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

Change for Motivation:
Support for New Pedagogies of Teaching and Learning in Ontario Public Schools.
By: Andrea Lagalisse (2992863)
For: Prof. Christina De Simone (EDU 5199)
April 13, 2015

Andrea Lagalisse (2992863) Final Synthesis. For Prof.ChristinaDe Simone.EDU 5199. 1
Change for Motivation: Support for New Pedagogies of Teaching and Learning in Ontario
Public Schools
Andrea R. Lagalisse
Abstract
This article examines psychological and social aspects of motivation in support of the changing
landscape of teaching and learning in Canada and internationally. Arguing from a constructivist
perspective, the author explores education reform attempts in Finland and Alberta as examples
of slow change. The paper ends with some recommendations for educators, school leaders,
parents, students, and community partners on how to tip the scales towards deep, ‘whole-system’
change in education philosophy, policy, and practice towards offering participatory, relevant,
learner-centered and inquiry-based paths to learning and being in an increasingly diverse and
evolving society.
Introduction
This paper explores the climate of educational change and reform in public schools in Ontario,
especially in the context of learner motivation. This is relevant and timely because of the
continuing interest in school reform nationally and internationally in the face of a rapidly
changing global society. Schools are intended to help young people develop the skills and
abilities needed to succeed in various aspects of their lives. I aim to inform interested readers of
the importance of motivation in learning as support for the increasing push for deep change in
education philosophy, policy, and practice away from traditional ‘factory-style’ educational
paradigms that persist in our public schools towards more authentic and rich learning

experiences. By deep, I mean that the changes will have effects that ripple outside of the
classroom environment and into communities.
I argue that this involves a slow, ‘whole-system’ approach and that it is important to
show examples of change attempts to support and sustain the evolution of our public schooling
systems in Ontario. By slow, I simply mean that systemic change involves philosophical change,
and that this cannot happen overnight. By whole-system, I am referring to what Fullan (2010)
discusses as “whole-systems reform”, which means that each part of the schools system- school,
the community, district, and also government contributes individually and in concert to “forward
movement and success” (p. 3). I believe that in is important to encourage change in the ways in
which we think about teaching and learning in order to give current influential actors a push to
get real change happening for this and future generations of students in Ontario public school
classrooms, and elsewhere.
My research questions are:
1) How does motivation relate to education, and why does it matter?
2) What does ‘whole-system’ change mean in the context of public schools in
Canada, and why do we need it?
Purpose
I seek to explore how motivation is created and sustained in learners in the hopes of
supporting future efforts at educational reform towards constructivist, participatory school
programs. By incorporating an understanding of motivation, I hope to encourage educators,
policy makers, school leadership, and students to think differently about schooling, teaching, and
learning, and their roles within those. I hope to add a different perspective by taking an

interdisciplinary approach to investigating lasting change in public schools, incorporating aspects
of educational pedagogies, and some understanding of motivation from the psychological and
social perspectives in a way that aims to support long-term, deep change.
In my post-secondary studies, I have devoted a lot of time trying to understand why
schooling systems in Canada are the way they are. What are some of the problems, and how
might we challenge them? I aim to combine my interest in working towards equity and equality
for young people in the context of educational system reform of Canadian public schools. I was
miserable in the public school system in Ontario. This was the sum of a lack of options, a system
that did not adequately provide for varied learning needs and strengths, and which focussed on
compliance, test scores, and power hierarchies to indicate success. I watched my fellow students
excel and suffer based on their personalities, exceptionalities, and other variations on the norm.
As a student, I felt undervalued, unimportant, and like I had very little agency in my own
education. There were constant power struggles, and stress from constant testing to figure out if I
was above average in achievement scores? Below the average? Both? It was not motivating, to
say the least. A few teachers stand out in my memory. They do not stand out because they taught
me facts, but because, in spite of a curriculum and institution that repressed them, they taught me
how to think for myself, or gave me space to question and experiment. Especially, they I
remember them because they treated students as partners in learning, rather than empty heads to
fill.
The purpose of this paper is to provide information and support to educators, policy
makers, parents, and school leaders about motivation and the importance of providing relevant
and engaging education opportunities to our young people. Bandura’s social cognitive theory of
development recognized that people are an important source of information about the world and

that as individuals we actively engage in learning about and understanding our world (Kail,
2009, p. 11). At the provincial level, I would like to see this research contribute to a redefinition
and dramatic overhaul of a provincially-controlled public school system that is underserving and
even interfering in youth learning and development into healthy, active citizens of a diverse and
evolving society. I would also like to see this research contribute to support for the importance of
education for young people’s social development, and change towards participatory learning
around the world.
Methods
This paper was created through a synthesis of literature alongside an investigation of the
experiences of two school reform experiences: the Finnish education system, and the Alberta
charter schools experiment. The purpose of including the two school reform examples is to
highlight that change is possible, but also that it is a lengthy and evolving process. I brought
together a short history of sociocultural learning theories in order to inform readers and show the
historical scientific and philosophical underpinnings of participatory learning. I also examined
current issues regarding schools, schooling, teaching and learning in order to show that the
climate for school change in Ontario and worldwide is ripe.
Theoretical perspectives.
The main perspective of teaching and learning used in this paper is constructivism.
Constructivism is the view that the individual builds the world around them by engaging with it.
Social constructivism goes one step further to include that construction of the world involves
interaction with other to co-create things like knowledge, culture or history. Constructivist

methods involve inquiry-based learning, problem-solving, collaboration, and focus on how to
learn, rather than what to learn (ThirteenEd Online, 2015). Constructivist educators view
themselves as continually learning, and there is a subsequent change in the teacher-student role
to reflect a variety of purposes. For example, the teacher may be in the classroom as facilitator,
or the teacher may switch to being the learner, as is often the case nowadays with technology in
the classrooms.
Discourse and critical theory. I believe it is important to bring into the light the
relationships between discourse and social change. Fairclough (1993) summed it up nicely when
discussing three facets of discourse and change in society (namely, “democratization” of
discourse, “commodification” of discourse, and “technologicalization” of discourse), which are
substantive changes, but are also recognizant of how conscious intervention in discourse
practices is increasingly important in bringing about social change (p. 200). What this means is
that if we want to create change, we have to consciously attempt to make it by talking about
wanting it, and arguing about what we mean by it, and pushing actively for it!
Sociocultural theories of learning. There exists a long history of research into the social
and psychological aspects of learning. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Vygotsky’s
(1930-1935/1978) Sociocultural Theory, which posits the importance of the role of culture in
intellectual development, and stresses the importance of collaborative, or guided learning
involving scaffolding (where “more expert” participants willingly tailor support to the novice
learner’s current abilities) (Shaffer, 2000, p. 92); 2. Piaget’s (1950) conceptions of the child as
the constructor of their world into behavioural, symbolic, and operational schemes through active
engagement with others and the world around them (Shaffer, 2000, p. 51); 3. Bandura’s (1977,
1986, 1992) Cognitive Social-Learning Theory indicates that observational learning is central to

our developmental process (Shaffer, 2000, p. 45); and, 4. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1989, 1993)
Ecological Systems Theory, which considers the important impact of environment(s) on the
individual, including micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-systems that inter-relate and interact as the
individual navigates through them (Shaffer, 2000, p. 90). Theories like these have informed
educational philosophy since Socratic dialogue (ThirteenEd, History…), and attest to the reality
of the way that our world is socially constructed. Yet their pedagogical effects are rarely
promoted in public schools past early childhood programs.
Motivation and change: Sociocultural Perspectives and Evolving Goals for Education
The reality has been that, as Ritchie notes, throughout the Western world, student
achievement has plummeted (2010, p.5). Students are less engaged in learning yet have access to
more information than ever before due to a rapidly evolving global society sped along by
technology. Ten years ago, Nichols, Glass, and Berliner (2006) showed in a quantitative study
(investigating policies like No Child Left Behind across 25 states in the U.S.) that there was no
relationship between “earlier” pressure nor later cohort achievement in grade 4 or 8 maths- nor
was there correlation found between “testing pressure and reading achievement” at any grade
level (p. 1, abstract). It is not difficult to take the U.S. setting and switch it for the Canadian
context. Both are culturally diverse, economically well-off and schools are controlled locally by
the state or province in question with an overarching federal component. They contend (and I
agree) that programs that focus solely on testing and achievement in schools only serve to
“punish” those identified as low-performing, rather than provide them with the resources they
need to become more effective and that these types of programs fail to recognize that schools

that are improving (Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, p. 168).. In spite of findings like these, schools
are having a hard time letting go of their old ways. But, change is on the horizon!
The international trends of increasing conservatism and also of increasing pluralism have
been cited as a factors contributing to the trend in charter and other alternative education funding
(Wagner, 1999. p. 54). There is the feeling that our public school systems are slaves to
curriculum expectations and standardized testing schedules, and that many students fall between
the cracks. Clearly, traditional public school structures are not succeeding in supporting the
success of their students. This is not to say that no effort is being made. I aim to show how the
Finnish and Alberta reform attempts are positive examples of slow change.
Individual Motivation. Very simply, motivation is “literally the desire to do things”
(Psychology Today, 2015). According to Bandura, individuals acquire information about their
capabilities through comparison with others, as well as through mastery and vicarious
experiences and physiological indexes (Schunk and Usher, p. 20-21). This can have “diverse”
effects on achievement and on behaviours depending on how the individual views their abilities,
what they value, and the circumstances that affect them. The authors show that current research
indicates that people’s thoughts, beliefs and emotions underlie motivation, and that people act in
accordance to their beliefs about capabilities and expected outcomes of their actions (Schunk &
Usher, 2012, p. 13). Individuals interact within a framework of “triadic reciprocality” involving
personal, behavioural and social/environmental factors and views the individual as having
agency and also the ability to “regularly shape their lives” through proactive engagement
(Schunk & Usher, 2012, p. 14-15).
Schunk and Usher highlight that motivation is a key process in observational learning
because onlookers are more likely to attend to, retain and produce modelled actions that they

believe are important (my emphasis) (2012, p. 16). As an early childhood educator, I am often
thinking about the importance of offering young people differentiated choices, relevant and
timely experiences, and in providing opportunities to explore, make mistakes, and engage in a
hands-on way, and I would like to see these principles extended into all levels of education.
Motivation in Education. Wigfield, Cambria & Eccles (2012) examine students’
motivation in the context of learning and the classroom and describe how motivation to learn and
engage arises, is sustained, and declines. They support a sociocultural perspective, positing that
learning takes place “in the context of relationships with teachers and peers” (p. 463), and posit
that students’ participation in different classroom environments and interactions with others co-
create motivation” (p. 474). The authors indicate that research shows how children’s academic
motivation declines throughout elementary schools and secondary school years. Contributing
factors include: receiving more information about performance and learning to interpret it clearly
(which can lead to pessimism about abilities); greater emphasis on evaluation and performance
outcomes; and greater levels of comparison between peers (Wigfield,, Cambria, & Eccles, p.
467). These factors align with traditional education models seen in public schools in Ontario
today that are tied to standardized testing schemes, tracking of students into different streams,
and competitiveness that comes along with academic achievement and familial/cultural
expectations of success.
Wigfield, Cambria, and Eccles (2012) suggest strategies for increasing intrinsic
(internally motivated) and extrinsic (externally motivated) motivation in students. Some of these
include: 1. offering task-level practices that are developmentally appropriate, and tasks that are
differentiated over time to avoid redundancy or disinterest; 2. reducing emphasis on evaluation;
adapting instruction to existing background knowledge; 3. providing opportunities for

exploration, and treating mistakes as a natural part of the learning process (p. 467). These
strategies are consistent with the current emphasis in educational pedagogy on supporting child-
centred, hands-on, relevant activities in order to reduce student apathy and maximise learning
potential.
While these strategies address individual motivation, but don’t discuss the necessity for
systemic change in the way the education is “done” as an institution. And so, it is important to
find ways to bring suggestions like these into the practical sphere, so that they can infiltrate
personal and professional applications of pedagogy as a culture of change is cultivated over
multiple generations. This seems a daunting task, but it is nonetheless the reality. We have to
change the ways in which we think about teaching and learning so that those who hold or come
into the positions of influence or power can implement and support new pedagogies and
purposes for our public schools and other educational forums. I will discuss this further below.
Discussion: Wanting Wider Change
Why do we need change in the way we run our schools? My experience working as an Early
Childhood Educator in Kindergarten and School-Age programs has shown me firsthand how
students struggle to stay motivated when they are uninterested and not consulted. It has also
shown me that the trend for emergent and other responsive curricula that are employed in the
Early Years Programs are not often being carried forward into grade school, or are being met
with great resistance from an entrenched institution.
A prime example that I struggled to reconcile as an educator was having no choice but to
comply with a kindergarten silent lunch initiative designed to “train” them for grade 1. My heart
sank and I felt frustration and dismay as I watched fifteen small children squirming and
struggling not to talk to each other at a time when social interaction ought to be supported and

developed. It didn’t make sense to me. It didn’t make sense to the E.C.E. running the program
either, but there was pressure from the grade school teachers and from administration to help
ensure ‘smooth transitions’ (which we gathered meant easy for them, not healthy for the
children).
In Rethinking Schools: An Agenda for Change (1995) Delpit argues for incorporating
tasks that use writing and reading for real purposes, noting that if there are children who are not
being successful, there is “something else you need to do”, namely, using knowledge of
individuals’ contexts, cultures, and different teaching strategies in an authentic way (p. 136).
This is very important, yet many educators shy away from this in favour of completing mandated
curriculum expectations in spite of learner realities. In the same book, Meier examines the “clear
and present danger” of standardized testing threatens the educational experience of all children
with their biases, limitations, and suppression of critical thinking, evaluation and analysis (p.
175-177). Standardization creates a stressful and competitive environment, which is de-
motivational for many educators and learners, yet it is still the dominant structure of school and
education in Ontario classrooms. It is up to us as teachers, principals, policy-makers, parents, and
students to change this by speaking against it and offering alternatives.
Social cognitive theory, motivation, and whole-system change. It is my belief that it is
imperative that we explore possibilities for creating more authentic educational experiences that
reflect our understanding of social and psychological development. And, that these experiences
and knowledge reflect our desire to produce future citizens that are actively able to engage in a
complex and evolving world. Many researchers have taken an integrated and/ or critical
approach in considering the interrelating factors that must evolve together for lasting change
(Salhberg, 2011; Fullan, 2000; Fullan, 2010; Levin & Fullan, 2009, Friere, 1998).

Following an integrative method that looks to effect practical change rather than simply
project an ideal is a direct effort to approach educational policy and reform. Fullan (2010)
discusses the idea of “whole-systems reform”, which means that “each part of the schools
system- school, community, district, and government contributes individually and in concert to
forward movement and success” (p. 3) rather than patchwork or rogue efforts. This is akin to the
deep change that I am arguing for. Aside from individual teacher practices within the traditional
system, Charter schools seem to me to be attempting to effecting whole-system change by
involving communities and working with the ministry of education to try and achieve success in
spite of setbacks.
Change benefits us all. Boudreault (2013) presents a more ‘official’ strategic perspective
on addressing the issue of change in education systems. Writing for Action Canada, a Canadian
charity partially funded by the government that aims to “build leadership for Canada’s future”
(2013, p.2), Boudreault investigates the perceived needs of Canadian society and what schools
will need to do in order to “equip Canadians with the skills necessary to operate effectively in
response to our increasingly dynamic world”- skills like critical thinking, evaluation and
effective communication (2013, p. 4). Boudreault’s suggestions for Ontario specifically centre on
incorporating “higher-order learning” into our classrooms, but notes that current frameworks and
policy documents focus on “hard skills” in anticipation of future employment (2013, p. 9). To
put it simply, we are talking the talk, but not walking the walk when it comes to implementing
educational philosophy and pedagogy.
Boudreault (2013) is coming from a place that recognizes that the speed of change in the
21st century surpasses that of even the industrial revolution, and aims to ensure that Canadians
can “remain competitive” by being able to integrate into increasingly sophisticated and

technologically fueled global economy (p. 4). While his report smacks of traditionalism, seeming
to value change for economic success alone, his statements still hold merit. Changes such as
Boudreault suggests should lead to positive change in the philosophy and pedagogy of teaching
and learning alongside an economic interest. Perhaps framing it in a more traditional sense can
help make change easier to swallow for those individuals and institutions that resist it.
What might change look like? Examples of school reform efforts at change for learner
motivation.
Finland and systemic change. In Finnish Lessons, Pasi Sahlberg examines the Finnish
school renewal process and suggests that the reform was possible because policy makers were
able to look beyond optimization toward “fundamentally transforming the paradigm and beliefs
that underlay policy” (2011, p. 127, my emphasis). Sahlberg (2011) highlights four strategies of
principle employed since the 1970’s in Finland with the aim of improving student learning that
contribute to the kind of long-term, whole-system change I am pushing for. These are:
Guaranteed equal opportunities to good public education for all; strengthening professionalism
and trust in teachers; steering change through “enriched” understanding of processes of
schooling and smart assessment; facilitation of network-based school improvement
collaborations (p. 126). These strategies will help students and teachers by increasing the access
to information about teaching and learning, as well as creating an atmosphere around learning
that values learning for its own sake.
Education reform in Finland has developed since the early 1990’s “almost in opposition”
to other global reform movements that were characterized by competition, test-based
accountability, and merit-based pay for teachers (Salhberg, 2011, p. 124-125). It is interesting to

note that the ways in which change were put into effect over a long period of time involved
decentralization of public sector administration, increasing the quantity and quality of teacher
training, and loose external standards with a focus on learning. I want to emphasize also the
importance of the fourth point about facilitating collaborations between schools and non-
governmental organizations. More simply put, it means to build community. The idea of giving
up control over education is arguably what riles a lot of critics. We are what we know, and it is
hard to change! As an educator, time and again, I have come up against unbending, traditional
teachers who refused or were unable to see beyond their historical experiences of school in order
to try something new. Honestly, if as an educator, I knew I would never heard the words “but
this is how we have always done things” again, I would rejoice! Schools are also difficult to
access for the community, many of them having locked door policies and strict rules for visitors.
Gardner (1990) highlights that in the modern technology-fueled era, many children live
in ‘value-deprived’ environments where no one pays attention to them unless they break the law
(p. 46). Greene (2000) examines how changes brought about by technology, demographic shifts,
decolonization and plurality is changing the “perceived absoluteness” or value systems and
moral codes and argues that to strive towards a better vision of schools should be we need to
overcome the invisibility of the problem (p. 276). We must name it! We must imagine how
things can be otherwise if we are to effect change. Gardner (1990) pushed for a re-establishment
of healthy communities characterized by; 1. Wholeness incorporating diversity (basically,
working towards eliminating social clique-isms); 2. The sharing of cultures, norms, and values;
3. Good internal communication (meaning combatting “we-they” barriers, and ensuring that
people believe they really have a say); and 4. Caring, trust, and teamwork (these protect the
individual while maintaining commitment to the “common good” (p. 48-50).

What are our aims in changing school systems? The Finnish School Board (2015)
states that their key aims in education reform recently are “Developing schools as learning
communities, and emphasizing the joy of learning and a collaborative atmosphere, as well as
promoting student autonomy in studying and in school life” (Halinen, front page). This view
holds learning as intrinsically valuable and supports constructivist learning that can lead to
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for learners. The Ontario Ministry of Education’ (OMOE)
Mission Statement, to compare, reads
Ontario is committed to the success and well-being of every student and child. Learners
in the province's education system will develop the knowledge, skills and characteristics
that will lead them to become personally successful, economically productive and
actively engaged citizens.
Ontario will cultivate and continuously develop a high-quality teaching profession and
strong leadership at all levels of the system. Our education system will be characterized
by high expectations and success for all. It will be responsive, high quality, accessible
and integrated from early learning and child care to adult education (MOE, 2015,
Achieving excellence…).
But, what are these knowledges, skills, and characteristics needed? How will we cultivate high-
quality teaching and strong leadership? The Ministry offers four “renewed” goals for education.
These are: 1.) “Achieving excellence”; 2. “Ensuring equity”; 3. “Promoting well-being”; and 4.
“Enhancing public confidence” (OMOE, 2015, Achieving excellence.). Strategies included to
support these goals include “raising the bar for the teaching force”, investing in “innovative”
teaching methods, extending play-based learning past early childhood, and expanding learning
opportunities outside of the classroom through community involvement and engagement
(OMOE, 2015, Achieving excellence…).
While not comprehensive, this list is representative of the fairly ambiguous and vague
language used in the Ministry’s website. What is success? According to the Ministry, success

means an 85% high-school graduation rate and 75% success rate on EQAO results (OMOE,
2015, Achieving excellence), showing a continuing obsession with grades and testing to indicate
academic achievement in spite of talks about valuing the whole child and community wellbeing.
Canadian school systems could learn something from the Finnish experience, even if it is
just to move the focus away from traditional academic achievement on international rosters
towards learning as an intrinsically valuable endeavour. Academic achievement benefits arise
naturally from a real engagement with teaching and learning and being part of a community.
While the reality is that what worked for a then relatively homogeneous Finland may not be
exportable in its exact form, I agree with Sahlberg that there is no reason we cannot take what is
useful in implementing change at home and elsewhere. This transformation of the underlying
beliefs, paradigms, and basic principles would come closer to what Fullan (2010) describes as
whole-system change in Ontario education systems.
Experiences like those of the Finnish educational system have provided insights towards
what is needed for change to be effective and lasting. For starters, “educational change,” argues
Sahlberg, “should be systemic and coherent, in contrast with current haphazard intervention
efforts” (2011, p. 132). Equally important is the necessity to effect change on multiple inter-
related levels, supporting educational reform through increasing the “technical drivers” of
education (equal access, high-quality teacher training, support for teachers, smart accountability
procedures, good leadership), promoting sociocultural factors such as valuing literacy, respect
for teachers, trust between individuals and institutions, and the creation of social capital), and
links to other public-policy sectors (Sahlberg, 2011, p. 132). Change in Ontario public schools
appears to favour adaptations on traditional models, maintaining the status quo of schools and

classrooms and their implementation. I argue that we need a shift in the way that we structure
schools alongside a shift in the philosophy and pedagogy behind teaching and learning.
The charter schools experiment. Another example of efforts to change schooling
systems, this time in Canada, is the charter school experience in Alberta. Charter schools in
Canada are defined as “…autonomous public schools that would provide innovative or enhanced
means of delivering education in order to improve student learning” (Alberta Education, 2002. p.
1). Charter schools receive the same funding as other public schools, and are non-religious and
non-profit, and require teachers to be certified (Alberta Education, 2002, p. 3- 4). Charter school
champions argue that “…student and parent demand for the choices charter schools provide will
increase and public schools will fight for the flexibility charter schools enjoy” (Bosetti, 2010.
p.101). This is indicative of desire for chance, and proof that when presented with alternatives,
many will work to make them successful.
Of course, not everyone is on board, and there is the reality of significant political and
institutional resistance to changes to and entrenched public school system. Ritchie outlines
challenges faced by charter schools in Alberta that include but are not limited to: 1. The
restrictive nature and instability created by the charter renewal process, whereby schools must
reapply for status every five years; 2. Difficulties in acquiring premises due to restrictions on
public land and building grants; and, 3. Opposition from those who believe charter schools serve
niche markets and are exclusive (2010, p. 18-19). These types of mainly bureaucratic and
conservative ideological challenges are likely the reason why charter schools in Alberta have
been a limited success in spite of the obvious support from communities.

It is notable that as of 2010, there were 13 charter schools (of a possible 15) in operation
over 22 campuses, student enrollment had increased consistently, and waiting lists in the
thousands considered normal (Ritchie, 2010, p.12-13). Toma and Zimmer state that
at the end of the day, we must recognize that families are choosing charter
schools…the choice is voluntary….but beyond achievement effects, our observation
that the movement is voluntary suggests that the research community should be
creatively searching for ways in which to measure the benefits perceived by families.
(2012. p. 212).
I believe that this type of experiment is necessary for the eventual overhaul of public
education in Canada. Why has the charter school experiment been confined to Alberta? My
recommendation would be for each province to attempt a similar project, but that they learn from
the Albertan experience and ensure they avoid unnecessary restrictions like those outlined by
Ritchie (above) that detract from an honest effort for change.
Conclusions and Future Directions: Changing the Way We Think About Education.
This paper aimed to contribute to discussion and eventual action towards a worldwide trend of
education reform and the evolution of better, more effective school systems that can help
individuals reach their potential while minimizing standardizations that detract from creativity,
multiple intelligences and ways of meaning-making, and differences. Boudreault (2013)
highlights how the role for education systems in the face of rapid societal and technological
change is “no longer as dispensers of knowledge, but rather facilitators of learning...requir[ing] a
paradigm shift in which teaching students answers gives way to teaching them how to ask the
right questions, evaluate information critically, and communicate effectively” (p. 4). This means

that each individual must be encouraged to think about their role in teaching and learning, and
how they can facilitate change towards authentic, participatory, constructivist learning in Ontario
public schools.
This is a big task, yet as Friere noted in Teachers as Cultural Workers, Letters to Those
Who Dare Teach, we must not allow the fear of what is difficult paralyze us (1998, p, 27) Rather,
we must objectively find whether there is real reason for that fear, match these against
possibilities for overcoming them that are available, and where they are not, we must determine
what steps to take in order to become “better capable of overcoming it tomorrow” (Friere, 1998,
p. 27). We must seek help from each other. This aligns with current educational pedagogy that
promotes the development of the ‘whole child’, and which advocate the development of policies
that treat the school as a whole community within the wider community (Noddings, 2005, p. 6)
and that addresses the importance of education for “deep learning” (Fullan and Langworthy,
2013). It is essential that we make conscious and collaborative efforts in order to effect real
change rather than elaborating on a broken system in a patchwork way. It is the ideological
equivalent of open-heart surgery, rather than taking an aspirin. Like heart surgery, school reform
needs to be drastic, requiring intent, patience, and collaborative effort to succeed.
Recommendations. For parents! For teachers, Early Childhood Educators, and school
leaders! For young people of all ages! For policy makers and implementers! I ask that you to
consider your role in learning and in making the world around you. What do you know today that
you did not know yesterday? Who did you teach something to? Who taught you something new?
What do we envision for our young people, and how can their education experiences influence
that? There are many paths towards whole-system, deep reform of public schools in Ontario.
Part of change involves imagining something better, and then finding ways to go towards that

visualization. Some ways that we can contribute towards a conscious call for change in education
philosophy, policy, and practice include:
1. Encourage reform in policy and practice that encourages learner-centred and
learner-directed activities at all grade levels. This means encouraging hands-on,
constructivist approaches and reducing teacher-learner power and conceptual divisions.
2. Seek out, value, and incorporate the opinions and interests of young people in
considering curriculum and classroom practices. Ask them what they are interested in.
Ask them for their input on policy, on curriculum, on subject matter. Form groups that
allow for the interaction of young people and adults in a collaborative way, and celebrate
their successes.
3. Encourage the evolution of studio-style classrooms and programs that value social
learning experiences at all grade levels. Again, this means learning as relevant, inquiry-
based opportunities to engage authentically in the world around them. It means changing
the way that a classroom looks, and what texts or other media students look at).
4. Encourage parents, teachers, principals, board members, and other community
partners to support greater links between young people and the community. This
means opening our doors, making connections, and inviting the community to be the
school. This means creating youth internship and training programs that value knowledge
and skill acquisition over economic imperative and filling a labour market.
5. Make funding available for alternative education projects and be open to new ways
of learning and doing. This means supporting charter school experiments, and reducing
financial and social barriers to other alternative schooling options (i.e. home-schooling,
private schools, and international schools). It means ensuring that educators are engaging

in professional and personal development in ways that are consistent with leading
scientific and social understandings of learning and teaching.
6. Make funding available to research the efficacy of various alternative schooling
models, and make these findings available to the public in an accessible way in order
to create awareness and understanding of possibilities and individual agency. This means
that research on the area of education philosophy, pedagogy, and reform should be free to
access, and relevant actors should be required to be informed about current issues and
strategies.
7. Support the development of quality teachers and teachers-in-training, and the
development of respect for teaching and early childhood education as valued and
important professions. This means supporting teachers in pre-service as well as those
who are already teaching. It means making better connections between early childhood
educators and teachers.
8. Hire and support educators who incorporate constructivism and hands-on learning,
and give them the leeway to run their classrooms as they want to, rather than forcing
adherence to an archaic system, recognizing that the system is in the process of changing
to reflect scientific, philosophical and biological realities about learning and motivation.
9. Remember that each of us is always learning, and reflect on how we can capitalize on
our interests and enrich our learning through social connections. This means redefining
the traditional teacher-learner relationship to include a variety of different roles that
reflect the purpose of the learning and the needs of the learner.
10. Reduce the emphasis on grades and achievement levels, and focus on learning and the
development of the whole child as valuable and essential for the creation of engaged and

able future citizens. This is not to say that marks and tests are not useful in any way, just
that they should not be the most important or defining way of viewing and assessing
learning.
11. Respectfully and actively retire educators who resist pedagogical, policy, and
curriculum changes in favour of traditional rank and file classrooms that suppress
efforts for change. (I recognize this is controversial, as it involves a re-structuring of a
traditional, tenure-style support for teachers, which enables them to stagnate. This brings
up a power element that merits its own discussion).
12. Don’t be afraid to speak up! I say this especially to students and young educators facing
opposition from traditionalist proponents. You have a voice, and you can use it. It may
not be easy, but you will benefit in the long run from a system that enables authentic and
relevant opportunities to engage and create your world.
To sum up, education system reform in Canada is not a new endeavour, although it remains
controversial. There is obvious desire for schools to be places that are motivational and
supportive of relevant, authentic learning. But, in order to create lasting, whole-system change in
a way that will support participatory, constructivist learning throughout our lives, we must
constantly renew the cry for change. We have to strive for it, even when it is hard and when we
want to quit. Even when we recognize that the problems facing education reform are not only
pedagogical, but also financial, political, and ethical problems (Friere, 1998, p. 36). As Friere
(1998) succinctly states, “it is true that education is not the ultimate lever for social
transformation, but without it transformation cannot occur” (p. 37). It is up to us as individuals to
decide to aim for better educational opportunities for ourselves and our young people in Ontario,
in Canada, and ultimately, around the world. We must keep moving forward!

References
Alberta Learning. (2002). Charter Schools Handbook. Edmonton, AL: Albertan Government.
ISBN: 0-7785-2550-3
Bosetti, L. (2001). The Alberta charter school experience. In C. R. Hepburn (Ed.), Can the
market save our schools? (pp. 101-121). Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute. Retrieved from
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/market_schools/7_bosetti.pdf
Boudreault, F. (2013). Future tense: adapting Canadian education systems for the 21st century.
Action Canada Task Force Report, 1-16. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.007
Delpit, L. (1995) Teachers, Culture, and Power: An Interview with Lisa Delpit. In D. Delpit, H.
L. Gates, Jr., H. Kohl, H. Zinn, et. al. (Eds.) Rethinking Schools: An Agenda for Change,
pp. 136-147).
Fairclough, N. (1993) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. ISBN 0 7456
0674 1
Friere, P. (1998) Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach. Oxford, UK:
Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-2304-5
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581-584.
Retrieved from http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=577485
Fullan, M. (2010). The idea and importance of whole-system reform. In M. Fullan (Ed.), All
Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform (pp. 3-19). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452219554.n1

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Toward a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning.
Seattle, Washington: Collaborative Impact. Retrieved from
http://www.newpedagogies.info/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/New_Pedagogies_for_Deep%20Learning_Whitepaper.pdf
Greene, M. (2000) Imagining futures: the public schools and possibility. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 32(2), 267-280. ISSN 0022-0272.
Halinen, I. (2015) What is going on in Finland: Curriculum reform 2016. Finish National Board
of Education, retrieved from
http://www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/what_is_going_on_in_finland_curriculu
m_reform_2016
Kail, R. V., & Zolner, T. (2008). Children: A Chronological Approach (2nd ed.) Toronto:
Ontario, Pearson Canada, Inc.
Levin, B, & Fullan, M. (2009) Learning about system renewal. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The
Challenge of Change: Start School Improvement Now! (pp. 187-207). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452218991.n13
Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child? Educational Leadership,
63(1), 8-13. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/sept05/vol63/num01/What-Does-It-Mean-to-Educate-the-Whole-
Child%C2%A2.aspx
Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., and Berliner, D. C., (2006). High stakes testing and student
achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 14(6), 1-180. Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/72/198 ISSN 1068–2341
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015). Achieving excellence: A renewed vision for education in
Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/great.html
Perry, K. H. (2012). What is literacy?- A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal
of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50-71. Retrieved from
http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/What-is-Literacy_KPerry.pdf
Ritchie, S. (2010). Innovation in action: an examination of charter schools in Alberta. The West
in Canada Research Series. The Canada West Foundation. ISBN: 1-897423-61-5
Sahlberg, P. (2011). Is the future Finnish? In P. A. Wasley, A. Lieberman, & J. P. McDonald
(Eds.), Finnish Lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland?
(124-146). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 13-27). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Shaffer, D. R. (2000) Social and Personality Development (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/
Thomson Learning Press.
Sussex Publishers, Ltd. (2015). Motivation. Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/motivation

Thirteen Ed. Online.: Constructivism as a paradigm for teaching and learning. Concept to
Classroom. Retrieved from
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/
Toma, E., & Zimmer, R. (2012). Two decades of charter schools: Expectations, reality, and the
future. Economics of Education Review, 31. Pp.209-212. Retrieved from
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/econedurev
Wagner, M. (1999). Charter schools in Alberta: Change or continuity in progressive conservative
education policy? The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 52-66. Retrieved
from
http://ajer.synergiesprairies.ca.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/ajer/index.php/ajer/article/view/24

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

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (17)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (16)

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

Ähnlich wie Change for Motivation_Support for New Pedagogies of Teaching and Learning in Ontario Public Schools (20)

Mehr von Andrea Lagalisse

Mehr von Andrea Lagalisse (7)

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