of how to ensure the lived experience of adolescents in school meets their unique developmental and learning needs. As education systems we support a whole generation of adolescent learners by acknowledging that the true way forward may come in the form of a fundamental shift in the way we approach adolescent learners, their learning and the learning environments our systems endorse. This work is not for the faint of heart.

References Alberta Education. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Retrieved from https://inspiring.education.alberta.ca/what-is-inspiring-education/ Alberta Education. (2013). Ministerial Order (#001/2013) goals and standards applicable to the provision of education. Retrieved from http://education. alberta.ca/department/policy/standards/goals.aspx Altrichter, H., et al. (2017). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht: Unterrichtsentwicklung und Unterrichtsevaluation durch Aktionsforschung. Stuttgart: UTB. Buchhaas-Birkholz, D. (2009). Die “empirische Wende” in der Bildungspolitik und in der Bildungsforschung. Zum Paradigmenwechsel des BMBF im Bereich der Forschungsfonsforsc. Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(39), 27–33.

  Ecologies of Practice 

  191

City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Deci, E.  L., & Ryan, R.  M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. Dunleavy, J., Milton, P., & Willms, J. D. (2012). Trends in intellectual engagement. What did you do in School Today? Research Series Report Number Three. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Felten, M. (2016). Nur Lernbegleiter? Unsinn, Lehrer!: Lob der Unterrichtslenkung. Berlin: Cornelsen. Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching effectiveness: A framework and rubric. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Aho, J., & Korhonen, H. (2015). Ope ei saa oppia: opettajankoulutuksen jatkumon kehittäminen. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä Helmke, A., & Schrader, F.-W. (2014). Angebots-Nutzungs-Modell. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch -Nutzungs-Modelljankoulu (pp. 149–150). Bern: Huber. Hunziker, D. (2017). Hokuspokus Kompetenz? Kompetenzorientiertes Lehren und Lernen ist keine Zauberei. Bern: Hep. Jackson, D., & Temperley, J. (2007). From professional learning community to networked learning community. In Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. Jardine, D., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2008). 21st Century learning and learners. Western and Northern Canadian Curriculum Protocol. Kahl, R., & Fratton, P. (2014). Lass mir die Welt, verschule sie nicht!: Warum Leben und Lernen unzertrennlich sind. Weinheim: Beltz. Kunter, M., & Trautwein, U. (2013). Psychologie des Unterrichts. Paderborn: Scherborn. Leithwood, K. (2006). Transformational school leadership in a transactional world. In The Jossey-bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 183–196). San Francisco: Wiley. Liessmann, K.  P. (2014). Geisterstunde: Die Praxis der Unbildung. Eine Streitschrift. Vienna: Paul Zsolnay Verlag. Lipowsky, F. (2016). Unterricht entwickeln und Lehrpersonen professionalisieren. Ans unzertrennlich sindF im Bereich der Forschung. P terrich, 66(7–8), 76–79. McKinsey & Company. (2009). Shaping the future: How good educations systems can become great in the decade ahead. Report on the international education roundtable, Singapore.

192 

B. Yee et al.

National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. (2014). Helsinki: National Board of Education. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. (2016). Opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisohjelma. Helsinki: Lönnberg Print & Promo. Park, A. (2014). An introduction to discipline-based inquiry learning. [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVhKTMFCgq0 Rasfeld, M., & Spiegel, P. (2012). EduAction – Wir machen Schule. Hamburg: Murmann Verlag. Rautiainen, M., & Kostiainen, E. (2015). Finland: Policy and vision. In T.  Corner (Ed.), Education in the European Union (pp.  91–108). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Riegel, E. (2005). Schule kann gelingen. Wie unsere Kinder wirklich fmproved-­ schoolen. Frankfurt: Fischer. Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rumble, P., & Aspland, T. (2009). In search of the middle school teacher: What differentiates the middle school teacher from other teachers. Conference presentation, October 3, 2009. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association. School Health Promotion Study 2015. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare. https://www.thl.fi/fi/tutkimus-ja-asiantuntijatyo/vaestotutkimukset/kouluterveyskysely/tulokset Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., et  al. (2006). Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change., 7(4), 221–258. Suoranta, J. (2003). Kasvatus mediakulttuurissa. Tampere: Vastapaino. Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development, The educational practices series – 18. J. Brophy (Ed.). Brussels: International Academy of Education & International Bureau of Education. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration Wellington. New Zealand: Ministry of Education. http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/ goto/BES. Trautmann, M., & Wischer, B. (2011). Heterogenitdiakulttuurissa. Mitja-­ asiantuntijatyo/vaes. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement (First National Report). Toronto: Canadian Education Association.