practices of their teachers earning students of the

Volume 13, Issue 2

2019

Articles

Teacher Candidates’

Expectations: Equity

Education, Critical Literacy,

and Indigenous Students’

Epistemologies

Lorenzo Cherubini

The Perceptions of Finnish

Upper Secondary School

Students of the Assessment

Practices of Their Teachers

Toni Mäkipää & Najat Ouakrim-

Soivio

Joyful Number Talks in

Kindergarten

Deanna Marie Pecaski McLennan

Book Reviews

Empathy and History:

Historical Understanding in

Re-Enactment, Hermeneutics

and Education

Larry A. Glassford

New Media in the Classroom:

Rethinking Primary Literacy

Stacey Hanzel

Students at the Center:

Personalized Learning with

Habits of Mind

Monique Roberts

The Early Advantage 2—

Building Systems That Work

for Young Children

Stephanie Olmore

JOURNAL OF

TEACHING AND

LEARNING

ISSN: 1911–8279 (online) 1492–1154 (print)

The Journal of Teaching and Learning (JTL) acknowledges the land we operate on as part of the traditional territories of the Three Fires Confederacy of First Nations, comprised of the Ojibwe, the Odawa, and the Potawatomi. There are few places on earth where others have not walked before us or called it home. The JTL is an international, peer-reviewed journal. The journal seeks manuscripts that provide a critical examination of historical and contemporary educational contexts. The journal publishes original research that contributes to theoretical and applied questions in teaching and learning. These may include: issues related to indigenous education, gender, class, race, ethnicity and diversity, educational policy, teacher education, educational leadership, and theories of teaching and learning. The journal also welcomes critical and exploratory essays that focus on current educational issues. The JTL is published twice a year. Submissions to the JTL are anonymously peer-reviewed.

About the covers

Front & Back:

Blake, Rosie. (2019). Rhythmic Fluidity 2, [Two-plate monoprint].

'Rhythmic Fluidity 2' (Two-plate monoprint) is from a body of work made in response to my research in

Tidalectics. This body of thought looks towards an oceanic worldview, embedded with ideas of place,

land, ‘islandness’, and ‘archipelagic thinking’. The term was coined by poet Kamau Braithwaite who has

written extensively about the necropolitics of the ocean, and its potency as a metaphor for collective,

cultural memory. I feel that water has inherently emotional power; it is a space where both boundaries

and rigidity dissolve. The ocean represents the unknown and is a potent site for mystery. It is also a key

signifier in the tangible effects of climate change and environmental crisis. University of Highlands and

Islands.

i

Volume 13, Issue 2 2019

ARTICLES

Teacher Candidates’ Expectations: Equity Education, Critical Literacy, -------------------- 1–22

And Indigenous Students’ Epistemologies

Lorenzo Cherubini

Perceptions of Finnish Upper Secondary School Students of the Assessment -------- 23–42

Practices of Their Teachers

Toni Mäkipää & Najat Ouakrim-Soivio

Joyful Number Talks in Kindergarten ------------------------------------------------------------------ 43–54


BOOK REVIEWS

Review: Empathy and History: Historical Understanding in Re-Enactment, ------------- 55–58

Hermeneutics and Education by Tyson Retz

Larry Glassford

Review: New Media in the Classroom: Rethinking Primary Literacy ------------------------ 59–62

by Cathy Burnett & Guy Merchant

Stacey Hanzel

Review: Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of mind -------------- 63–66

by Bena Kallick and Allison Zmuda

Monique Roberts

Review: The Early Advantage 2—Building Systems That Work for Young Children -- 67–70

by Sharon Lynn Kagan

Stephanie Olmore

ii

This page was left intentionally blank.

The Journal of Teaching and Learning

Vol. 13, No. 2 (2019). pp. 1–22

https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v13i2.6091

1

Teacher Candidates’ Expectations:

Equity Education, Critical Literacy, and Indigenous

Students’ Epistemologies

Lorenzo Cherubini

Brock University

Abstract

Culturally responsive teachers respond positively to students’ cultural norms and

traditions by creating inviting and meaningful learning opportunities that

distinguish between Indigenous and western perspectives; however, in

classrooms where teachers’ understanding of Indigenous epistemologies and

worldviews are not necessarily sufficiently represented, Indigenous students not

only often feel marginalized and isolated but disengaged from Eurocentric

curriculum and texts that fail to incorporate their histories and traditions. This

study focuses on the expectations and perceptions of teacher candidates (prior

to their field practicum experiences in classrooms) related specifically to equity

education, reflective practice, and critical literacy. The mixed-methods study

examines prospective teachers’ perceptions of issues related to Indigenous

students, and how public education policy and practice manifests in classrooms.

The findings suggest that prospective teachers are doubtful of the fact that

Indigenous voices are being presented competently to enhance student learning

and foster Indigenous student identity. Moreover, prospective teachers

anticipate a fundamental disconnect between the Ontario policy outcomes

related to Indigenous education and the practice of teachers in school.

Introduction

The Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) has published various policy documents and

complementary resources targeted specifically at closing the achievement gap between Indigenous

and other learners and improving the experiences of Indigenous students in provincially funded

kindergarten to grade 12 public schools. The Ontario First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education

Policy Framework (OME, 2007c) identified the need to focus significant attention on Indigenous

student achievement and specified the roles and responsibilities of school boards, school

administrators, teachers, and the OME itself, to better address the unique learning styles and


Teacher Candidates’ Expectations Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

2

preferences of the over 69,000 Indigenous students enrolled in provincial schools. The policy

framework lists specific goals to improve Indigenous student achievement, reduce achievement

gaps, and instill high levels of public confidence in these initiatives. Since then, the OME’s two

complementary documents, A Solid Foundation: A Second Progress Report on the Implementation

of the Ontario First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education Policy Framework (2013) and the

Implementation Plan: Ontario First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education Policy Framework (2014)

have shared the outcomes stemming from the policy framework (OME, 2007c), and identified

additional interventions and measures to achieve the respective goals. The impetus for the policy,

to some extent, may be the result of mainstream education practices that historically have

accounted neither for Indigenous content nor Indigenous epistemologies in public schools (Kanu,

2011; Madden, Higgins, & Korteweg, 2013).

For clarification, publicly-funded K–12 education is a provincial responsibility in Canada,

whereas schools on reserves are administered by a delegated governing body. There has been a

dramatic increase of Indigenous student enrolment in Ontario public schools, making it paramount

that teachers, as the frontline instructors in the classroom, are most responsive to Indigenous

students’ diverse learning needs (Cherubini, 2014a). Teachers’ pedagogy and the learning

environment they create in the classroom has a significant influence on student achievement and

engagement (see Cherubini, 2016; Pearson, 2011; Sarra, 2011).

This study focuses on the expectations and perceptions of teacher candidates (prior to their

field practicum experiences in classrooms) related specifically to equity education, reflective

practice, and critical literacy as reflected in the OME (2007c) policy framework. The mixed-

methods study discusses participants’ responses to seven Likert-scale statements and to one open-

ended question. The study examines prospective teachers’ perceptions of issues related to

Indigenous students, and how public education policy and practice manifests in schools and

classrooms (Hardwick, 2015; Snively & Williams, 2006).

This study recognizes that it is important that prospective teachers acquire an

understanding of how policy discourses can shape pedagogical practices, influence student

dynamics in the classroom, and impact upon students’ individually and collectively. The research

project provided teacher candidates with an opportunity to trace their expectations and subsequent

experiences before and after their coursework and practicum teaching assignments so that they can

more accurately account for the development (Dillon, O’Brien, Sata, & Kelly, 2011; Wolsey et al.

2013) and understanding of concepts related to literacy instruction in public schools (Ball, 2012;

Gee, 2008; Hamilton, 2014).

Context of the Study

As Perso (2012) and Yunkaporta (2010) discuss, culturally responsive teachers respond positively

to students’ cultural norms and traditions by creating inviting and meaningful learning

opportunities that distinguish between Indigenous and western theoretical perspectives (Black,

2011; McKnight, 2015); however, for some pre-service teacher candidates (as well as experienced

and practicing teachers), understandings of Indigenous epistemologies and worldviews are not

Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2) L. Cherubini

3

necessarily sufficiently developed (Harrison, 2012; McKnight, 2016), leaving Indigenous students

not only often feeling marginalized and isolated in public schools (Feir, 2016) but disengaged from

Eurocentric curriculum and texts that fail to incorporate meaningfully their histories, knowledges,

and traditions (Bissell & Korteweg, 2016; Richards & Scott, 2009). The process of better

understanding Indigenous paradigms may foster a sense of critical reflection in prospective

teachers, including an awareness of the complexity involved in deconstructing one’s biases and

assumptions (Brown, 2017; Cherubini, 2014b; Kasun & Saavedra, 2016). This supports the view

that teachers need to consider themselves as critical professionals able to navigate the socio-

political and academic issues that relate to equity education (Buehl & Fives, 2009; Cole, 2011).

Reflection, in these terms, is a self-transformative process that includes a critical

examination of teacher candidates’ perceptions of their teaching practices and beliefs, and a

capacity to reflect upon the implications of students’ identities in their classrooms (Casewell, 2007;

Reed, 2009). As an ongoing and evolving process, teacher candidates are well-served to consider

what they believe to be relevant to teaching, including those aspects that relate to their professional

development, competencies and beliefs (Korthagen, 2004). As Nixon, Packard, and Douvanis

(2010) conclude, teachers’ professional dispositions affect the values related to ethics and social

justice (p. 48). It is very important thus to focus on preservice teachers’ expectations and then

experiences during their teacher education since they may hold rather romanticized notions of

teaching, based potentially on their own experiences as students in the respective public schools

they attended (Williams, Lin, & Mikulec, 2016). This paper, as one of several others, investigates

preservice teachers’ perceptions of equity and literacy education in light of Indigenous students’

diversity in the context of provincial policy. The research examines teacher candidates’

expectations of how Indigenous culture and worldviews will influence their teaching, and their

positionality (including race, gender, and SES) on issues of power and hegemony, dominant

cultures and epistemologies, and ultimately, racial and cultural divides. The intent is to develop

both pre-service teachers’ agency to engage in more genuine processes of self-reflection, and

account for literacy education in their classrooms (see Liggett & Finley, 2009).

The current study is premised on the belief that Indigenous knowledge and worldviews

must be recognized and acknowledged in public schools and incorporated meaningfully into

teachers’ pedagogy. Such a premise resonates with the goals and objectives of the policy

framework (OME, 2007c) and underscores the literature that endorses the meaningful place of

Indigenous students’ epistemologies in public education (McLaughlin & Whatman, 2015). The

study recognizes that literacies evolve and respond to socio-cultural and socio-historical change,

and that the specific nature of such responses may differ in each school and classroom (Kellner,

2004). Literacies, in this context, are far more involved than merely decoding signs and words

into patterns, as they instead translate into meaningful relationships and discourses between

individuals and texts (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006). For Gee (1991), such critical discourses

implicate more than language since


4

what is important is not language, and surely not grammar, but saying (writing)–doing–

being–valuing–believing combinations…. Discourses are ways of being in the world, or

forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes and social identities

(p. 3).

The OME policy documents cite critical literacy as the examination of texts beyond the literal

message, and the proficiency to notice both the explicit content and meaning of what is taught and

what is implied (Expert Panel on Literacy in Grades 4 to 6 in Ontario, 2004). According to the

Ontario Ministry of Education’s (2007a) Grade 9 and 10 English curriculum documents, “literacy

is about more than reading and writing – it is about how we communicate in society. It is about

social practices and relationships, about knowledge, language and culture” (p. 3, as cited in

UNESCO, 2003). Literacy development is embedded across all subjects in the Ontario curriculum

since critical literacy incorporates higher-level thinking skills that enable students to comprehend

and evaluate texts and become reflective learners (OME, 2007a).

Methodology

The sample of this study consisted of teacher candidates enrolled in a professional teacher

education program at a university in Ontario, Canada. Participants self-identified their respective

demographic, including gender, socioeconomic class and program of study. The demographic data

were compared across groups. Particularly because most of the participants identified as

Canadian-White (71.7%), female (79.7%), and of middle socio-economic class (82.1%), various

interpretations of the findings were considered. The on-line survey was administered in September

2017, prior to teacher candidates’ practicum-related assignments in public-school classrooms. The

post-survey, the results of which are not discussed in this paper, was administered to the same

sample of participants at the completion of their teacher education program. The pre-survey was

completed by 212 prospective teachers.

Participants were enrolled in one of two teacher education programs at the time of this

study. The concurrent education program consists of students that have already completed the first

four years of a five-year program of study. The fifth year consists solely of teacher education

courses. Students proceed to the fifth and final year without having to apply for admission into the

program. The consecutive education program accepts students that already have an undergraduate

degree and are admitted to the first of a two-year Bachelor of Education program. Both programs

of study allow students to be qualified in one of the following divisional pairings: primary/junior

(kindergarten to grade 6), junior/intermediate (grades 4 to 10), and intermediate/senior (grades 7

to 12).

The survey consisted of 20 Likert-scale statements (ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree to

5=Strongly Agree) and four open-ended questions. This analysis includes participants’ responses

to the following seven quantitative statements, and to one of the open-ended questions. The Likert-

scale statements included in this analysis are:


5

1. I believe that the demands of “standardization” will make it difficult to engage with issues

related to Aboriginal education in my classroom during my practice teaching.

2. I believe that equity education as it relates to Aboriginal issues will be a meaningful

complement to the provincial curriculum during my practice-teaching.

3. I believe that the capacity to reflect on my daily practice as a student-teacher will help to

develop a deeper self-awareness during my practice teaching.

4. I believe that Aboriginal literature (novels, poetry, short stories) will already be

meaningfully represented in the classrooms where I will be practice teaching.

5. I believe that Aboriginal literature (novels, poetry, short stories) will already be accurately

taught in their respective historical, social and cultural contexts in the classrooms where I

will be practice teaching.

6. I believe that Aboriginal non-fiction (documentaries, memoirs, traditional teachings) will

already be meaningfully represented in the classrooms where I will be practice teaching.

7. I believe that Aboriginal non-fiction (documentaries, memoirs, traditional teachings) will

already be accurately taught in their respective historical, social and cultural contexts in

the classrooms where I will be practice teaching.

The responses to the following open-ended question were also examined: The Ontario Ministry of

Education English and Language Curriculum documents recognizes that literacy skills can foster

a strong identity and positive self-image for students. An objective of the Ontario Language and

English curriculum (2006, 2007a, 2007b) is to develop students’ critical literacy skills that

encourages them to ask probing questions and challenge the status quo while examining issues of

power and justice. In this way, the curriculum empowers students to be critical about “issues that

strongly affect them” (OME, 2006, p. 29). Such a question might be, “do you imagine that this

will be true for Aboriginal students in the classrooms and schools where you will be practice

teaching? Why? Why not?”

The research study included a mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).

Participants’ perceptions were measured according to the Likert-scale survey responses. The open-

ended question served as an opportunity for participants to explain and develop the perceptions

they may not otherwise had been able to express in the numerical survey responses (Creswell,

Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). Participants’ demographic data were analyzed by

frequency. The scores on the Likert-scale responses to the seven statements were analyzed by

frequency and mean and compared across categories. Grounded theory was used to analyze and

code the qualitative responses (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). According to the process of using

grounded theory, participants’ responses were considered initially as an independent text, and then

coded on a line-by-line basis. The principal investigator and an independent researcher analyzed

the respective patterns grounded in the data and coded them in light of the emerging themes. The

data and preliminary findings were subjected to comparison across groups. The findings were

triangulated through a comparison of key words, phrases and themes. The properties of descriptors

were subsequently compared, and the complete text of responses analyzed once more. The findings


6

were coded by category. Only those categories that theoretically saturated the data were identified

(Charmaz, 2006).

Findings

Nearly 72% of respondents (n = 152) identified themselves as Canadian - White, as shown

in Table 1.

Table 1.

Frequency of Participant Self-Identification by Ethnicity

Ethnic Category n % Valid % Cumulative %

Aboriginal 1 0.5 0.5 .5

Canadian - Black 2 0.9 0.9 1.4

Canadian - White 152 71.7 72.0 73.5

European 21 9.9 10.0 83.4

Caribbean 1 0.5 0.5 83.9

Middle Eastern 6 2.8 2.8 86.7

South Asian 7 3.3 3.3 90.0

East Asian 7 3.3 3.3 93.4

Southeast Asian 2 0.9 0.9 94.3

South and Central American 4 1.9 1.9 96.2

Other 8 3.8 3.8 100.0

Total 211 99.5 100.0

Missing 1 0.5

Total 212 100.0

Approximately 80% of the respondents were female (n = 169; 80%) as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Frequency of Participant Self-Identification by Gender

Gender n % Valid % Cumulative %

Female 169 79.7 80.1 80.1

Male 41 19.3 19.4 99.5

Other (please specify) 1 0.5 0.5 100.0

Total 211 99.5 100.0

Missing 1 0.5

Total 212 100.0


7

Over 82% of the participants identified as middle socio-economic class (n = 174; 82.5%).

See Table 3.

Table 3.

Frequency of Participant Self-Identification by Socio-Economic Class

Socio-economic class n % Valid % Cumulative %

Lower socio-economic 16 7.5 7.6 7.6

Middle socio-economic 174 82.1 82.5 90.0

Upper socio-economic 19 9.0 9.0 99.1

Other 2 0.9 0.9 100.0

Total 211 99.5 100.0

Missing 1 0.5

Total 212 100.0

In terms of program enrolment, the most frequently occurring response was from those in

the Consecutive Education - Primary/Junior (P/J) (32%), followed by the Concurrent Education

(I/S) with almost 20 percent of the total, as illustrated in Table 4.

Table 4.

Frequency of Participant Enrolment by Program

Program of study n % Valid % Cumulative %

Consecutive Education -

Intermediate/Senior (I/S) 21 9.9 10 10


Junior/Intermediate (J/I) 26 12.3 12.3 22.3


Primary/Junior (P/J) 68 32.1 32.2 54.5

Concurrent Education (I/S) 42 19.8 19.9 74.4

Concurrent Education (J/I) 24 11.3 11.4 85.8

Concurrent Education (P/J) 30 14.2 14.2 100.0

Total 211 99.5 100.0

Missing 1 0.5

Total 212 100.0


8

The distribution between participants in Year 1 of consecutive education and concurrent

education (Year 5) programs were nearly equally distributed—51.2% and 48.8% respectively. See

Table 5.

Table 5.

Frequency of Participants by Current Year of Study

Year of study n % Valid % Cumulative %

Year 1 108 50.9 51.2 51.2

Concurrent Education (Year 5) 103 48.6 48.8 100.0

Total 211 99.5 100.0

Missing 1 0.5

Total 212 100.0

Nearly half of the participants (48.6%) reported to agree (36.3%) or strongly agree (12.3%)

with the expectation that the demands of standardization will make it difficult to engage with issues

related to Indigenous education (see Table 6). Equally significant, 33% reported to be indifferent

to this same expectation.

Table 6.

Frequency by Response to the Statement, I believe that the demands of ‘standardization’ will make it

difficult to engage with issues related to Aboriginal education in my classroom during my practice teaching.

Response n % Valid % Cumulative %

Strongly Agree 22 10.4 12.3 12.3

Agree 65 30.7 36.3 48.6

Indifferent 59 27.8 33.0 81.6

Disagree 26 12.3 14.5 96.1

Strongly Disagree 7 3.3 3.9 100.00

Total 179 84.4 100.0

Missing 33 15.6

Total 212 100.0

A more significant frequency of responses was reported with the second statement relating

to prospective teachers’ belief that equity education (in view of Indigenous issues specifically) will

be a meaningful complement to the Ontario provincial curriculum. See Table 7.


9

Table 7.

Frequency by Response to the Statement, I believe that equity education as it relates to Aboriginal issues

will be a meaningful complement to the provincial curriculum during my practice teaching.



Agree 82 38.7 45.8 65.4

Indifferent 50 23.6 27.9 93.3

Disagree 10 4.7 5.6 98.9


Total 179 84.4 100.0

Missing 33 15.6

Total 212 100.0

The respondents that agreed with the statement (45.8%) represented the highest frequency, while

19.6% of the sample strongly agreed, totaling 65.4% that reported a favourable response. Yet, the

second highest frequency of responses to this statement (27.9%) reported to be indifferent.

The frequency of favourable responses to the third statement was overwhelmingly positive

(see Table 8).

Table 8.

Frequency by Response to the Statement, I believe that the capacity to reflect on my daily practice as a

student-teacher will help to develop a deeper self-awareness during my practice teaching.



Agree 76 35.8 42.5 89.4

Indifferent 13 6.1 7.3 96.7

Disagree 4 1.9 2.2 98.9


Total 179 84.4 100.0

Missing 33 15.6

Total 212 100.0

The statement inquired about participants’ belief in their capacity to reflect on their daily practice

to develop their self-awareness as a practice teacher during practicum. Over 42% of the

participants agreed and 46.9% strongly agreed, representing a cumulative frequency of 89.4%.

Only 1.1% strongly disagreed and 2.2% disagreed with the statement.


10

The trend of favourable responses was not consistent in the data for the fourth statement

that asked about participants’ expectation that Indigenous literature will already be meaningfully

represented in the classrooms where they will be practice teaching (see Table 9).

Table 9.

Frequency by Response to the Statement, I believe that Aboriginal literature (novels, poetry, short stories)

will already be meaningfully represented in the classrooms where I will be practice teaching.



Agree 37 17.5 20.7 29.1

Indifferent 58 27.4 32.4 61.5

Disagree 55 25.9 30.7 92.2


Total 179 84.4 100.0

Missing 33 15.6

Total 212 100.0

Slightly over 63% reported to be indifferent (32.4%) or disagreed (30.7%) with the statement. This

cumulative percentage is significantly higher than the 29.1% cumulative percentage of responses

that agreed (20.7%) and strongly agreed (8.4%) with the statement.

A similar trend emerged in the responses to the fifth statement, where 64% of the

participants were indifferent (36%) or disagreed (28.1%) with the expectation that Indigenous

literature was already being accurately taught in their respective historical, social, and cultural

contexts in the classrooms where participants will be practice teaching (see Table 10).

Table 10.

Frequency by Response to the Statement, I believe that Aboriginal literature (novels, poetry, short stories)

will already be accurately taught in their respective historical, social and cultural contexts in the

classrooms where I will be practice teaching.



Agree 28 13.2 15.7 22.4

Indifferent 64 30.2 36.0 58.4

Disagree 50 23.6 28.1 86.5


Total 178 84.0 100.0

Missing 34 16.0

Total 212 100.0


11

Like the results from the previous statement, significantly less participants reported agreeing

(15.7%) or strongly agreeing (6.7%), representing a cumulative average of 22.4%. In response to

this statement, 13.5% of the total strongly disagreed, in comparison to 7.8% of responses that

strongly disagreed with the previous one.

The trend of less favourable responses continued for the sixth and seventh statements (see

Tables 11 and 12).

Table 11.

Frequency by Response to the Statement, I believe that Aboriginal non-fiction (documentaries, memoirs,

traditional teachings) will already be meaningfully represented in the classrooms where I will be practice

teaching.



Agree 24 11.3 13.5 91.0

Indifferent 70 33.0 39.3 77.5

Disagree 49 23.1 27.5 38.2


Total 178 84.0 100.0

Missing 34 16.0

Total 212 100.0

Table 12.

Frequency by Response to the Statement, I believe that Aboriginal non-fiction (documentaries,

memoirs, traditional teachings) will already be accurately taught in their respective historical,

social and cultural contexts in the classrooms where I will be practice teaching.



Agree 27 12.7 15.1 22.4

Indifferent 69 32.5 38.5 60.9

Disagree 48 22.6 26.8 87.7


Total 179 84.4 100.0

Missing 33 15.6

Total 212 100.0

In response to participants’ belief that Indigenous non-fiction was already being meaningfully

represented in the classrooms where they will be practice-teaching, 39.3% and 27.5% of the


12

participants indicated their indifference and disagreement respectively, representing a cumulative

frequency of 66.8%. This frequency is significantly higher than the 22.5% of the total that agreed

(13.5%) or strongly agreed (9%) with the statement. The results are nearly identical for the seventh

statement where a cumulative 65.3% of the total were indifferent (38.5%) or disagreed (26.8%)

with the belief that Indigenous non-fiction was already being accurately taught in their historical,

social, and cultural contexts. Like the sixth statement, significantly fewer respondents agreed

(15.1%) or strongly agreed (7.3%) with the statement, representing a cumulative 22.4%.

The qualitative analysis of the responses to the question that asked participants to speculate

on the possibility that the OME curriculum empowers Indigenous students to be critical about

issues that are most relevant to their lives and benefit from literacy skills that foster their strong

identity and positive self-image resulted in the theoretical saturation of two categories, identified

as (a) teacher influence and (b) student advocacy. The responses to the question were considered

by both researchers across the variables of ethnicity, gender, SES, and program of study in which

participants reported. The responses grounded in the data referred to how participants’ speculations

centered upon the specific context of each classroom learning environment, associate teacher, and

of the Indigenous students themselves.

Discussion

In respect to the first Likert-scale statement, over 80% of the respondents from East Asia (n = 7),

South Asia (n = 7), Black Canadians (n = 2), and the sole Indigenous participant agreed or strongly

agreed—as did 50% of participants that reported to be Southeast Asian (n = 2). These participants

expect that the standardization of provincial curriculum, assessment and evaluation policy, and

large-scale testing will have a major influence on their potential to meaningfully engage with

issues related to Indigenous education, and thus anticipate standardization to have an adverse

consequence on their ability to account successfully for those topics that relate directly to

Indigenous students. It can be inferred that these respondents, unlike the majority of those that

identified as Canadian - White, anticipate difficulties in facilitating and coordinating opportunities

to engage Indigenous students in their classroom because of their expectation of the demands that

standardization will impose upon their practice. Moreover, the cohort that identified as middle SES

were more likely to agree or strongly agree with this statement, in comparison to those that reported

to be from lower and higher SES brackets.

Quite different from the findings of the first statement, most Canadian-White (n = 152),

European (n = 21), and Middle Eastern (n = 6) participants agreed or strongly agreed with the

second statement. Like the results from the first statement, Canadian-Black (n = 2) and East Asian

(n = 7) participants agreed and strongly agreed with the second statement, as did approximately

50% of the Southeast Asian students (n = 2). Canadian-White and European participants tended

to have a favourable response to the statement, suggesting that they perceive equity as a topic that

will relate to Indigenous issues and complement the provincial curriculum. These participants

expect equity to assume a viable position in the curricular spaces of provincial publicly funded

schools, and trust that it will significantly complement their pedagogical practice. Unlike the other


13

groups, these participants have the impression that topics related to equity will be represented in

the broader context of the issues that matter most to Indigenous students. Also, the respondents

from the lower SES group presented the largest portion that agreed or strongly agreed with the

student.

The favourable response rate for the third statement was significantly high (89.4% of the

total either agreed or strongly agreed), except for the Middle Eastern participants (n = 6) that did

not necessarily perceive their capacity to reflect on their daily practice as contributing to the

development of their self-awareness. It will be worthwhile to compare these findings with the data

from the post survey to distinguish if participants’ actual experiences in classrooms during their

practice-teaching assignments made a difference on their expectations of how standardization,

equity education, and reflective practice implicate upon their perceptions.

For the fourth and fifth statements, focusing on participants’ expectation that the

presentation of Indigenous literature will be meaningfully and accurately represented in the

classrooms where they will be practice teaching, nearly 65% of respondents reported not having

an opinion or disagreeing. These participants did not respond favourably to the possibility that

their associate teachers would create the necessary conditions in their classrooms to meaningfully

and accurately represent Indigenous literature. The prospective teacher participants did not

anticipate that the novels, poems, and short stories authored by Indigenous peoples will be properly

presented in meaningful contexts to students. Interestingly, the East Asian participants (n = 7) and

Indigenous participant (n = 1) were more inclined to agree with both statements. One cannot,

however, base significant interpretations of this finding because of the small sample size. The fact

that female respondents were more likely to disagree to both statements in comparison with male

participants will be subject to further scrutiny in the post-survey analysis, as will the finding that

the respondents that identified in the upper SES category tended to agree far more than those from

the other two classes.

Similar findings emerged in response to statements six and seven that inquired about

participants’ expectations that works of Indigenous non-fiction will be meaningfully represented

and taught accurately in the classrooms where they will be practice teaching. Here too, over 65%

of the total reported not having an opinion or disagreeing with the two statements. It is significant

that less than 20% had a favourable response to the sixth statement, and 22.4% agreed or strongly

agreed to the seventh statement. The European participants (n = 21) tended to either agree or be

indifferent to the sixth statement, while Canadian-Black participants (n = 2) and Middle Eastern

(n = 6) respondents reported their disagreement. The Canadian-Black and majority of Middle

Eastern and East Asian participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with the seventh statement,

while European and Southeast Asian participants tended to either agree or be indifferent. Female

participants were more inclined to disagree or strongly disagree to both statements.

In respect to the last statement, respondents from the lower SES bracket tended to disagree

more than those from the other two classes. Considering the findings for both the sixth and seventh

statements, it can be suggested that many participants expect that the meaningful and accurate

representation of Indigenous documentaries, memoirs, and traditional teachings will be rather

elusive realities in the classrooms where they will be practice teaching. Participants’ perceptions


14

point to a significant contradiction between policy and practice, since they anticipate that there

will be a fundamental disconnect in how works of Indigenous non-fiction are represented in public

school classrooms. While the OME policy goals and objectives call for both a substantial and

relevant infusion of Indigenous worldviews, these teacher candidates anticipate a discord in how

Indigenous traditions, cultures, and perspectives are being taught.

The overall findings of the Likert-scale responses point to rather pronounced implications.

Prospective teachers are doubtful of the fact that Indigenous voices (in works of fiction and non-

fiction) will be presented competently to enhance student learning and foster Indigenous student

identity (see Rahm, Lachaine, & Mathura, 2014), impacting upon the historical and political

positions of Indigenous peoples in general, and upon the Indigenous learners specifically in each

classroom (see Cammarota, 2011; Kirshner, 2010). One can infer that the prospective teacher

participants in this study anticipate that the ideological framing of Indigenous literature (including

works of non-fiction) will have adverse effects on the contextual and social constructions of

Indigenous worldviews and Indigenous student identities (Paris & Alim, 2014). The findings

suggest that participants are concerned with the intersections between how Indigenous fiction and

non-fiction are represented, the accuracy of these representations, and how Indigenous students’

identities and literacy experiences are unfavorably affected in public school classrooms (Caraballo,

2016). Moreover, while some participants anticipate equity education to complement the

provincial curriculum and that their capacity to self-reflect on their daily practice will develop their

self-awareness, it is troubling that many respondents perceive that Indigenous literature and

worldviews will be positioned in less than ideal discourses across public school classrooms, and

therefore will have negative interpretations on Indigenous students’ academic and cultural

identities (Kinloch, 2010; Paris, 2012). Participants anticipate that such culturally-appropriate and

meaningful inclusions of Indigenous worldviews (through fiction and non-fiction) do not exist—

and hence a principle mandate of Ontario Indigenous education policy is not being addressed. As

a result, prospective teachers expect that students’ genuine engagement in the meaningful

explorations of their identity and cultures (for all, and not just Indigenous students) is not being

enacted in public school classrooms (Schroeter & James, 2015).

There are also several noteworthy findings grounded in the two core categories that

emerged from participants’ qualitative responses to the question that asked them to discuss their

expectation that Indigenous students will have opportunities to develop their literacy skills and be

empowered to be critical about the issues that strongly affect them. The first category, identified

as teacher influence, included responses that cited the condition that classroom teachers would

have to be receptive to creating these opportunities otherwise: “Aboriginal students [will be] left

out of the conversation…either forgotten entirely or alienated” (anonymous concurrent I/S

participant). If teachers are willing to create nurturing literacy experiences for students, then as

this participant wrote and was typical of other responses, “it will empower them [Indigenous

students] to better understand and critique texts that represent Aboriginals” (anonymous

concurrent I/S participant). Others suggested that they “would like to think that this will be true”

(anonymous concurrent P/J participant) despite the fact that they expect “a limited amount of

support given to students due to the lack of education of teachers in Aboriginal studies”


15

(anonymous concurrent I/S participant). Some respondents cited the difficulty they expect teachers

to have in appropriately and accurately representing Indigenous students’ interest to challenge the

status quo and examine issues of power and justice because “it is difficult to understand something

when you have no way of positioning yourself in terms of it, or even relating to it” (anonymous

consecutive J/I participant). Participants believe that if teachers themselves feel uneasy with the

issues of representation and social justice, then this serves to prompt even more complicated

feelings of uncertainty and less confidence to structure meaningful and relevant learning and

literacy opportunities. In these contexts, the prospective teachers expect to feel saddled with a

responsibility to navigate sociohistorical and socio-cultural terrains that may be relatively foreign

to them. Hence, they anticipate the difficulty for teachers to integrate conceptual notions of critical

literacy into meaningful classroom discourses if the issues most relevant to Indigenous students

are not part of teachers’ more mainstream discourse. This could explain why many respondents

cited their own experiences as K–12 students to explain the priority they place on teachers’

influence. Some stated that empowering Indigenous students’ critical voices “was not prominent

while I was in school” (anonymous concurrent J/I participant), while another stated, “I am not fully

confident because from my prior experiences…all students would be encouraged to examine the

issues of power and justice from very similar viewpoints” (anonymous concurrent P/J participant).

Similarly, common among the responses were references to teachers’ ability and willingness to

tailor the standardized curriculum to meet the critical literacy needs of Indigenous students. The

following response is indicative of several others: “The curriculum is targeted towards White

middle-class students and although there are prompts [for teachers] to include Indigenous

resources in the classroom, I [expect] that they are not implemented” (anonymous concurrent I/S

participant). In a similar light, respondents suggested that the individual teacher’s influence in the

classroom will determine the possibility of “open dialogue [that] contributes to understanding”

(anonymous consecutive P/J participant), and only “as long as the associate teacher applies

[themselves] effectively to the issue” (anonymous concurrent J/I participant). This concurrent P/J

participant response represented several others:

Aboriginal students may have questions about the issues that affect them, but it does not

mean that they will be answered. Many teachers will not speak about history that is not

strictly European-Canadian, so they [Indigenous students] won’t feel comfortable to talk

about their own history and issues.

For many participants, they “hope” that Indigenous students will develop strong critical literacy

skills but recognize that the probability of this happening is largely dependent upon “the teacher

try[ing] to incorporate all backgrounds into lessons” (anonymous consecutive P/J participant).

Participants’ responses are reflective of the literature that endorses the view that teachers need to

be reflective of how their pedagogy resonates with the individual particularities of each learner in

their classroom (Flores, 2008; Murray-Orr & Mitton-Kukner, 2017). It speaks directly to the

research that suggests that successful teachers account simultaneously for content and pedagogical

practices with professional and personal points of view (Collins-Gearing & Smith, 2016).


16

Participants’ expectations align with the literature that suggests that for teachers to reflect upon

both their practice and understanding of the issues that resonate most with Indigenous students,

they need to welcome and invite what Golden and Womack (2016) refer to as “strength-based

models of literacy education” (p. 36) in order to first better interpret the issues of power and justice

that impact upon Indigenous students, and second, to maximize their relevance in the classroom.

In this way, teachers consider what can be learned from the lives and literacies of Indigenous

students, and how their own practice can serve to affirm and strengthen these identities.

The second category that was grounded in participants’ responses is identified as student

advocacy. In many instances, participants expect that the possibility for Indigenous students to be

empowered to think critically about issues most relevant to their lives will “depend on the

population of Aboriginal students in the class and school” (anonymous concurrent I/S participant).

Respondents expect Indigenous students to advocate for the critical consideration of power and

justice in the general classroom discourse. Some Indigenous students “may enjoy exploring certain

critical lenses” (anonymous concurrent I/S participant), while others “may be more aware of social

justice issues” (anonymous consecutive P/J participant), but usually, participants clarified that

Indigenous students “must feel welcome and have a voice” in the classroom and school

environment (anonymous consecutive P/J participant). In these ways, participants expect that if

the proper conditions exist for Indigenous students to self-advocate, then “it gives them an

opportunity for their voices to be heard and to think critically as to how they can change the status

quo” (anonymous concurrent P/J participant).

Most telling, however, were the responses that suggested, like this one, that self-advocacy

remains very problematic because “issues for Aboriginal students are hidden” in the culture of

public school (anonymous consecutive P/J participant). In school and learning environments that

stifle Indigenous students’ self-advocacy, a significant number of participants expect that

Indigenous students “may only see themselves reflected as victims” if there are not spaces “that

allow them to feel empowered and proud of their people’s strength, resilience, and capabilities”

(anonymous concurrent P/J participant). Several of the concurrent I/S participants drew their

observations from what they suggest is the lack of meaningful Indigenous fiction and non-fiction

in secondary school classrooms. Like others, this I/S participant stated that “there are not that many

texts offered in classrooms that are written by Aboriginal writers…I think it would be hard for

Aboriginal students to feel empowered when they are not represented.” Another respondent wrote,

“Aboriginal students will not be at the same advantage as the majority of students [and have a

limited] gateway to communicating” (anonymous concurrent I/S participant). Participants perceive

Indigenous student self-advocacy in the larger social and epistemic context of schooling and expect

that Indigenous students will not have equitable opportunities to express their voices and create

multiple meanings to complex issues in school environments that invite and honour their voices.

While most respondents recognize that teachers will focus on social injustices, an equal number

suggest that these topics of discussion and learning “will not directly affect Aboriginal students”

(anonymous concurrent I/S participant) because issues of hegemony and equity as they are

considered from Indigenous perspectives “are not typically discussed in classrooms” (anonymous

concurrent I/S participant). Thus, the onus seems to be placed on Indigenous students to self-


17

advocate. As this consecutive P/J participant stated, the “correct questions” must be asked but only

if Indigenous students “want to talk and have had good experiences in the education system up to

now” (anonymous consecutive P/J participant). According to some participants, the possibility for

Indigenous learners to engage in meaningful and critical considerations of literacy-related topics

“depends upon each individual student” (anonymous consecutive I/S participant). Participants, to

a large extent, place the burden of responsibility to advocate on the same demographic of students

that have been historically marginalized in public education. This may lead one to wonder if such

expectations are an extension of colonial practices that ignore Indigenous students’ historic

misrepresentations, including having been marginalized and silenced in public schools (Cherubini,

2017; McKegney, 2014). This would seem a far cry from decolonizing the traditional political,

social, and epistemic practices that have been characteristic of mainstream schools, and from

availing all Indigenous students to opportunities to develop their critical voices from positions of

struggle and resilience (see Pirbhai-Illich, 2013). Participants also worry that if only a few

Indigenous students assume active roles as advocates, that it will create “difficult [circumstances

that will] single out students based on their heritage” (anonymous concurrent I/S participants) and

only further contribute to their marginalization. Conversely, if there is a lack of self-advocates,

many respondents expect that the focus on critical literacy, as it relates to Indigenous students’

perceptions of power and justice, “will be overlooked” (anonymous concurrent P/J participant).

Time and again, the teacher candidates indicated their belief that the possibility for Indigenous

students to be empowered in classroom discourses “will vary for each student on an individual

basis” (anonymous consecutive P/J participant), as many recognized that it “could be very difficult

for an Aboriginal student to feel supported, understood, and connected to peers” (anonymous

consecutive P/J participant). Some suggested that they expect public schools to default by ignoring

critical literacy as it is described in the question because “it is simply easier not to discuss” it

(anonymous concurrent J/I participant) and hence, “Aboriginal students will not be empowered”

(anonymous concurrent J/I participant). According to some participants, this will be especially true

for students in public schools where they do not “have an icon with whom they can identify”

(anonymous concurrent I/S participant) and take inspiration from to self-advocate.

Conclusion

The OME’s policies and documents related to improving the educational experiences and

achievement of Indigenous students includes the meaningful incorporation of their epistemologies

and worldviews in public schools and classrooms. Teachers are commissioned to ensure that

Indigenous students have an equitable voice and that classroom practices are respectfully inclusive.

A component of this inclusivity is in the meaningful incorporation and representation of

Indigenous literature (both fiction and non-fiction) to empower students in a critical literacy

framework.

This study encouraged prospective teachers to examine and reflect upon their expectations

in light of the above considerations prior to their practice teaching assignments. As discussed in

this paper, several of the findings are troubling since prospective teachers expect a fundamental


18

disconnect between the outcomes of the policy framework and the actual practice of teachers in

school. Issues related to historical presentation, equity and social justice are expected to be

incorporated relatively ineffectively in public school classrooms. Participants expect that

practicing teachers will have to be committed to complementing the intended curriculum of

provincially funded schools with informed post-colonial perspectives that allow all students to

appraise, critique, and develop their literacy skills. Yet, prospective teachers also expect

Indigenous students themselves to self-advocate in learning environments that are unresponsive to

their needs and interests. In these instances, participants may not consider thoughtfully the

potentially confusing and overwhelming circumstances experienced by some Indigenous students.

References

Ball, S. (2012). Global education, Inc. New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London, UK:

Routledge.

Bissell, A., & Korteweg, L. (2016). Digital narratives as a means of shifting settler-teacher horizons

toward reconciliation. Canadian Journal of Education, 39(3), 1-25. Retrieved from

http://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/2230

Black, C. (2011). Maturing Australia though Australian aboriginal narrative law. South Atlantic

Quarterly, 110(2), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-1162489

Blommaert, J. (2009). Ethnography and democracy: Hyme’s political theory of language. Text & Talk,

29(3), 257-276. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.014

Brown, A. W. (2017). Striving for social sensitivity: The impact of a social justice project on student

teachers’ understanding of pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Pastoral Care in

Education, 35(2), 77-87.

Buehl, M., & Fives, H. (2009). Exploring teachers’ beliefs about teaching knowledge: Where does it

come from? Does it change? Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 367-407.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2017.1290133

Cammarota, J. (2011). A sociohistorical perspective for participatory action research and youth

ethnography in social justice education. In B. A. U. Levinson & M. Pollock (Eds.), A companion to

the anthropology of education (pp. 517-529). New York, NY: Blackwell.

Caraballo, L. (2016). Students’ critical meta-awareness in a figured world of achievement: Toward a

culturally sustaining stance in curriculum, pedagogy, and research. Urban Education, 52(5), 585–609.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915623344

Casewell, R. (2007). Teacher transformation achieved through participation in the National Writing

Project’s Invitational Summer Institute. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University,

Manhattan, KS.

Charmaz, C. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London, UK: SAGE.

Cherubini, L. (2014a). Aboriginal student engagement and achievement: Educational practices and

cultural sustainability. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Cherubini, L. (2014b). Policy, perception and pedagogy: Aboriginal students' experiences in northern

Ontario (Canada). Conference of the International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 7(2), 151-153.

Cherubini, L. (2016). Ontario (Canada) education provincial policy: Aboriginal student learning. Journal

of 21st Century Education, 1(1), 64-78. Retrieved from http://www.21caf.org/


https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-1162489

https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.014

https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2017.1290133

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915623344

http://www.21caf.org/


19

Cole, D. (2011). The actions of affect in Deleuze: Others using language and the language that we make.

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(6), 549-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-

5812.2009.00604.x

Collins-Gearing, B., & Smith, R. (2016). Burning off: Indigenizing the discipline of English. Australian

Journal of Indigenous Education, 45(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2016.6

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L. & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods

research designs. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds), Handbook on mixed methods in the

behavioral and social sciences (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Dillon, D.R., O’Brien, D.G., Sata, M., & Kelly, C.M. (2011). Professional development and teacher

education for reading instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 629–660). New York, NY: Routledge.

Expert Panel on Literacy in Grades 4 to 6 in Ontario. (2004). Literacy for learning: Report of the expert

panel on literacy in grades 4-6 in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/literacy/panel/literacy.pdf

Feir, D. L. (2016). The intergenerational effects of residential schools on children’s educational

experiences in Ontario and Canada’s western provinces. International Indigenous Policy Journal,

7(3), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2016.7.3.5

Flores, M. A. (2008). Mapping new teacher change: Findings from a two-year study. Teacher

Development, 9(3), 389-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530500200261

Gee, J. (1991). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy (literacies). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,

12, 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002130

Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies. London, UK: Routledge.

Golden, N. A. & Womack, E. (2016). Cultivating literacy and relationships with adolescent scholars of

color. English Journal, 105(3), 36-42. Retrieved from

https://library.ncte.org/journals/ej/issues/v105-3

Hamilton, M. (2014). Global, regional and local influences on adult literacy policy in England.

Globalization, Societies & Education, 12(1), 110-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2013.858993

Hardwick, J. (2015). Dismantling narratives: Settler ignorance, Indigenous literature and the development

of a decolonizing discourse. TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 33, 99-118.

https://doi.org/10.3138/topia.33.99

Harrison, N. (2012). Aborigines of the imaginary: Applying Lacan to Aboriginal education. Asia-Pacific

Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.643764

Kanu, Y. (2011). Integrating Aboriginal perspectives into the school curriculum: Purposes, possibilities,

and challenges. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Kasun, G. S., & Saavedra, C. M. (2016). Disrupting ELL teacher candidates’ identities: Indigenizing

teacher education in one study abroad program. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 684-707.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.319

Kellner, D. (2004). Technological transformation, multiple literacies, and the re-visioning of education.

E-Learning, 1(1), 9-37. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2004.1.1.8

Kirshner, B. (2010). Productive tensions in youth participatory action research. National Society for the

Study of Education, 109(1), 238-251.

Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in

teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-97.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00604.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00604.x

https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2016.6

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/literacy/panel/literacy.pdf

https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2016.7.3.5

https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530500200261

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002130

https://library.ncte.org/journals/ej/issues/v105-3

https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2013.858993

https://doi.org/10.3138/topia.33.99

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.643764

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.319

https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2004.1.1.8

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002


20

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday literacies and classroom learning (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Open University Press.

Liggett, T., & Finley, S. (2009). Issues of diversity in preservice teacher education. Multicultural

Education, 16(4), 33-38.

Madden, B., Higgins, G., & Korteweg, L. (2013). Role models can’t just be on posters: Re/Membering

barriers to Indigenous community engagement. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(2), 212-247.

Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/1213

McKegney, S. (2014). Beyond continuance: Criticism of Indigenous literatures in Canada. In J. H. Cox

and D. H. Justice (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Indigenous American literature (pp. 409-426). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

McKnight, A. (2015). Mingadhuga Mingayung: Respecting Country through Mother Mountain’s stories

to share her cultural voice in Western academic structures. Educational Philosophy and Theory,

47(3), 276-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.860581

McKnight, A. (2016). Preservice teachers’ learning with Yuin Country: Becoming respectful teachers in

Aboriginal education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(2), 110-124.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1066491

McLaughlin, J., & Whatman, S. (2015). Beyond social justice agendas: Indigenous knowledges in

preservice teacher education and practice in Australia. In D. Napier (Ed.), International perspectives

on race and racism: Historical and contemporary considerations in education and society (pp. 101-

120). New York, NY: Nova Science Press.

Nixon, A., Packard, A., & Douvanis, G. (2010). Non-renewal of probationary teachers: Negative

retention. Education, 131(1), 43-52. Retrieved from

https://www.westga.edu/share/documents/pubs/000004_.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2006). Language – Grades 1 to 8. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for

Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007a). English – Grades 9 and 10. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for

Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007b). English – Grades 11 and 12. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for

Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007c). Ontario First Nation, Métis, and Inuit education policy

framework. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). A solid foundation: Second progress report on the implementation

of the Ontario First Nation, Métis, and Inuit education policy framework. Toronto, ON: Queen’s

Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Implementation Plan: Ontario First Nation, Metis, and Inuit

Education Policy Framework. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Orr, A. M., & Mitton-Kukner, J. (2017). An exploratory case study of one early career teacher’s evolving

teaching practice in northern Canada. McGill Journal of Education, 52, 71-91. Retrieved from

https://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/9335/7208

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice.

Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X12441244

Paris, D., & Alim, H.S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A

loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77

Pearson, N. (2011, June 27). Fledging school for indigenous students mustn’t be allowed to fail. The

Australian. Retrieved from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/


https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.860581

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1066491

https://www.westga.edu/share/documents/pubs/000004_.pdf

https://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/9335/7208

https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X12441244

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/


21

Perso, T. (2012). Cultural responsiveness and school education with particular focus on Australia’s First

Peoples: A review and synthesis of the literature. Darwin, NT: The Menzies Institute.

Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2013). Crossing borders: At the nexus of critical service learning, literacy, and social

justice. Waikato Journal of Education, 18(2), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v18i2.163

Rahm, J., Lachaine, A., & Mathura, A. (2014). Youth voice and positive identity-building practices: The

case of science girls. Canadian Journal of Education, 37(1), 1-24. Retrieved from


Reed, J. (2009). Creating metaphorical images to foster and assess individual transformation in preservice

teacher education. Multicultural Education, 16(3), 51-54.

Richards, J., & Scott, M. (2009). Indigenous education: Strengthening the foundations. Ottawa, ON:

Canadian Policy Research Networks. Retrieved from http://www.cprn.org/

Sarra, C. (2011). Strong and smart – Towards a pedagogy for emancipation: Education for First Peoples.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Schroeter, S., & James, C. E. (2015). We’re here because we’re Black: The schooling experiences Of

French-speaking African-Canadian students with refugee backgrounds. Race, Ethnicity and

Education, 18(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.885419

Snively, G., & Williams, L. (2006). The Aboriginal knowledge and science education research project.

Canadian Journal of Native Education, 29(2), 229-244. Available at

http://www.lights.ca/sifc/cjne.htm

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Williams, E., Lin, M., & Mikulec, E. (2016). Transformative pedagogies: Fostering identity shifts in pre-

service teachers. The International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 23(4), 41-56.

https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7963/CGP/v23i04/41-56

Wolsey, T.D., Young, J.R., Scales, R.Q., Scales, W.D., Lenski, S., Yoder, K.K., … & Ganske, K. (2013).

An examination of teacher education in literacy instruction and candidate perceptions of their learned

literacy practices. Action in Teacher Education, 35, 204-222.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2013.806230

Yunkaporta, T. (2010). Eight Aboriginal ways of learning. Retrieved from: http://8ways.wikispaces.com

https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v18i2.163


http://www.cprn.org/

https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.885419

http://www.lights.ca/sifc/cjne.htm

https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7963/CGP/v23i04/41-56

https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2013.806230

http://8ways.wikispaces.com/


22


Vol. 13, No. 2 (2019). pp. 23–42


23

Perceptions of Finnish Upper Secondary School Students of

the Assessment Practices of Their Teachers

Toni Mäkipää

University of Helsinki

Najat Ouakrim-Soivio

University of Helsinki

Abstract

This paper addresses Finnish students’ perceptions of assessment practices in

upper secondary schools. We study the students’ experiences of assessment and

how they assess their ability to use and understand feedback from teachers. The

data were gathered on a web-based questionnaire administered to 918 students

in four upper secondary schools. The questionnaire contained both closed-ended

and open-ended questions. According to students’ responses, most consider that

they can use and understand their teachers’ feedback, and that teachers usually

apply traditional assessment methods. The results provide a pathway to

enhanced versatility in assessment practices. We also consider the important role

of assessment in teaching and how teachers’ assessment literacy could be

enhanced and made more visible. We also ponder whether we should also

consider students’ assessment literacy alongside that of teachers.

Introduction

In this study, we analyse what assessment practices are used in upper secondary schools and how

the different roles and tasks of assessment are understood by upper secondary school students and

their teachers. The assessment guidelines are given to the education providers and teachers in the

Finnish National Core Curriculum for upper secondary education (Finnish National Agency for

Education, 2015). In the National Core Curriculum, assessment and its roles during and at the end

of the learning process are seen in both formative and summative ways. In Finnish upper secondary

school, students must complete at least 75 courses in three years to participate in the matriculation

examination, which is the only high-stakes exam in the Finnish general education system. The

duration of each course is calculated to last 38 lesson hours. In upper secondary education, students

build their own syllabi from compulsory and optional courses that are governed by the distribution


Perceptions of Finnish Upper Secondary School Students on Assessment - Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

24

of lesson hours stated in the curriculum (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2015) with the

compulsory syllabus comprising 18 subjects. Students must successfully complete 75 courses to

graduate, of which 47–51 are mandatory, depending on students’ choice of basic vs. advanced

mathematics. The subject-specific tests of the matriculation examination are based on auxiliary

specialization courses, the number of which also varies between subject. The examination

comprises 39 separate tests in 25 subjects, out of which each student must complete at least four.

Only the test in the student’s mother tongue (i.e., Finnish or Swedish) is mandatory, while the

student has to choose the other three mandatory tests from mathematics, foreign languages, the

other national language, and one of the humanities or natural sciences.

Regardless of the school subjects, all the upper secondary education courses contain

formative assessment and summative assessment, while the matriculation examination is based

entirely on summative assessment. The current curriculum for upper secondary school emphasizes

the use of versatile assessment methods in teaching; teachers should give feedback and guidance

to students to enhance and deepen their skills in learning to learn, life-long learning, self-

regulation, and self-assessment (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2015). These ambitious

goals are also salient skills for the 21st century (Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012; Martin, 2018).

According to international research on educational assessment, almost one-third of

teachers’ professional time is associated with assessment (Stiggings, 2014). Assessment

constitutes an integral part of teaching and learning (Race, Brown, & Smith, 2005; Taras, 2005;

Wiliam, 2011); carefully executed, its aim is to direct students’ learning towards the expected

outcomes of teaching (Gronlund, 2003), to reveal what a student has learned (Wiliam, 2010, 2011),

to motivate students (Kozma & Roth, 2012), to help in the planning of future teaching (Hogan,

2007), and to affect students’ decisions after graduation (Race et al., 2005). In Finland, the

curriculum for upper secondary education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2015)

underlines the importance of formative assessment; it enhances learning, seeks to guide and

support the learning process, makes the learning objectives visible, and helps students understand

their progress, with the skills of self-assessment (Black & William, 2012).

Teachers should be skilled in selecting appropriate assessment practices (American

Federation of Teachers [AFT], National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], &

National Educational Association [NEA], 1990) because assessment plays an important role in

teachers’ work. Teachers’ knowledge and understanding of formative assessment and its ability to

support students’ learning is crucial, especially for raising the quality of teaching and for

improving students’ ability to understand their own learning processes. Feedback is an integral

part of formative assessment. In contrast, summative assessment describes the level of knowledge

and skills the learners possess.

Assessment Literacy

To enhance these skills in school requires teachers to encompass knowledge of versatile,

sound, and current assessment practices, and knowledge of their implementation in teaching; in

other words, teachers need to be assessment literate (Fulcher, 2012). Assessment, at least from the

Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2) T. Mäkipää & N. Ouakrim-Soivio

25

Finnish perspective, has been a quite neglected theme, even though teacher education has been

research-based for a long time in Nordic countries. According to Atjonen (2017), there are major

differences in Finnish pre-service teacher training programs as to the extent to which assessment

literacy is taught at different universities. The differences in pre-service training are inevitably

related to teachers’ competence in assessment and its practices; although teachers are supposed to

be assessment literate after their pre-service training, in practice even the concept of assessment

literacy has been defined or understood quite differently (Hildén & Fröjdendahl, 2018).

The seminal guidelines provided by the AFT, NCME, and NEA (1990) state that teachers

should be proficient in selecting and creating appropriate assessment methods, be able to

administer, score, and interpret the results of these assessment methods, and use assessment results

to plan teaching and develop curriculum. Moreover, teachers are expected to be adept at creating

valid grading procedures, discussing assessment results with parents, and recognizing misconduct

such as ethical dilemmas or inappropriate assessment methods. To assess students, these standards

provide an explicit framework of the areas in which teachers ought to be skilled (Webb, 2002).

These standards have greatly influenced teaching research in assessment. However, formative

assessment has not been included in the standards (Brookhart, 2011).

The national curriculum (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2015) emphasizes the

use of versatile assessment methods; this requires expertise in a range of assessment methods and

implementing them in teaching. This refers to assessment literacy. Not surprisingly, there is a lack

of consensus on the definition of this term. Inbar-Lourie (2008) highlighted the essence of the

aspects of why, what, and how when defining assessment literacy skills, and Davies (2008)

underlined the goals for assessment literacy comprising domains of skills, knowledge and

principles. However, Taylor (2013) suggested a different set of profiles for stakeholder groups,

because assessment literacy means different things for a teacher compared to a test designer.

According to Popham (2009), assessment literacy can be conceptualized as “a teacher’s familiarity

with those measurement basics related directly to what goes on in the classroom” (p. 4), whereas

Webb (2002) states that assessment literacy refers “to the knowledge of means for assessing what

students know and can do, how to interpret the results from these assessments, and how to apply

these results to improve student learning and program effectiveness” (p. 1). However, Fulcher

(2012) provides a rather detailed definition of the concept:

The knowledge, skills and abilities required to design, develop, maintain or evaluate, large-

scale standardized and/or classroom based tests, familiarity with test processes, and

awareness of principles and concepts that guide and underpin practice, including ethics and

codes of practice. The ability to place knowledge, skills, processes, principles and concepts

within wider historical, social, political and philosophical frameworks in order to

understand why practices have arisen as they have, and to evaluate the role and impact of

testing on society, institutions, and individuals. (p. 125)

In other words, teachers should include knowledge of creating and implementing sound assessment

methods in teaching. Moreover, teachers ought to be aware of ethics and wider frameworks at


26

historical, social and political levels. As assessing students demands myriad decisions (Schafer,

1991), teachers should exhibit knowledge of all integral aspects of assessment (McMillan, 2000).

Merely implementing summative assessment methods in school does not suffice (Green & Mantz,

2002).

Even though assessment plays a crucial role at school, it seems that teachers are inclined

to apply somewhat traditional assessment practices. For instance, Arrafii and Sumarni (2017)

studied English teachers’(N = 243) understanding of formative assessment. The results indicate

that teachers’ knowledge of formative assessment was deficient, and training in assessment had

been inadequate. Moreover, Gottheiner and Siegel (2012) studied the assessment literacy of five

experienced middle school teachers and found that their range of assessment practices was limited

at times. Bennett (2011), in turn, is highly sceptical of the fact that average teachers can implement

formative assessment methods in teaching and argues that time and support are needed for

teachers’ knowledge to be developed. Popham (2010) holds the view that “one of the most serious

problems in today’s education profession is that the level of educators’ ‘assessment literacy’ is so

abysmally low” (p. 175). In short, it seems that teachers’ assessment practices are incongruent with

the recommendations in literature.

The national curriculum for upper secondary education (Finnish National Agency for

Education, 2015) emphasizes formative assessment and reflects the recent studies of it (see Huhta,

2010; Leontjev, 2016). Nevertheless, there still is a strong tendency to study the role of summative

assessment in the Finnish upper secondary education system and matriculation examination and

its impacts on students (see Hildén & Rautopuro, 2017; Kupiainen, Marjanen, & Hautamäki, 2016;

Kupiainen, Marjanen, & Ouakrim-Soivio, 2018). However, for students to be able to guide and

plan their own studies, they also must have the knowledge, skills, and understanding required for

assessment. Put differently, students should also have the assessment literacy skills that they need

to give and receive feedback. In the Finnish context, few studies exist concerning the ability of

upper secondary school students to use the feedback that they have received as a part of formative

or summative assessment. This is also the reason why we are interested in knowing what classroom

practices are utilized by Finnish upper secondary school teachers, and how students are able to use

the feedback they are giving and receiving.

The Power of Feedback

Assessment influences learning tremendously, which is called the backwash effect of

assessment. This term is also referred to as washback (Bailey, 1999). Backwash can be defined as

how a test influences teaching and learning (Hughes, 1991), and currently, it is generally perceived

as being either harmful or beneficial. Washback can be conceptualized as harmful “when a test’s

content or format is based on a narrow definition of language ability” (Taylor, 2005, p. 154). By

contrast, beneficial washback refers to a testing procedure encouraging fine teaching practice

(Taylor, 2005). Some language testers consider washback to be one dimension of impact; others

see washback and its impact as separate concepts relating respectively to micro and macro effects

within society. Most testers locate washback and impact within the theoretical notion of


27

consequential validity in which according to Messick (1996), the social consequences of testing

are part of a broader, unified concept of test validity.

It is instrumental for teachers to consider the different roles and tasks of assessment.

Scriven (1967) created the concepts of formative assessment (assessment for learning) and

summative assessment (assessment of learning) for curriculum evaluation, but Bloom, Hastings,

and Mandaus (1971) extended the concepts for assessment of individual students as well.

Originally, the aim of this division was to accentuate the time of assessment in addition to the

range of tasks of assessment. Formative assessment takes place as the learning process is

happening, whereas summative assessment is used after a certain period, for instance at the end of

a course or a term. Currently, assessment also includes guiding the learning process itself (Bloom

et al., 1971; Huhta, 2010).

Despite the differences between formative and summative assessment, it seems that

differentiating between them in practice is not simple. Taras (2005) points out the complexity of

the tasks of assessment in her research; summative assessment can be executed in formative ways.

For instance, teachers can give feedback to their students when giving them their exam results

(Taras, 2005). Moreover, formative and summative assessment should not be mutually exclusive;

instead, they should be complementary.

The aim of formative assessment is to guide students to understand their own learning and

progress in it. Hattieand& Timperley (2007) show that feedback is one of the more powerful

influences on learning and achievement. However, the type of feedback and the way it is given

can be differentially effective. Hattie and Timperley propose a model of feedback based on Hattie’s

(1999) synthetization of several meta-analyses. To be effective, feedback should answer three

questions: “Where am I going? (What are the goals?) How am I going? (What progress is being

made toward the goal?) Where to next? (What activities need to be undertaken to make better

progress?)” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 86). In their model, feedback operates at four levels: the

task level, the process level, the self-regulation level, and the self-level. The effectiveness of the

answers to these questions is contingent on the level at which feedback operates.

At the task level, feedback describes whether a student’s response is correct or incorrect,

whereas feedback at the process level seeks to describe the process underlying the task. The aim

of feedback about self-regulation is to strengthen students’ autonomy and reflection. Self-

regulation in a learning context can be defined as the competence of learners to plan, execute and

assess the learning processes, involving continuous decisions on cognitive, motivational, and

behavioural aspects of the learning cycle process (Deci, Hodges, Pierson, & Tomassone, 1992).

Students learn self-regulation through experience and self-reflection. According to Zimmerman

and Kitsantas (1997), the distinction between the self-control and self-regulation phases of

cognitive-motor skill development is the need for learners to focus initially on performance

processes as students begin to practise on their own instead of outcome or product goals. Focusing

on outcomes before fundamental process techniques is expected to impair learning because novice

learners make detrimental process adjustments until they acquire self-evaluative expertise.

Self-assessment is a focal part of being self-regulated; effective students can assess their

learning, which enhances their future studies. Feedback at the self-level refers to personal feedback


28

about the student. Feedback at the self-regulation level enhances learning most effectively,

whereas feedback at the self-level rarely influences learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Similarly, other researchers have pointed out that unfocused praise is not regarded as an efficient

way to give feedback (e.g. Crooks, 1988; Hattie, 2012; Kluger & DeNisi, 1998; Skipper &

Douglas, 2012). Regarding the levels, however, there are also studies reporting the view that the

process and the self-regulation levels are rather complex in this model and that process has been

defined unusually. Alderson, Haapakangas, Huhta, Nieminen, and Ullakonoja (2015) propose that

the two levels can be merged into one: the “strategy level” (p. 172).

Research Questions

In this paper, we answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What assessment practices do upper secondary teachers use?

RQ2: What assessment practices do students appreciate?

RQ3: What improvement do students propose to their teachers’ assessment practices?

RQ4: How do students perceive their own ability to understand and use teachers’ feedback?

Research questions 1 and 2 have been studied with the same open-ended questions regarding

positive and negative experiences about the assessment practices and the versatile assessment

practices teachers use and students appreciate.

Data and Methods

The data were collected in 2018 as a part of Finnish upper secondary school teachers’ in-service

training and consist of responses from 918 students at four upper secondary schools in Finland.

The questionnaire focused on students’ perceptions of assessment in upper secondary schools, but

the questions were not subject-specific. All the respondents whose answers were used in this data

gave their written permission to use the answers for research purposes. The schools participated in

a development project called Pulssi (Pulse in English), through which the goal was to develop

teachers’ assessment skills and practices. The questionnaire for students was a part of the project

and it concerned all school subjects. Two of the participating schools are large upper secondary

schools in the metropolitan area of Southern Finland and almost 80% of the respondents (N = 739)

were from these schools. One of the schools is situated in the countryside in the Eastern part of

Finland (N = 69; 7%) and one of the upper secondary schools is exclusively online, and its students

are participating throughout the entire country of Finland (N = 111; 12%). Sixty percent of the

respondents were female (N = 550) and 38% were male (N = 342). Two percent did not indicate

their gender. The respondents were either first year (N = 393; 43%) or second year (N = 498; 54%)

students; the rest (N = 24) had been studying for more than three years in an upper secondary

school.


29

To answer the first, second and third research questions, the open-ended questions were

analysed qualitatively using a theory-driven, deductive, content analysis (Tuomi & Sarajärvi,

2018). When analysing the results, the answers were read three times to find the themes that

recurred throughout each question. The analysis revealed that students answered actively at the

beginning of the open-ended questions, but the number of blank answers increased towards the

end of the questionnaire. The answers that (a) were not linked to the question, (b) did not receive

much support from other participants, (c) or were inappropriate, were excluded from the analysis.

Thus, classifications were created. The groups that received the most support from the participants

have been highlighted in this paper and every group was illustrated with a direct quotation from

the dataset. We translated the answers from Finnish to English ourselves.

Quantitative methods such as frequency distributions and measures of central tendency and

variation were used to answer the fourth research question about how the upper secondary school

students assess their own ability to understand and use teachers’ feedback. Differences between

the four upper secondary schools and different response groups were analysed using a one-way

ANOVA test. If there were statistically significant differences, the differences in the variance

analysis were also reported using eta-squared (η2) and by using crosstabulation and the chi-square

test (Cohen, 1988).

The empirical data were based on open-ended and closed-ended questions with built on a

four-point Likert-type scale (from 1=completely disagree to 4=completely agree). Table 1

summarizes how the research questions were operationalized, how the different data sets related

to the research questions, and what questions were asked along with examples of the items. As can

be seen in Table 1, the first research question was linked to teachers’ assessment literacy (TAL),

while the second and third questions were linked to students’ assessment literacy (SAL). The

fourth research question combines both TAL and SAL so that it reflects the students’ ability to

assess the different methods of formative (FA) and summative (SA) assessment and how they see

teachers’ FA and SA assessment practices.

Table 1

Summary of constructs and their link to research questions, data source and type, and analysis technique

Construct Research Question Data Type and Source Analysis

Technique

Teacher

assessment

literacy

(TAL):

FA + SA

RQ1:

What assessment

practices did upper

secondary teachers

use?

Qualitative;

Two open-ended questions, 2 items:

(What good or bad experiences about

assessment and feedback did you

have? and What experiences did you

have about the versatility of

assessment?)

Deductive,

content analysis

Table 1 Con’d


30

Table 1 (Con’d)

Summary of constructs and their link to research questions, data source and type, and analysis technique

Student

assessment

literacy

(SAL):

perception

of teachers’

assessment

practices.

FA + SA

RQ2:

What assessment

practices did

students appreciate?

Qualitative;

Two open ended-questions, 2 items:

(What good or bad experiences about

assessment and feedback did you

have? and What experiences did you

have about the versatility of

assessment?)

Deductive,

content analysis

RQ3:

What improvement

did students

propose to their

teachers’

assessment

practices?

Qualitative:

Three open-ended questions, 3 items:

(In what way should assessment

practices in upper secondary schools

be improved; Do you feel that you

can affect the assessment practices

used in the courses? and What have

you done or what could you do to

improve assessment practices?)

Deductive,

content analysis

The

suitability of

teachers’

FA + SA

pratices

from the

students’

perspective

(TAL+SAL).

FA + SA

RQ4:

How did students

perceive their own

ability to

understand and use

teachers’ feedback?

Quantitative;

Five closed-ended questions and 15

items (Likert- type scale from 1 to 4)

Q no. 2, one item: I understand the

objectives when the course starts.

Q no. 3, one item: I know beforehand

how the course will be assessed.

Q no. 6: 11 items linked to how the

feedback was given during the course

were understood and used. For

instance: I understand the verbal

feedback that teachers give me or

I have good self-assessment skills.

Q no. 9, one item: By the end of the

course, I understand what the grade

of the course is based on.

Q no. 10, one item: I'm able to use all

kinds of feedback I was given during

the course.

One-way

ANOVA test,

crosstabulation

(chi-square-test)


31

Results

The results reported here are in the order that the research questions are set. In other words, the

order will be the same as in Table 1, and the questions are operationalized as shown in Table 1.

Assessment Practices in Schools are not Versatile

To study the first and the second research questions, the students were asked what positive

or negative experiences they have encountered regarding the versatility of assessment. This

question was answered by 447 students, out of which 409 responses were analysed. The answers

that were not analysed were either blank or did not receive much support from other participants.

Several issues were identified in the answers. The overall response to this question was poor; a

common view amongst the participants was that the experiences regarding versatility are scarce.

The results indicate that 243 students (54%) had no experiences of versatile assessment methods.

According to the students, teachers merely assess students at the end of the course with

examinations and do not give any feedback during the course.

A quarter of the participants (n = 111) reported positive experiences of the versatility of

their teachers’ assessment methods. Some students pointed out that their teachers had given

feedback, but most of the students did not elaborate more on the question. Some participants (n =

23; 5%) expressed the belief that the practices varied between teachers and subjects.

The comment below shows a somewhat analytical response to the question:

In some courses, one does not get any understanding of one’s own learning during the

course, and the only form of assessment takes place at the end of the course in the form of

a grade. If one continuously received feedback at courses, one could immediately change

their learning practices at the beginning of the course in order to reach the requirements set

by the teacher. In my opinion, peer assessment is not exploited enough in Finnish courses.

In secondary school, we swapped papers with a partner and gave each other feedback on

them. It seems that only one Finnish teacher at our school regards peer feedback to be an

important component of the lessons. When one hears from a friend that something has gone

well, it enhances motivation. Moreover, I feel that assessing a course only with a grade is

frustrating. Most often, a grade does not reflect all the work that has been done in the

course. I would like teachers to give more oral/written feedback in which there are words,

not only grades. (anonymous participant)

As the quotation above shows, this student can use accurate terms and verbalize his or her own

learning and assessment regarding learning to learn skills. This student exhibits an accurate

understanding of the connection between assessment and its different roles and contexts.

To sum up, the results indicate that more than half of the students did not encounter

versatile assessment methods during their upper secondary school studies. Furthermore, based on

the responses to the open-ended questions, it seems that teachers do not give feedback during the

courses.


32

Students Have Encountered Somewhat Negative Experiences of Assessment

To study the assessment practices that teachers use, the students were asked about their

positive or negative experiences of assessment during the courses offered by upper secondary

schools. Altogether, 394 answers were analysed. The majority of those who answered this question

(n = 154; 39%) felt that they had negative experiences of assessment. The most common answer

was that teachers had not given feedback to students. Moreover, several students did not have any

experience of feedback nor remembered receiving feedback. Regarding teachers, some students

reported that not all teachers treated them equally. Regarding peer feedback, students were not

unanimous. Some found it useful (n = 9; 2%), whereas some regarded it as problematic (n = 14;

4%) as they did not trust their peers’ comments.

With respect to positive experiences, 108 students (27%) encountered positive experiences

from feedback. Students mentioned that feedback from their teachers helped them learn more.

Furthermore, some students pointed out that feedback in the form of a discussion alone with the

teacher enhances learning.

The following direct quotation from the dataset represents a student who possesses deep

knowledge and understanding of assessment:

I like that during a project, the teacher looks through the work and gives feedback. This

gives the student an opportunity to make it better, make corrections and add content. It is

nice that teachers invest in the final feedback because students then get to know how the

grade is set. Moreover, focusing on students’ strengths gives motivation. It is good that

criticism is also given because then, one knows what to improve. However, it sometimes

feels that encouragement and praise are forgotten at school. Instead, one merely focuses on

weaknesses. Regarding future studies, it is useful to know when one has succeeded. It is

also nice when teachers ask for feedback on the course. (anonymous participant)

The analysis of this open-ended question yielded similar results to those indicated in Figure 1

shown below. Overall, these results show that there is a lack of feedback in Finnish upper

secondary courses

Uncertainty Regarding What Students Can Do to Enhance Assessment Practices

The aim of the third research question was to study improvements students propose

regarding assessment. Altogether, 375 students answered this question, out of which 55 were

blank. The students were asked to indicate what they had done or what they could do to enhance

assessment practices in upper secondary schools. 100 students (27%) answered that they could not

do anything, or they were aware of what they could do, whereas 91 students (24%) mentioned that

the best option to enhance assessment practices would be to discuss them directly with the teacher.

Students can share their own viewpoints about assessment, give practical solutions for enhancing

assessment practices, or simply ask the teacher.

A small number of participants (n = 27; 7%) suggested that they could influence the

assessment practices by enhancing their own learning. In other words, they could give peer


33

feedback to others, ask for help if they did not understand something, and be active during the

courses. 20 students (5%) pointed out different surveys and questionnaires that they can answer.

Next, we have illustrated the results with a direct quotation from the dataset.

I gladly give feedback to my friends on essays if they ask for it. In lessons, I try to

encourage my friends in oral tasks. In a way, I give peer feedback spontaneously. I could

try to explain my hopes regarding assessment to my teachers, but it often feels that there is

no room for it during the lesson and it can sometimes be too nerve-racking to talk with the

teacher after the lesson. Some teachers ask for feedback after the final exam, but that is too

late for that course. Of course, it is nice to influence how future students will do the course,

but I would like to enjoy the changes myself. (anonymous participant)

As the quotation above illustrates, this student can make the connection between goals, achieving

goals, and future learning goals. Furthermore, they are also able to distinguish between formative

and summative assessment.

Overall, these results provide important insights into developing assessment practices in

upper secondary schools. It seems that there is uncertainty among students, as several students are

unaware of how to enhance the assessment practices at school.

Students Want More Feedback and Individual Discussions

Regarding how assessment practices in upper secondary schools should be improved, a

range of responses was elicited. In total, 445 students answered this question in the questionnaire,

out of which 46 were blank. The largest number of participants (n = 88; 20%) pointed out that

teachers should give more feedback and discuss topics individually with students. Feedback should

be given continuously during the courses. Moreover, 68 students (15%) indicated that nothing

should be done, or they did not know what should be done.

Other responses to this question included putting less emphasis on examinations (n = 31;

7%), making assessment criteria clearer (n = 25; 6%), making assessment more versatile (n=19,

4%), and excluding lesson activity from assessment (n = 20; 5%). Interestingly, 28 students (6%)

pointed out that they saw no need to change the assessment practices at school.

The quotation below provides tangible examples of enhancing assessment methods.

Assessment is too judgmental (“better vs. weaker students”). This tradition starts in

primary school and continues during upper secondary school. More oral feedback should

be given and constructive individual discussions with the teacher regarding what has gone

well and what needs to be improved. Assessing with grades is awkward. It could be

replaced with something more constructive and smarter. (anonymous participant)

Taken together, these results are like previous results, suggesting that upper secondary school

students want their teachers to give them more feedback. Nevertheless, other suggestions did not

receive much support in the dataset.


34

Students Can Influence the Assessment Practices Used by Their Teachers

Regarding whether students can influence the assessment practices at the beginning of

courses, a number of issues were identified in the answers. In total, 738 students answered this

question, out of which 690 answers were analysed. Almost half of the students (n = 318; 43%)

pointed out that they could influence the assessment practices, and several students mentioned

examples of these procedures. Firstly, teachers can give examples and let students decide, or

students can suggest how teachers could assess and they could decide together. Secondly, students

and teachers can discuss the percentages of each exam, presentation, or other assessment method.

In other words, the assessed pieces of work do not necessarily affect the course grade similarly.

Thirdly, teachers can ask if students want smaller examinations during the course or just one final

exam at the end of the course.

Of the 690 analysed answers, approximately one quarter (n = 191; 26%) indicated that they

cannot affect how teachers assess them, and one student even pointed out that they did not even

know that students could affect the assessment practices. Students who answered negatively did

not elaborate on their answers in general. However, some students pointed out that some teachers

had already decided how they would assess the students and provided no other options or discussed

them at all.

181 students (25%) mentioned that they sometimes could affect the assessment practices

used in the courses, but it depended on the course and the teacher. If students can affect the

practices, teachers typically asked students which areas should be emphasized in assessment.

Next, we have illustrated the results with a direct quotation from the dataset.

It depends on the course. For instance, at math classes, we could self-assess our own

exercises a couple of times so that we saw extremely clearly where we had made a mistake.

In most subjects, teachers have merely assessed, but one does not concretely see the correct

answers. (anonymous participant)

All in all, the results indicate that most students can affect how teachers assess them. However,

there are differences between teachers and subjects

Student Assess Their Ability to Understand and Use the Feedback Very Positively

The aim of the fourth research question was to analyse how upper secondary school

students assess their own ability to understand and use teachers’ feedback. Students (N = 918)

answered 16 closed-ended claims according whether they strongly disagreed with the claim

(score=1) or strongly agreed with the closed-ended sentence (score=4). Figure 1 illustrates the

students’ answers and average scores for the closed-ended claims regarding students’ own abilities

to understand and use teachers’ or other students’ feedback and their understanding about self-

assessment practices. In Figure 1, the abbreviations V, PT, J and N come from each school’ s

name.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the students’ answers and the scores they gave for certain claims

reflect teachers’ assessment practices, such as, During the course I get feedback from teachers


35

(2.5). It seems that the average scores in each of the upper secondary schools were the lowest in

this claim (between 2.2 and 2.9). The students’ answers showed that they know why certain

assessment methods were used and how they were intended to support students’ learning: I think

that peer assessment is useful (2.7), I’m able to give feedback as a part of peer assessment (2.8), I

think that self-assessment is useful (2.8) and I'm able to use the feedback that I was given during

the courses (2.8).

Figure 1. Upper secondary school students’ (N = 918) answers analysed by their school average scores.

Note: The capital letters V, PT, J and N refer to the high schools surveyed.

The closed-ended answers were analysed according to the following background variables:

school, gender, and how many years students had studied at their upper secondary schools. The

results that were statistically very significant (i.e., p<0.001) between the schools, gender, or

number of study years are reported in Table 2.

3.0

3.2

3.1

3.0

3.0

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.1

2.5

3.4

3.6

3.5

3.3

3.5

3.4

2.8

3.0

2.9

3.1

2.8

2.9

2.7

3.2

2.9

2.4

3.2

3.5

3.4

3.1

3.2

3.2

2.9

3.1

3.1

3.1

2.8

3.0

2.9

3.4

3.1

2.5

3.2

3.5

3.4

3.1

3.3

3.2

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.1

2.7

2.8

2.7

3.2

2.9

2.5

3.2

3.5

3.3

3.0

3.3

3.1

2.9

3.1

3.1

3.1

2.8

2.9

2.8

3.3

3.0

2.5

3.2

3.5

3.4

3.1

3.3

3.2

At the beginning of the course, I understand what Ialready know

I understand the objectives by the time the course starts

I know beforehand how the course will be assessed

I have good self-assessment skills

I think that self-assessment is useful

I'm able to give feedback as a part of peer assessment

I think that peer assessment is useful

I'm able to receive the feedback as a part of peerassessment

I think that receiving feedback as a part of peerassessment is useful

During the course I get feedback from teachers

I understand the verbal feedback that teachers give me

I accept the positive feedback

I accept the negative feedback

I’m able to use the feedback that I received during the courses

By the end of the course, I understand what the grade ofthe course is based for

I’m able to use all kinds of feedback I was given during the course

J N PT V Total


36

Table 2

Statistically very significant differences in closed-ended claims between schools, gender and number of

school years

Significant

Variable Claim n df F p ŋ2

School I think that self-assessment is useful. 908 3 7.156 <0.001 0.23

I'm able to give feedback as a part of peer

assessment.

894 3 6.126 <0.001 0.20

During the course I get feedback from

teachers.

904 3 10.917 <0.001 0.35

I understand the verbal feedback that teachers

give me.

906 3 1.725 <0.001 0.41

I'm able to use the feedback that I received

during the courses.

904 3 12.327 <0.001 0.39

By the end of the course, I understand what

the grade of the course is based on.

900 3 6.221 <0.001 0.20

I'm able to use all kinds of feedback I was

given during the courses.

889 3 6.221 <0.001 0.35

Gender During the course, I get feedback from

teachers.

902 2 16.976 <0.001 0.36

I accept the negative feedback. 905 2 8.067 <0.001 0.18

Study Years I’m able to use all kinds of feedback I was

given during the courses.

887 3 8.426 <0.001 0.28

Even though there were statistically significant differences between schools, the effect

sizes were moderate, as shown in Table 2. School explained 4% of the differences in following

claims that reflect teachers’ assessment practices: (During the course, I get feedback from teachers,

I understand the verbal feedback that teachers give me and I'm able to use the feedback that I have

received during the courses). In other claims that were linked to students’ own understanding of

assessment practices, school explained only 2% of the differences. For the claim that measures

students’ understanding of assessment and assessment practices (I'm able to use all kinds of

feedback I was given during the courses), school explained 3% of the differences.

In the first claim (During the course, I get feedback from teachers), gender explained 4%

of the differences. Girls (36%) disagreed more with this claim than boys (24%). Moreover, in the

second claim (I accept the negative feedback), gender explained 2% of the differences. In other

words, girls (6% disagreed or disagreed strongly with the claim) assessed their ability to receive

negative feedback worse than the boys (3% disagreed or disagreed strongly with this claim).

Regarding the number of years students had studied in an upper secondary school, there

were statistically very significant differences (p<0.001) in only one claim: I’m able to use all kinds

of feedback I was given during the courses, as is seen in Table 2. The number of years of study

explained 3% of the differences in students’ answers in this claim. The longer students were at

school, the better they assessed their ability to use the feedback.


37

According to the quantitative results, it seems that the students mainly knew beforehand

the objectives that are to be assessed during a course, they understood how to use the feedback

given by their teachers and they considered their self- and peer-assessment skills as being rather

good. Instead, many of the students (n = 465; 51%) answered that they did not get feedback from

teachers during the course. However, most of the students (n = 802; 87%) answered that they

understood what the grade of the course was based on. In addition, it seems that peer assessment

as a method of giving and receiving feedback was at least known or understood by certain students.

To sum up the results, regarding the first question, teachers tend to apply somewhat

traditional assessment practices, such as examinations (see Arrafii & Sumarni, 2017; Gottheiner

& Siegel, 2012; Popham, 2010). However, differences between subjects and schools exist, as some

teachers utilize versatile assessment methods in their teaching. Regarding the second question,

students appreciate feedback from teachers and individual discussions with them. Moreover, less

emphasis should be put on examinations (see Green & Mantz, 2002; Finnish National Agency for

Education, 2015). As far as improving the assessment practices is concerned, students want more

feedback (see Finnish National Agency for Education, 2015). Nevertheless, many students share

the view that they cannot affect how they are assessed. Regarding the fourth question, many

students were able to use the feedback from their teachers. However, nearly half the students

pointed out that they do not get feedback. This result is confusing, and it raises the question

whether the students should be able to use all the potential in their learning and achievement. If

they are not given feedback, they are lacking guidance and the opportunity to understand the

learning objectives, the progress they have made and the next steps (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to study assessment practices in Finnish upper secondary schools as

well as to understand the ability of students and teachers to give, receive and use feedback. Based

on both qualitative and quantitative data, it seems that the assessment practices used by Finnish

upper secondary school teachers are traditional; teachers tend to use examinations at the end of the

courses in spite of the national curriculum, which states that teachers should assess in versatile

ways and give opportunities for the use of self and peer assessments (Finnish National Agency for

Education, 2015). Furthermore, most students point out that feedback during courses is lacking,

and that differences between teachers and subjects exist.

These results are similar to previous ones that have revealed that assessment practices in

Finnish schools are categorized as traditional and that the feedback practices are one-sided, with

emphasis on summative assessment (see Hildén & Härmälä, 2015; Kuukka & Metsämuuronen,

2016; Räisänen, 2013). Assessment continues to be teacher-led, in spite of the fact that with the

cognitive and social constructivist approach to learning, students’ active role is considered to be

important in assessment.

The results raise some interesting questions: do students understand what feedback is, and

are teachers’ feedback practices linked to the learning process as Hattie and Timperley (2007) have

suggested in their study? As students are primarily interested in grades (Black, Harrison, Lee,


38

Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003), it can be speculated that they associate assessment with grades, which

is summative assessment, and overlooks feedback, which is formative assessment. In other words,

as grades are seldom given in formative assessment, it can be hypothesized that students do not

regard feedback as assessment. Moreover, some students mentioned in the questionnaire that they

had never received feedback from their upper secondary school. While this may be true, whether

teachers have explained what assessment means and what feedback refers to can also be the subject

of speculation. Therefore, as a part of teacher assessment literacy skills, we argue that teachers

should pay more attention to their assessment and feedback practices so that students could be

aware of their teachers’ feedback and use it for their learning, as well as for developing their

learning to learn skills. These learning to learn skills could be seen as being part of a student’s

assessment skills; giving and receiving feedback have become effective instructional practices. To

take advantage of the power of classroom assessment, teachers should be taught to use assessment

as a teaching and learning tool—not only as a grading tool (Stiggins, 2014).

The qualitative results presented in this article indicate that some students are able to

distinguish between the multiple tasks of assessment, they are able to use the feedback that they

have received to support and enhance learning, and that they require their teachers to give them

feedback. Moreover, it is apparent from the students' answers that, as suggested by Hattie and

Timperley (2007), they are able to use feedback to set goals (i.e., Where am I going? What are the

goals?), to assess their own learning and progress (i.e., How am I going? What progress is being

made toward the goal?), and to assess how to improve (i.e., Where to next? What activities need

to be undertaken to make better progress?).

As one of the tasks of assessment is to enhance learning, the results of our study pave the

way for pondering if we should consider students’ assessment literacy skills (SAL) along with

teachers’ assessment literacy skills. These skills are especially connected to important questions,

such as how students understand their teachers’ feedback, and how students work with their

teachers’ feedback. Additionally, understanding assessment is an instrumental part of learning to

learn; Crisp (2012) has even launched the term integrative assessment to highlight that one of the

important tasks of assessment is to develop students’ learning to learn skills for their future.

As mentioned in the literature, lifelong learning is one of the aims of Finnish upper

secondary education. Researchers have also underlined sustainable assessment, in which the role

of assessment is to make students take an active role in their learning and assessment processes

(Boud & Soler, 2016). To become lifelong learners requires students to become aware of their own

learning. Put differently, students need to analyse their strengths and weaknesses, and understand

the learning process itself, for which assessment literacy skills are needed. On the one hand, our

results suggest that certain students already possess developed analytical skills for analysing their

learning. However, not all students seem to be able to verbalize their learning. This finding, while

preliminary, might indicate that teachers should pay more attention to assessment to make it more

tangible. On the other hand, the results may raise concerns about students’ perceptions and

knowledge about the usefulness of feedback; students most likely regard as useful those feedback

practices that they have had experience with, and suggest improvements for practices that they are

not able to use to reach their goals.


39

This research has produced additional questions in need of further investigation; a

longitudinal study could be used to assess how students’ understanding of assessment develops

over the course of the upper secondary education, and how teachers’ feedback has helped students

learn. Moreover, thematic interviews could be used to examine feedback practices in upper

secondary school education more thoroughly to enhance both teacher training and in-service

training. Research in specific subjects is particularly needed. Finally, more research is needed to

study students’ assessment literacy.

Our study could be subject to criticism. The results of this study are not statistically or

geographically representative, because the data consisted only of 1% of the students (918 students

out of a total 103,400 students in 2018) and 1% of the schools (four upper secondary schools of

404 schools in 2018). Despite these shortcomings, the findings reveal several salient features that

are linked to teachers’ and students’ understanding of assessment, and the use of the ways they

develop various skills as a part of teaching and learning processes.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Raili Hildén for her insightful comments and to Otavia

for the research material.

References

Alderson, J. C., Haapakangas, E.-L., Huhta, A., Nieminen, L., & Ullakonoja, R. (2015). The diagnosis of

reading in a second or foreign language. New York, NY: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203071830

American Federation of Teachers [AFT], National Council of Measurement on Education [NCME], &

National Educational Association [NEA]. (1990). Standards for teacher competence in educational

assessment of students. Washington, DC: National Council on Measurement in Education.

Arrafii, M. A., & Sumarni, B. (2018). Teachers’ understanding of formative assessment. Lingua Cultura,

12(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i1.2113

Atjonen, P. (2017). Arviointiosaamisen kehittäminen yleissivistävän koulun opettajien koulutuksessa –

opetussuunnitelmatarkastelun virittämiä näkemyksiä. In V. Britschgi & J. Rautopuro (Eds.), Kriteerit

puntarissa (pp. 131–169). Jyväskylä: Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura (FERA).

Bailey, K. M. (1999). Washback in language testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles,

Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2010.513678

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it

into practice. Maidenhead UK: Open University Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Eds.),

Assessment and Learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 11–32). London, UK: SAGE.

Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation

of student learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203071830

https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i1.2113

https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2010.513678


40

Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education, 41(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133

Brookhart, S. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Crisp, G. T. (2012). Integrative assessment: reframing assessment practice for current and future learning.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 33–43.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.494234

Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational

Research, 58(4), 438–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170281

Davies, A. (2008). Textbook trends in teaching language testing. Language Testing, 25(3), 327–

347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208090156

Deci, E. L., Hodges, R., Pierson, L., & Tomassone, J. (1992). Autonomy and competence as

motivational factors in students with learning disabilities and emotional handicaps. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949202500706

Finnish National Agency for Education. (2015). National core curriculum for upper secondary education

2015. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly,

9(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642041

Gottheiner, D. M., & Siegel, M. A. (2012). Experienced middle school science teachers’ assessment

literacy: Investigating knowledge of students’ conceptions in genetics and ways to shape instruction.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(5), 531–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9278-z

Green, S. K., & Mantz, M. (2002). Classroom assessment practices: Examining impact on student

learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

New Orleans, LA, April 1–5, 2002.

Griffin, P., Care, E., & McGaw, B. (2012). The changing role of education and schools. In E. Care, P.

Griffin, P., & B. McGaw (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 1–15). New

York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5

Gronlund, N. E. (2003). Assessment of student achievement (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on student learning. Inaugural Lecture, University of Auckland, August 2,

1999.

Hattie, J. (2012). Know thy impact. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 18–23.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–

112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Hildén, R., & Fröjdendahl, B. (2018). The dawn of assessment literacy – exploring the conceptions of

Finnish student teachers in foreign languages. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 12(1),

1–24. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201802201542

Hildén, R., & Härmälä, M. (2015). Hyvästä paremmaksi - Kehittämisideoita kielten oppimistulosten

arviointien osoittamiin haasteisiin. Helsinki: Kansallinen Koulutuksen arviointikeskus.

Hildén, R., & Rautopuro, J. (2017). Ennustavatko perusopetuksen päättövaiheen oppimistulokset

menestystä englannin kielen ylioppilaskokeessa? In M. Kallio, R. Juvonen, & A. Kaasinen (Eds.),

Jatkuvuus ja muutos opettajankoulutuksessa (pp. 26–43). Ainedidaktisia tutkimuksia, 12. Suomen

ainedidaktinen tutkimusseura ry.

Hogan, T. P. (2007). Educational assessment: A practical introduction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and

Sons.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.494234

https://doi.org/10.2307/1170281

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208090156

https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949202500706

https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642041

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9278-z

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5

https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201802201542


41

Hughes, A. (1991). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Huhta, A. (2010). The diagnostic and formative assessment. In B. Spolsky & F.M. Hult (Eds.), The

handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 469–482). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on language

assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385–402.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208090158

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a double-edged

sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-

8721.ep10772989

Kozma, R., B., & Roth, M. (2012). Foreword. In E. Care, P. Griffin, P., & B. McGaw (Eds.), Assessment

and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. v–viii). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

94-007-2324-5

Kupiainen, S. A., Marjanen , J. M., & Hautamäki , J. (2016 ). The problem posed by exam choice on the

comparability of results in the Finnish matriculation examination. Journal for Educational Research

Online, 8(2), 87–106.

Kupiainen, S., Marjanen, J. & Ouakrim-Soivio, N. (2018). Ylioppilas valintojen pyörteessä. Suomen

ainedidaktisen tutkimusseuran julkaisuja. Helsinki: Ainedidaktinen tutkimusseura

Kuukka, K., & Metsämuuronen, J. (2016). Perusopetuksen päättövaiheen suomi toisena kielenä (S2)–

oppimäärän oppimistulosten arviointi 2015. Helsinki: Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus.

Leontjev, D. (2016). Exploring and reshaping learners’ beliefs about the usefulness of corrective

feedback: A sociocultural perspective. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(1), 46–

77. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.1.03leo

Martin, J. P. (2018). Skills for the 21st Century: Findings and policy lessons from the OECD survey of

adult skills. OECD Education Working Paper, 166(2), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1787/96e69229-en

McMillan, J. H. (2000). Fundamental assessment principles for teachers and school administrators.

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7, Article 8. Retrieved from

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol7/iss1/8

Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241–56.

https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300302

Popham, W. J. (2009) Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? i(1), 4–11.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536

Popham, W. J. (2010). Everything school leaders need to know about assessment. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500 tips on assessment (2nd ed.). London, UK:

RoutledgeFalmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203307359

Räisänen, A. (Eds). (2013). Oppimisen arvioinnin kontekstit ja käytännöt. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.

Schafer, W. D. (1991). Essential assessment skills in professional education of teachers. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00170.x

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M. Scriven

(Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Skipper, Y., & Douglas, K. (2012). Is no praise good praise? Effects of positive feedback on children’s

and university students’ responses to subsequent failures. British Journal of Educational Psychology,

82(2), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02028.x

Stiggins, R. (2014). Improve assessment literacy outside of schools too. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(2), 67–72.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721714553413

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208090158

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772989

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772989

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5

https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.1.03leo

https://doi.org/10.1787/96e69229-en

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol7/iss1/8

https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300302

https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203307359

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00170.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02028.x

https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721714553413


42

Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – summative and formative – some theoretical reflections. British Journal

of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x

Taylor, L. (2005). Washback and impact. ELT Journal, 59(2), 154–155.

https://doi.org/10.1093/eltj/cci030

Taylor, L. (2013). Communicating the theory, practice and principles of language testing to test

stakeholders: Some reflections. Language Testing, 30(3), 403–412.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480338

Tuomi, J. & Sarajärvi, A. (2018). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Helsinki: Tammi.

Webb, N. L. (2002). Assessment literacy in a standards-based urban education setting. A paper presented

at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA, April 1–5,

2002.

Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of

formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade, & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp.

18–40). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874851

Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from

process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29–36.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.29

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x

https://doi.org/10.1093/eltj/cci030

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480338

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874851

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.29


Vol. 13, No. 2 (2019). pp. 43–54


43

Joyful Number Talks in Kindergarten


Greater Essex County District School Board

Abstract

This article discusses the use of number talks to engage kindergarten children in

regular joyful math opportunities in the classroom. As an educator of four- and

five-year-old students in a full day kindergarten (FDK) program in Ontario,

Canada, I embrace inquiry-based learning to guide children’s activities. Inspired

by the childcare centres in Reggio Emilia, Italy, I continually support and

scaffold the expressed interests of children in the form of projects. This means

that children are engaged in and discover answers to self-directed questions on

a regular basis. I have always compared kindergarten to a dance; sometimes I

lead and other times I follow.

As an educator of four- and five-year-old students in a full day kindergarten (FDK) program in

Ontario, Canada, I embrace inquiry-based learning to guide children’s activities. Inspired by the

childcare centres in Reggio Emilia, Italy (Novakowski, 2015), I continually support and scaffold

the expressed interests of children in the form of projects. This means that children are engaged in

and discover answers to self-directed questions on a regular basis. I have always compared

kindergarten to a dance; sometimes I lead and other times I follow.

According to Wein (2008), educators who embrace emergent learning are attuned to

children’s “interests and concerns, and curriculum expands into genuine inquiry, as [they] together

become participatory co-learners who attempt to understand some aspect of real life” (p. 1). As

part of my personal professional development, I read Sherry Parrish’s work regarding number talks

(2010, 2011) and I was curious to see how this might be implemented into our play-based

classroom. I began to see the facilitation of math instruction as less compartmentalized and more

integrated, a reflection of how learning happens in real life. My own excitement about math grew

and I realized that it was easy to make number sense the heart of our kindergarten math program.

As a result, the children’s confidence and interest in math grew substantially, and by the end of

the year many had easily surpassed the curriculum standards. We began to see math emerge in

many surprising areas of our program; children would include ten frames and numbers

spontaneously in their drawings, create numerous math games using subitizing tools such as dice,


Joyful Number Talks in Kindergarten Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

44

dominoes and spinners in their play, and notice and name the math they found in the world around

them (e.g., numbers located around the building, patterns in nature, etc.). What I observed was that

number talks naturally complemented an emergent program and can exist as enjoyable, joyful math

activities. If one honours the interests of the children, it is easy and effective to embed math into

authentic inquiries and experiences in order to make the subject more meaningful and engaging

for children.

In her work, Parrish (2010, 2011) challenges us to rethink our relationships with math.

Many educators, myself included, grew up with a fear or dislike of math. We sometimes defaulted

to the sterile system of memorized rules we learned as children and applied these to numerical

situations instead of celebrating math as a system of relationships to investigate, understand and

apply. Parrish recommends engaging children in regular, short conversations about purposeful

problems. These are intentionally crafted to draw children into specific computational situations.

When we observe children carefully in play and notice mathematical opportunities, it is imperative

that we name this learning and make it explicit for children (e.g., “I see you are sharing the cubes

with Jack. You each have an equal amount which makes it fair because you both have the same

number of cubes”). Clements and Sarama (2009) remind us that taking a child’s perspective helps

one to understand more deeply what is happening in their play and how to better support the

experience. Children begin to independently solve the problems mentally and then share the

strategies they used for achieving their answers with others, resulting in shared learning.

Discussing our misconceptions and mistakes helps us become better mathematicians as we grow

our mindsets and realize that math is something at which one can become better with patience,

practice, and hard work (Boaler, 2016). Robust discussions often follow regarding the efficiency

and accuracy of the solutions. As children listen to one another verbalize math questions and

processes aloud they begin to build a repertoire of strategies from which they can draw in future

computational situations.

Classroom Environment and Community

Narrator: Ian and Esme look at the growing collection of cans donated to the food drive

on display in our classroom.

Ian: “I think there are 24!”

Esme: “No, I think we have more than that.”

Narrator: After observing their conversation their teacher asks them to consider how they

might accurately count the number of items we have.

Ian: “We can count each one but that would take a really long time.”

Esme: “We could stack them up and see how high they are.”

Ian: “No, that would be too tall.”

Esme: “We could make a really long line of them on the carpet.”

Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2) D. M. Pecaski McLennan

45

Ian: “I know, we can use the big ten frames. We can put one can in each spot

and then see how many ten frames we use.”

Narrator: The children retrieve the large ten frame mats from the shelf and begin

organizing the food using the tools. After a few minutes they observe that the class

has collected 33 items. Their teacher asks them how they arrived at that total.

Esme: “Easy! We just put one can in each spot.”

Ian: “Yes! One can in each spot, you can’t have more than one. And then you

count how many ten frames you have. We have three full ones and one with

three in it, so that’s 33!”

Esme: “We should write that number down so we can tell everyone else how many

we have!”

Narrator: The children get to work using mini clipboards as they draw a sketch of the four

ten frames, filling in 33 with circles and writing the corresponding number on the

paper.

Parrish (2011) describes a classroom for rich mathematical exploration as a “safe, risk-free

environment…based on a common quest for learning and understanding” (p. 202). We start the

beginning of the school year with empty walls. Working together we slowly create documentation

and displays that reflect our questions and explorations using artifacts of learning (e.g., photos,

artwork writing, etc.). The classroom is filled with open-ended materials and loose parts that can

be manipulated freely and easily by children in self-directed play (e.g., shells, stones, buttons,

recycled lids, etc.). This free flow space invites learning without teacher intervention (Wein, 2008).

According to Seize (2008), effective documentation “draws others into the experience—evidence

or artifacts that describe a situation, tell a story, and help the viewer to understand the purpose of

the action” (p. 88). As the year progresses our walls honour learning by sharing the children’s

journey, helping them to feel valued, respected, and encouraged to take greater risks in their work

with others.

Children also have significant choice and control during play time. We establish norms for

cultivating and maintaining a safe and supportive classroom (e.g., creating success criteria and

anchor charts). Children choose what centre they wish to explore, how to use the materials, and

how to communicate the knowledge they have acquired to others. They enjoy grabbing handfuls

of dice and inventing their own math games while laying on our large carpet, or using mini

clipboards and pencils to record the preferences of their peers (e.g., “Do you want to come to my

birthday party?”) as they play together. We notice math in our outdoor playground when the

children measure how far they can roll a ball down the hill or count how many shapes they can

spot in a large spider web. Offering open-ended materials such as dice, dominoes, Unifix (snap)

cubes, ten frames, and loose parts like gems and shells often results in rich, integrated explorations

by children that build their personal social development and self-regulation as they control their


46

own learning. As children freely flow between integrated centres, their learning becomes layered;

they are not participating in isolated subject-specific activities but instead using real tools and

strategies in new and exciting ways.

This holistic, layered approach to organizing the classroom environment empowers

learners as they work together, resulting in a supportive and engaged environment. It also supports

number talks by:

• inviting children into a thoughtful space with materials that can be freely

manipulated.

• empowering children to question and explore self-directed areas of interest.

• providing multiple opportunities for children to take risks and safely make

mistakes.

• applying math strategies acquired during number talks to meaningful inquiry

situations through a gradual release of responsibility by using previous knowledge

and experience practised in whole group learning to independent explorations in

the classroom.

When children exist as equal members in a supportive space, they will be more likely to take risks

in all areas of their learning including number talks.

Classroom Discussion

Narrator: It is circle time and the children are reading the morning message together. In

it their teacher has asked them to consider what they know about the number ten.

In order to help represent the children’s collective thinking, their teacher has

written the number 10 inside a cloud outline and will create an idea web

representing mathematical thinking. The children are familiar working with the

anchor of ten, and quite comfortable and eager to participate in the conversation.

Anthony: “You can show a ten in different ways - you can write the number 10 or

write the word ten.”

Jack: “You can show a ten in tallies!”

Aila: “I know that 5 plus 5 equals 10!”

Aimee: “9 plus 1 equals 10 too!”

Addie: “You can draw a picture of ten dogs.”

Teacher: “What if you take away 1 from 11?”

Addie: “That’s 10 too!”

Julia: “I like playing with dominoes. I know that lots of dominoes show ten.”

Caleb: “I show ten with my two hands; five fingers on each hand.”

Sawyer: “Don’t forget your toes! You can use your feet to show ten too!”


47

Narrator: The wealth of the children’s ideas during the discussion fills the idea web and

indicates that they have a strong understanding of what ten means. They can

represent it in multiple ways and are beginning to compose the number ten using

different quantities.

A successful whole group number talk according to Parrish (2011) has a number of steps.

Once children have mentally found a solution, they can hold their fists to their chests and raise

their thumb. Children can also raise their fingers to indicate how many solutions they have used to

solve the problem, differentiating the response wait time for learners. Children that quickly solve

the problem can be challenged to find alternative strategies for the solution, providing additional

think time for those who might need it. We often use sign-in as a chance to engage in a daily

number talk during attendance. As children enter the classroom, they find their picture (affixed to

a magnet) and put it on a ten frame. Because we normally have an average class size of 25 students,

we offer three empty ten frames for children to use. Once attendance is called, we look at the three

ten frames and the children are asked how many children came to school. The variety and

complexity of their computational strategies grow with experience as they become more confident

and proficient and learn from their peers. For example, at the beginning of the year it is not

uncommon for children to simply count the number of pictures in the ten frames. Over time they

begin to apply other strategies; skip counting the photos, subitizing the photos in each frame and

adding these to arrive at a sum, subtracting empty spaces from 30 to find a total, and grouping the

photos by friendly numbers (e.g., by 5, 10, etc.) and adding these together. By engaging in regular

number talks, children acquire confidence and experience working with complex calculations

resulting in more sophisticated ways of solving problems.

In our classroom we utilize the gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. We

often use circle time as a chance to come together and share our ideas with each other. This is also

when new concepts are introduced by the educator in order to meet curriculum needs that might

not have been fulfilled through the emergent play block. Children listen respectfully to one another

and learn that there are multiple perspectives and points of view to any given discussion. We have

multiple circle time sessions each day, providing the opportunity to come together many times.

Gathering children together in a safe and familiar space for discussion helps support

number talks by:

• giving children repeated practice speaking in front of others in a non-threatening

space.

• engaging children in rich math discussions that build on their intuitive desire to

make sense of the world.

• emphasizing the process of learning over the product.

• encouraging a regular time each day for number talks to occur.

• helping to dispel the belief that math is a solitary activity.

• demystifying the notion that making mistakes is a bad thing.


48

Topics explored in a whole group format often trickle into free choice play time as children use

the information gleaned from lessons and apply this knowledge to independent activities in the

classroom.

The Teacher’s Role

Narrator: It is springtime and the children are fascinated by the budding leaves and sap

dripping down one large tree’s bark. Again and again each day they are drawn to

the tree. Their teacher spends time carefully observing their interactions. She

notices their questions about the age of the tree. She steps closer to a small group

of children huddled by the trunk, gently rubbing their hands on the bark.

Brodee: “This is such a big tree, even though I want to hug it, I can’t put my arms

around it.”

Mackenzie: “It’s so tall I have to squint my eyes when I look at the top because it’s

too sunny up there.”

Opal: “My mom said that tall trees are old trees.”

Scottie: “I bet this tree is older than me.”

Olive: “I bet this tree is older than Mrs. McLennan! I think this tree is at least one

hundred years old.”

Narrator: At this point the teacher enters the children’s conversation, eager to capitalize

on their emerging interest in the tree’s age.

Mrs. McLennan: “How can we figure out how old this tree really is? What might

we do?”

Narrator: The children discuss the question and agree that in order to figure this out, they

should measure around the trunk. They know the bigger the trunk is, the older the

tree. Their teacher questions them further in order to help them formulate a plan.

Mrs. McLennan: “It sounds like we need to think about how big this tree is. Can

you think of a time when we have measured something before? What tools

did we use? What did we do?”

Scottie: “Well, my dad uses a long stick with numbers to see how tall I am on my

birthday.”

Olive: “At our house we stamp our hands in paint on our birthdays and see how

much bigger our hands have grown each year.”

Opal: “I know! What if we use our hands! Let’s hold hands and stand around the

tree to see how big around it is!”


49

Scottie: “And then we can see if we can find the measuring tape to wrap around it.

That’s like the measuring stick my dad uses at my house!”

Narrator: Their teacher is amazed at the children’s enthusiasm, the complexity of their

thinking, and the rich mathematical background knowledge and confidence they

bring to the task. The children quickly head indoors to gather their materials and

then set to work.

According to Parrish (2011) number talks are most successful when a teacher’s role shifts

from “being the sole authority in imparting information and confirming correct answers to

assuming the interrelated roles of facilitator, questioner, listener, and learner” (p. 204). In emergent

practices, the teacher is considered a co-learner together with the children, actively observing,

documenting, reflecting, and planning next steps on a daily basis. Emergent educators must be

reflective and flexible in all facets of the program. Prompting and asking open-ended questions

will help children reflect upon prior experiences and engage actively in the journey of

understanding and applying several strategies in math situations (Clements & Sarama, 2009).

An emergent curriculum can be exciting, but it can also be overwhelming if one is not

comfortable with the curriculum or assessment practices. When educators are unsure, it is hard to

focus on what our children need and we sometimes revert back to previous mindsets, especially

regarding math. Number talks help us gather unique strategies and build our own confidence and

fluency. I found that the more I participated in number talks along with the children, the more

excited I became about math personally and professionally. Wein (2008) reminds us that collective

understanding in an emergent space can occur through “multiple ways of learning and creating (in

drawing, dance, clay, wire, and so forth) so that new cultures of identity and classroom citizenship

develop from it” (p.1). Teachers who feel renewed engagement see themselves as facilitators of

learning and support number talks by:

• acknowledging that math happens everywhere—both inside and outside of the classroom

space—and is powerful when integrated with other areas of interest including the arts.

• Helping children to see that there is beauty in math as they ask robust questions and

explore rich connections between math and their everyday lives (Boaler, 2016).

• playing together with children in order to model inquisitive learning and demystify the

notion that the teacher holds all the answers.

• discussing the math concepts contained in children’s ideas using correct terminology.

• encouraging families to rethink their own mathematical mindsets as they learn from their

children.

Being a reflexive co-learner builds a trusting and supportive relationship with children as

inquiries are navigated together, resulting in opportunities for robust teaching and learning.


50

Role of Mental Math

Narrator: The children are avid builders and have been focused on creating growing linear

patterns with mini wooden blocks. Day after day they work collaboratively to build

increasingly more complex stacks that demonstrate their confidence and

understanding of both physical and numerical patterns. Their teacher assists them

to create the first five stacks in their pattern. They quickly realize that they can

create an addition sentence to describe what we see happening for each (1, 2+1,

3+2+1, 4+3+2+1, etc.).

Mrs. McLennan: “What do you think the tenth figure might be? Can you predict

what it will look like without building it?”

Narrator: This is an easy challenge for the children. Many immediately suggest that the

figure will have ten blocks at the start and decrease by 1 each stack (e.g.,

10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1). One particularly invested child, Finn, poses a

different idea to the group.

Finn: “I wonder what the one hundredth figure would look like!”

Narrator: The children offer different ideas. Their teacher challenges them to use to the

mini blocks to build the one hundredth figure in isolation. The children get to work

but become discouraged after a while because there are not enough mini blocks

needed to complete the task. After some discussion the children agree to draw the

figure instead. Their teacher suggests large graph paper because the size of the

grid matches the wooden blocks and it is an easily transferable substitute material

to use. The children set to work. At first many are engaged with the task but after

an hour, they become fatigued and move on to different activities. However, Finn

still remains. Curious as to why he is persisting with the task his teacher sits beside

him and helps count the grid.

Mrs. McLennan: “Why are you still working on this problem when everyone else

has left?”

Finn: “I really want to know what it looks like, and I want to be able to build it.”

Narrator: Mrs. McLennan and Finn work together, slowly and meticulously, to tape paper

after paper together. The large carpet in the centre of the room is overtaken with

the task. Finally, they are finished. The one hundredth figure in the pattern requires

twenty-eight large pieces of chart paper altogether. Finn beams as his picture is

taken sitting in the centre of the papers.


51

Finn: “This is what it looked like!”

Narrator: As Finn discusses his work to the bystanders, his teacher reflects upon the

immense perseverance and growth mindset it took Finn in order to complete such

a complex task.

In number talks, Parrish (2011) dissuades the use of paper and pencil activities. Worksheets usually

have a ‘right’ answer and do not account for differences in interests and learning preferences.

Children may become anxious, preventing them from taking greater risks in the process of solving

the problem. In contrast, children who use mental computation are “encouraged to rely on what

they know and understand about the numbers and how they are interrelated [encouraging] them to

be efficient” (Parrish, 2011, p. 204). Engaging children in a space where they can take risks and

feel comfortable orally sharing their ideas with others is essential for math success. As Wein (2008)

powerfully articulates, a “positive emotional stance sets a strong tone of invitation, of

psychological safety that ideas are welcomed, that children belong to the group and have the right

to participate in it” (p. 145).

In emergent kindergarten practices, we do not use worksheet-style activities. Learning

centres in the classroom encourage children to integrate subjects and demonstrate their knowledge

in exciting ways. For example, a child might use patterning when painting a detailed picture at the

easel or arranging loose parts in repetition during sensory play. These examples both demonstrate

exploration, practice, and knowledge of patterning concepts. Sarama and Clements (2009) remind

us that math and free play experiences including science and the arts enrich experiences for all.

Young children are complex, with a variety of domains developing at different rates (e.g., physical,

social, language, emotional). Development in one domain sometimes influences the other. If a

child cannot yet properly hold a pencil, he may not be motivated or engaged in a written math task;

his lack of interest in the work may or may not be linked to his inability to use writing tools

proficiently. Therefore, paper and pencil tasks in kindergarten are not typically an effective tool to

use for practice or assessment.

Emergent practices that use different learning centres provide greater opportunities for

authentic math problems. Learning becomes deeply rooted in the children’s play, resulting in their

commitment to solving the problem quickly and accurately. Children are empowered to ask a

question, use a math concept they have acquired to perform a calculation, and then apply this

knowledge to their real world situation in order to see if the original question was answered

(Boaler, 2016; Wolfram, 2010). Educators who regularly engage children in authentic,

differentiated activities rather than paper and pencil tasks support number talks by:

• demonstrating that receipts of learning like worksheets are not always developmentally

appropriate and children learn in different ways.

• understanding that children can demonstrate math understanding in a variety of non-

traditional ways.


52

• assessing children in ways that honour their learning and help tell the story of their math

journey including the use of photos, videos, drawings, anecdotal notes, interviews with

children, and teacher reflection.

• Inviting families to experience the joy and beauty in their children’s math work through

engaging documentation practices such as learning stories or digital photos and videos.

Inviting children to participate in organic math experiences that are relevant to their immediate

needs and encourage a multi-faceted approach will set the foundation for creative problem-

solving in subsequent years.

Purposeful Computation Problems

Narrator: It was spring and to help bring some of the outdoors into the classroom Mrs.

McLennan picked a large bouquet of flowers from the garden and placed it in the

centre of the snack table. The children were interested in the differences between

the flowers and as they ate, they compared the size, shape and quantity of petals on

each. Recalling an experience from a book she had read, Mrs. McLennan brought

the vase of flowers to the next whole group meeting time. There she asked the

children about their conversations. She was curious to know more about what they

noticed in the bouquet and how the children might figure out the number of petals

on each stem. They had many interesting ideas; one child wanted to count the petals

and write the corresponding numbers down on paper, another thought the class

could estimate the petals and then represent them with mini wooden blocks, and a

third suggested waiting until the bouquet dried out and then picking the petals off

in order to count them all.

During the next play time Mrs. McLennan placed the bouquet and the suggested

materials on a table and invited the children to visit the centre. She also printed

close up photos of the flowers and placed these on the table. She hoped to provide

an alternative experience for those children interested in counting petals, but who

might feel the bouquet was too abstract or complex to explore. By providing a

number of open-ended materials as suggested by the children, as well as some of

my own, this teacher was hoping to create multiple entry points into the experience.

She also planned to be available at the centre in order to support and scaffold the

work of the children, making this a differentiated and engaging activity.

Many children visited the centre exploring the flowers in innovative and diverse

ways. Their teacher observed and supported their mathematical explorations and

documented their learning using photos and videos. During the consolidation circle

at the end of the day some children volunteered to share their experiences and ideas

about the flowers and explained their math thinking to the group. Their work was


53

displayed digitally using our smartboard. Towards the end of the discussion one

boy exclaimed that he could not wait to come back to school the next day so he

could bring the materials outdoors and count all the flowers in our garden during

play time.

According to Parrish (2011), teachers who conduct successful number talks use “just right

[problems] that build [on students’] mathematical understanding and knowledge” (p. 204). We

want children to be engaged in the math activity; they should have some experience and

background knowledge to give them an entry point into—and personal interest and investment

in—solving the problem. These problems must be open-ended enough to appeal to a variety of

learning interests and abilities. Through scaffolded interactions and thoughtful questioning, an

educator can enhance explorations while fulfilling curriculum and assessment obligations.

In emergent programs educators aim to embed rich math resources and opportunities

throughout the room and not just in a defined ‘math centre’ in order to encourage organic

exploration (e.g., adding dominoes and dice to loose parts play; using Unifix cubes and links in

the building area; bringing ten frames outdoors). The children are investigating and finding

solutions to questions or problems generated in the social interactions they have during playtime.

Teachers can bring these inquiry-based topics and authentic queries to the whole group for

extensive discussion after noticing them in the play, specifically highlighting math and

computation when applicable. Because children are highly invested in solving these problems,

they will be more likely to work together to brainstorm various strategies for arriving at solutions

that meet the needs of many learners.

Finding the balance in emergent practices also means that the teacher carefully selects

developmentally appropriate activities that capture children’s interests while still fulfilling

curriculum expectations. It’s amazing to see how many mandated math topics naturally emerge in

the children’s play and interactions. An attuned educator who is familiar with standards and is

interacting alongside the children in play can also make pedagogical decisions based on his or her

observations regarding what expectations can be woven into the experience. Interesting materials

can be placed in the classroom and the teacher can ask questions or suggest challenges to entice

children into exploring these further (e.g., inviting children to participate in subitizing games,

creating math challenges at specific centres, adding math tools to unexpected areas of the

classroom such as the snack area). An emergent kindergarten program also creates natural

opportunities for purposeful computation by:

• providing children with the freedom to explore self-directed areas of interest.

• introducing interesting and challenging materials for children to use independently and

with teacher guidance.

• emphasizing a child-centered problem-solving approach when difficulties arise.

• using organic materials and loose parts in place of commercial products.

• honouring children’s questions and providing guidance when needed.


54

Teachers who utilize an organic, emergent approach to curriculum will discover that there are

multiple opportunities each day for purposeful and authentic computation.

Growing Number Talks

Kindergarten is an exciting place to be! As children are provided the time, resources, and

environment to explore areas of self-directed interests, their engagement turns to passionate

inquiry which will lay the foundation for subsequent personal and academic success. Teachers

who utilize Parrish’s (2010, 2011) approach to number talks will be helping children to become

joyful, flexible risk-takers in their mathematical learning, instilling interest and engagement that

will provide a solid foundation for future math achievement. They may even discover a renewed

passion for math in their own personal and professional lives along the way.

References

Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Understanding students’ potential through creative math,

inspiring messages and innovative teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories

approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Novakowski, J. (2015). Reggio-inspired mathematics: A professional inquiry project in the Richmond

school district. Richmond, BC: Richmond School District.

Parrish, S. (2010). Number talks: Helping children build mental math and computation strategies.

Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.

Parrish, S. (2011). Number talks build numerical reasoning: Strengthen accuracy, efficiency, and

flexibility with these mental math and computation strategies. Teaching Children Mathematics, 18(3),

198–206. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.18.3.0198

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. (2009, winter). Building blocks and cognitive building blocks: Playing to

know the world mathematically. American Journal of Play, 1(3), 313–337. Retrieved from

https://www.journalofplay.org/

Seitz, H. (2008). The power of documentation in the early childhood classroom. Young Children, 63(2),

88–93. Available at https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc

Wein, C. A. (2008). Emergent curriculum in the primary classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Wolfram, C. (2010, July). Teaching kids real math with computers [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_math_with_computers

https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.18.3.0198

https://www.journalofplay.org/

https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc

https://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_math_with_computers


Vol. 13, No. 2 (2019). pp. 55–58

https://www.uwindsor.ca/jtl

55

Book Review:

Empathy and History: Historical Understanding in Re-

Enactment, Hermeneutics and Education

by Tyson Retz

New York, USA & Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books, 2018, 218 pages

ISBN: 978-1-78533-919-6 (hardcover)

Reviewed by:

Larry A. Glassford

University of Windsor

“They don’t go in for facts in History these days,” stated Colin Dexter’s famous fictional character,

Inspector Morse, in a 1991 mystery. “They go in for empathy, Lewis. Whatever that is” (p. 173).

In his analysis of the rise and fall of “empathy” in pedagogical discourse, Tyson Retz quotes the

legendary detective, both to show how the rise of the empathy concept had penetrated British

public consciousness, and also to illustrate how controversial it had become, as a symbol of

educational reform gone amok. In her memoirs, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher

excoriated the new approach to history in the schools, claiming that “with its emphasis on concepts

rather than chronology and empathy rather than facts, (it) was at the root of so much that was going

wrong” (p. 174). What was it that had so riled up both an iconic television character, and a powerful

political leader?

Empathy emerged in Britain in the 1970s as a key component in focused attempts to reform

the method of teaching history as a subject in the schools. In a manifesto issued by the Schools

Council History Project in 1976, empathy was defined and rationalized as follows:

Analysis and judgment must be illuminated by imagination to provide the

understanding of people of the past that characterizes the historian’s

perspective. He [sic] has to be able to enter into the minds and feelings of

all the persons involved in an event and appreciate their differing attitudes

without necessarily approving of their motives if he is to understand why,

given their situation, they acted as they did. (p. 38)


Book Review: Empathy and History Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

56

The use of empathy in analyzing the past was not to be restricted to professional historians. Quite

the contrary. It was to be intentionally cultivated in students in order to increase their engagement

in and understanding of topics and events from the past. Facts and chronology were not to be

banned from the history classroom, but they were no longer the central focus. A student who had

mastered historical empathy, it was envisioned, would possess the ability to go beyond mere

factual retention and regurgitation, to understand deeply the experiences and motivations of human

actors in prior eras.

Attempts were made in England in the 1980s to establish a means by which to measure

levels of achievement in empathy. Rosalyn Ashby and Peter Lee constructed a five-level scale

which described a range of potential outcomes. At the lowest level, students assumed that people

in the past possessed the very same historic insight as we do today, with our ability to look

backward in time. At the other end of the spectrum, the highest achievers in empathy were able to

distinguish clearly between what was known in the past and what we know today. Moreover, they

could differentiate between values and habits of that past society, and those of our own era. Three

other achievement levels ranged between these two extremes (p. 62). While few classroom

instructors attempted to implement this sophisticated typology in their own grade assessments,

many teachers supported the general goals of the model. Its intention was to take seriously the

sentiment expressed cogently in the often-cited aphorism of L.P. Hartley: “The past is a foreign

country; they do things differently there” (p. 67). The ability to empathize with historical actors in

other eras was seen as crucial to any genuine comprehension of the thinking and motivation of

those same individuals.

The critics of empathy as the modern key to historical understanding extended beyond

Inspector Morse and Maggie Thatcher. As Retz demonstrates, traditionalists in the academy

resisted the apparent downplaying of knowledge content in favour of a skills-based approach.

Defenders of rote-teaching methods decried the rise of student-centred instructional strategies.

Some politicians even equated the adoption of American progressive educational innovations with

Britain’s cultural decline. A new curriculum guide, History from 5 to 16, issued in 1988, stressed

that the purpose of history education must be to “transmit cultural heritage to new generations” (p.

184). An agreed-upon body of knowledge would be presented in chronological order. The word

“empathy” was nowhere to be seen in this authoritative document, and reconstructions of the past

were to be “based on evidence - they should not be uncontrolled flights of imagination” (p. 184).

Banished from England’s National Curriculum for History, empathy became “the concept

that dares not speak its name” (p. 192). Yet across the ocean, a Canadian-based scholar was in the

process of integrating the essence of empathy, if not its actual name, in a new model of historical

thinking that stressed the vital necessity of an empathetic understanding of other historical eras.

Peter Seixas, at the University of British Columbia, established the Centre for the Study of

Historical Consciousness in 2001. As Retz points out, Seixas readily acknowledged his debt to the

British pedagogical reformers of the 1970s and 1980s in the construction of his own six-concept

model of historical thinking. These half-dozen big ideas were designed to answer six fundamental

questions that professional historians posed in their work, and that students should adopt in their

own historical studies. Thus, the Seixas framework consisted of: historical significance, primary

Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2) L. A. Glassford

57

source evidence, continuity and change, cause and consequence, historical perspective, and the

ethical dimension. While empathy is not included in this list of six key concepts, Retz is entirely

correct to declare that it “now appeared under the heading of ‘historical perspectives’” (p. 196).

Students should be encouraged to forsake a shallow present-ism by systematic inquiry into past

customs, beliefs and values.

Retz’s book is really two volumes in one. Parts I and III outline the rise and subsequent fall

of “empathy” as a key pedagogical concept for British history teachers. Part II, by contrast, delves

in considerable detail into the philosophical roots of the controversy. This middle section is not for

the faint of heart, unschooled in the intricacies of philoso-speak. Here is a fairly typical sentence

from the book’s middle pages: “Herder’s hermeneutical or historical-philological theory of

interpretation blended methodological empiricism with a quasi-empiricist approach to concept

formation” (p. 87). In order to broaden the reach of what is an important and insightful work, the

author and publisher might consider adding a glossary of philosophical terms to any subsequent

edition.

The essential question raised by Retz in this book might well be, “What is the point of

placing the subject of history in the required school curriculum?” Is it merely a dry as dust

chronology of disparate events? Or perhaps a series of colourful tales, often stranger than fiction,

but with little practical significance? Or is it rather a vital investigation of “the past as a foreign

country”, conducted with a firm conviction that we in the present have much to learn from that

past, if we can only experience it freed of our own present-minded assumptions. If the latter be

true, then a capacity for empathy (not to be confused with sympathy) would be a vital element in

the mix.

Book Review: Empathy and History Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

58


Vol. 13, No. 2 (2019). pp. ##–##


59

Book Review:

New Media in the Classroom: Rethinking Primary Literacy

by Cathy Burnett and Guy Merchant

London, UK: SAGE Publications, 2018, 140 pages

ISBN: 978-0-7735-5357-6 (paperback)

Reviewed by:

Stacey Hanzel

Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

With the growth of new media technologies, children are changing the way they engage and learn,

requiring a shift in what is viewed as literacy. The book, New Media in the Classroom: Rethinking

Primary Literacy by Cathy Burnett and Guy Merchant explores authentic approaches to meaning

making to develop 21st century literacies in primary classrooms.

The authors developed nine principles within their “Charter for 21st Century Literacies”

that considers the emergent and affective nature of meaning making with digital literacies in

engaging, collaborative, creative and critical ways. The Charter highlights “principles for literacy

provision that are particularly relevant given the fluid, mobile and participatory ways in which

digital media are now used in everyday life” (p. 115). Both professors at Sheffield Hallam

University, Burnett and Merchant are well researched and widely published in the areas of

technology, literacy and education. Their book highlights the following themes:

▪ The redefinition of literacy to include new media in daily learning practices.

▪ The expansion of children’s experience with texts and using literacy frameworks to further

create rich experiences.

▪ Fostering creativity and engagement by encouraging children to take new and unexpected

directions in their learning.

▪ Reworking texts to encourage creativity and critical thinking.

In Burnett and Merchant’s effort to redefine literacy to include new media in daily literacy

practices, they are not unrealistic as they identify the challenges and tensions of using technology

in schools. However, through this Charter, the authors offer principles that can provide guidance


Book Review: New Media in the Classroom Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

60

for primary teachers to create classroom environments that reflect the communicative practices of

society. The notion of literacy as a social practice (Street, 1984) necessitates negotiation in

everyday settings to make meaning “reflects the situatedness and diversity of literacies” (p. 9) and

recognizes the socio-material relationships and emergent nature of meaning making. The Charter

goes on to highlight both the opportunities and challenges of working with new media to promote

collaborative, creative, and critical approaches to classroom literacy practices.

The impact that new technologies have had on literacy practices, and the necessity to

redefine literacy to include new media, is Burnett and Merchant’s leading principle. Their second

principle suggests “building on children’s experience of texts, and use of available literacy

frameworks to create rich and meaningful experiences” (p. 34). As educators recognise and build

on children’s linguistic and social and cultural repertoires (p. 9), they are provoked to consider

both children’s uses and knowledge of technology. Extensive research on multimodality has led

to an understanding that a curriculum solely based on print literacy has the potential to be

irrelevant. By acknowledge diverse modes and media (p. 9), children can make meaning through

use of multiple modes to develop and convey meanings in more meaningful and engaging ways.

Burnett and Merchant’s next three principles take into account the affective, embodied, and

emergent nature of literacy practices. Grounded in theories of socio-materialism, these principles

assert that to foster creativity and engagement, children need to be encouraged to take new and

unexpected directions in their learning.

Within the following two principles, the authors consider opportunities for children to work

creatively and critically through the remixing and reworking of digital texts. The fact that many

digital texts are provisional provides opportunity and context for children to reach new audiences

in an authentic manor. Burnett and Merchant’s final Charter principle discusses the collaborative

nature of new media and the complexities and possibilities of these interactions.

The authors’ “Charter for 21st Century Literacies” is well supported by literacy research.

Through practical applications, dense theory such as affect and embodiment are made intelligible.

The book left me wanting to know more about this theory as it relates to new media, however I

realize the limitations of explication of affect and embodiment within the structure of exploring

the Charter. In saying that, the extensive reference list provides a springboard for any scholar to

do more thorough research in this area.

As a literacy instructor to pre-service teachers, I was drawn to the practical and

approachable nature of the book. I appreciated that chapters 2 through 10 led with vignettes to

frame each principle, followed by a comprehensive examination of the principle, and concluded

with reflective questions that beg for consideration of one’s own practice. Burnett and Merchant

provide a manageable way to consider new media in primary classrooms. While specific to primary

literacy, I would recommend this book for pre-service teachers and elementary literacy teachers.

Although may examples are primary focussed, the Charter is transferable beyond the primary

years. It is undoubtedly a necessary resource for educators as they look beyond incorporating

technology in their classrooms and consider authentic and rich ways that new media can be used

to better align with everyday literacy practices in the classroom.

Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2) S. Hanzel

61

References

Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2018). New media in the classroom: Rethinking primary literacy. London,

UK: Sage.

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Book Review: New Media in the Classroom Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

62


Vol. 13, No. 2 (2019). pp. 63–66


63

Book Review:

Students at the Center:

Personalized Learning with Habits of Mind

by Bena Kallick and Allison Zmuda

Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2017, 160 pages

ISBN: 978-1416623243 (paperback)

Reviewed by:

Monique Roberts

University of Colorado, Denver

Students at the Center: Personalized Learning with Habits of Mind provides educators who are

interested in personalized learning a roadmap to implementation. Through integration of the 16

habits of mind, the four attributes of personalized learning, and an emphasis on student-driven

learning, Bena Kallick and Allison Zmuda provide a guide on personalized learning that extends

beyond standards-based teaching and differentiated tasks. This book focuses on how using

personalization techniques can shift the classroom learning environment. These adjustments in

roles, dynamics, tools, and approaches will have a positive impact on student learning.

In Students at the Center the authors rely on the four attributes of personalized learning as

the framework for personalized learning. These attributes consist of voice, co-creation, social

construction, and self-discovery. This framework considers how student contribution to their

classroom learning is the crux of personalization. Through engagement with their peers, their

teacher, and the curriculum, students are able to shape the curriculum and learning environment to

fit their specific learning needs. The learning doesn’t stop with the curriculum. Through

engagement with others, students are able to shape their ideas about the world around them and

their learning. This process is referred to as social construction, which is how students build

meaning and create change through interactions with others.

Personalization allows for students to share their interests and identify their own learning

gaps. Through student voice, students are able to give input on what topics they consider engaging,

which allows the teacher to create inroads to student learning in their planning. Student voice

creates the opportunity for students to share their concerns for their learning and it also allows for


Book Review: Students at the Center Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

64

opportunity for deeper thinking as they tackle topics that concern them as citizens of their

community. The authors define voice as the student’s ability and interest in developing what they

are learning and how they are learning it early in the process. Through student voice, teachers are

able to create personalized learning environments that are rooted in student experience and

designed to develop them as learners.

Personalized learning environments rely on student voice for co-creation of the learning

environment. In a co-created learning environment, the teachers and the students work

collaboratively to establish the task and the challenge that they are working on. Through teamwork,

students and teachers collaboratively decide on the learning objective. They determine the methods

and learning that will make this task challenging. Challenge also includes which supports and

extensions are required to allow all students to engage and deepen their learning. Co-creation

extends beyond the learning task and also includes assessment. Co-created learning teams consider

how success will be measured, create a vision for the final product, and develop and action plan

for individual success.

Through personalization, students’ learning extends beyond the curriculum. Students learn

about their learning as much as they learn about the academic content. In a personalized learning

environment, learning is a metacognitive experience where students are constantly learning about

how they learn. Through voice, students are able to learn about their interests and identify their

areas of growth for engaging in material that is both interesting and disinteresting to them. Through

co-creation, they are able to reflect on the tasks that best support their learning and develop new

skills to support future learning. Students are able to design and review the tools that are used to

measure their academic growth, which affords them the opportunity to practice these tools

throughout each unit. Social construction pushes students to consider their learning within a

network of learners who push each other’s thinking. Students are able to interact with others who

have more knowledge about the topic and consider how their learning can impact the world around

them. Self-discovery occurs when the students develop an understanding of who they are as

learners through the process.

Kallick and Zmuda include a framework of thinking and habits building to support

personalized learning. Habits of mind is an approach to mindsets that student use to challenge

themselves as learners (Costa & Kallick, 2008). Habits such as thinking about your thinking

challenge the student’s metacognition. Students can use the habit of persisting, which speaks to

the productive struggle that students use to independently navigate new challenges. They may also

tap into their habit of thinking flexibly, or responding with wonderment and awe, or thinking

interdependently as they face new challenges. If personal habits are taught as intentionally as core

content curriculum then students will learn skills and habits that they will be able to replicate

throughout their learning. The 16 habits of mind will increase student achievement through

metacognitive techniques and mindset building that they can rely on when they become stuck.

Frameworks around habit building are important to designing personalized learning environments.

Personalization is only sustainable if students are able to develop self-direction in the work.

Otherwise, students will remain dependent upon teacher direction to guide their learning.

Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2) M. Roberts

65

Kallick and Zmuda use Students at the Center as an opportunity to shift the roles of teachers

and students in the classroom. In a personalized learning classroom, learning is student-directed

and teacher-led. This means that students’ involvement in developing tasks and processes puts

them in a position to take ownership of their work and invest themselves in the tasks. Teachers

facilitate this practice and support student achievement through helping them develop their habits.

Classrooms should still include standards to drive the direction for student learning, however

teachers should include the needs, interests, and values of their students.

Students at the Center would not be a complete roadmap without exemplar supports that

educators would need to put in place to achieve personalization. The authors provide instructional

plans and rubrics that educators can use as they start to build a personalized model in their school.

These tools include ways to measure student voice and engagement, standards analysis and

appropriateness of the task, and a vision matrix for shifting your practice. This set of tools is

exceptionally laid out for anyone in education to assess their practices and their ideal outcomes to

create a personalized learning environment. This book supports the journey of students towards

personalization, teachers towards facilitating personalized classroom environments, and leaders

towards shifts in current school-wide systems to allow for more personalized practices.

Students at the Center proposes an environment where teachers and students develop

learning opportunities that students have a stake in, an environment where students challenge

themselves to grow as learners and individuals and where students take on rigorous tasks.

Personalized learning requires a level of collaboration between teachers and students that isn’t

often available in public education, given the time restraints on teachers to meet their many

requirements. Having the time to collaborate is wholly essential to the work itself. Personalized

learning is possible when students and teachers are able to work together to build off of the

standards, design the essential learning goals, create tasks, create rubrics for success, and devise

plans for student success.

As an educator working in a school that focuses on personalized learning, the approaches

in the book are essential to creating an environment where students drive their work and teachers

lead students in developing their knowledge of themselves and of the content. Leaders must

consider how they will enable teachers to lead personalization in their classroom. Teachers must

become facilitators of content knowledge and habit learning. They share the responsibility of

developing the learning with students. Students shift from recipients of knowledge to partners in

the knowledge. All parties work together to ensure that the learning is developed to meet the needs

of students, which includes leveraging and developing their individual strengths and areas of

growth.

The level of personalization outlined in Students at the Center is not work that can be

achieved immediately. Establishing the mindsets, routines, and resources to sustainably provide

personalized learning takes time to implement. Through an intentionally paced roll out of each

phase in the process outlined in the book, school teams can move closer towards creating

meaningful, student-driven learning environments. Most importantly, teachers and schools must

be willing to step away from their previous models of unit and lesson planning, grading, and

classroom routines. Aspects of personalize learning can be implemented in any environment, but

Book Review: Students at the Center Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

66

to create an environment that is transformational for students, teacher must have permission to

operate outside of expectations that impede personalization.

References

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics

for success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Kallick, B., & Zmuda, A. (2017). Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of mind.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).


Vol. 13, No. 2 (2019). pp. 67–70


67

Book Review:

The Early Advantage 2—

Building Systems That Work for Young Children

by Sharon Lynn Kagan (Ed.)

New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2019, 264 pages

ISBN: 978-0-8077-6129-8 (paperback)

Reviewed by:

Stephanie Olmore

University of Colorado, Denver

Every day, around the world, young children seek opportunities for play and interaction. By the

time they turn four, almost half will spend at least a portion of their day in a group environment

(UNICEF, 2019). The evidence continues to stack up; at no other time in human development does

the mind have such vast possibility for building the capacity to learn as it does during early

childhood (Richter et al., 2017). Yet more often than not, this brilliant opportunity is left to chance.

While economists, policy makers, and funders increasingly recognize the importance of early

learning as a good investment, early childhood education systems are fragmented and

characterized by poorly paid educators, inconsistent standards, uneven access to provision, and an

overall lack of quality. The Early Advantage 2—Building Systems That Work for Young Children

(Kagan, 2019) provides a framework for devising a system with the potential to ensure most young

children spend their out-of-home hours in surroundings designed and supported to help them

thrive.

In the anthology The Early Advantage Book 1—Early Childhood Systems That Lead by

Example—the precursor to The Early Advantage 2—the authors present case studies on the early

learning systems in Australia, England, Finland, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, and

Singapore. Using a mixed methods approach, Kagan and her team of researchers have conducted

a deep dive into the six country systems. In book two, she and her team have distilled the essential

elements of these high performing systems based on the research conducted in book one. Both

volumes were commissioned by two organizations: (a) the National Center on Education and the

Economy (NCEE), an organization that has been researching the world’s best education systems


Book Review: The Early Advantage 2 Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

68

with the purpose of providing school districts in the United States with resources for policy and

practice improvements; and (b) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), an international organization seeking to create strong policies that support economic

opportunity, equality and overall well-being to impact society for a better tomorrow. The book is

meant to be a resource of evidence-based policy and practice for countries worldwide. Country

selection was based on performance in two data sets: OECD’s 2012 PISA math scores (OECD,

2013) and composite scores from The Economist’s Intelligence Unit (2012) Starting Well report

that examined quality, accessibility, cost, and context. The contributing authors analyze the social

strategies employed to create comprehensive, effective systems. Culling the data, Kagan and her

colleagues identified five common elements that characterize the early childhood systems. These

essential components are: (a) strong policy foundations; (b) comprehensive services, funding, and

governance; (c) knowledgeable and supported staff; (d) informed, individualized, and continuous

pedagogy; and (e) data to drive improvement. Within each of the five elements, three key areas of

focus are also identified. For example, individualized and continuous pedagogy includes clear

articulation and implementation of child-centered pedagogy, individualization for all children, and

continuity of children’s experiences.

The Early Advantage 2—Building Systems that Work for Young Children provides concrete

examples of both successes and challenges for the studied countries. Kagan and her team recognize

the importance of context and therefore acknowledge there is not just one way to build a high

performing system, yet their research clearly elevates important features that should be part of a

comprehensive system primed for strong outcomes. There is little research on the effectiveness of

early childhood systems as a whole, however these conclusions are consistent with those identified

in A World Ready to Learn: Prioritizing Quality Early Childhood Education (Bertram & Pascal,

2016). The report identifies the need for a seamless system between and within sectors, the

importance of consistent standards across auspice and funding streams, and notes the lack of

qualified staff and low pay among other variables as challenges. All findings are consistent with

those identified by Kagan and her team.

Notably, Kagan begins the book with the chapter “The Quest for Social Strategy”, where

she argues the field of early childhood has run into a roadblock for sweeping change despite

increased public support and a compelling body of research, citing the lack of systemic social

strategy as the barrier to ensuring communities view and prioritize services for young children and

their families. The Early Advantage 2 provides the organizing structure needed to support efficient

and effective policies and targeted use of resources for major impact. The book is practical yet

inspiring, delivering a timely summation of the core building blocks for creating a high performing

early childhood care and education system.

As an early learning professional tasked with supporting several ministries of education

committed to improving early learning services, I have come to rely on The Early Advantage 2 as

the blueprint from which I can organize strategies for technical support intended to strengthen

capacity and sustainability in varying contexts. All young children benefit from equitable access

to high quality early care and education and it is time governments commit to deliberate services

that are part of a comprehensive system. Early opportunities can no longer be left to chance. The

Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2) S. Olmore

69

Early Advantage 2— Building Systems That Work for Young Children provides education leaders

with a well-designed framework to develop a comprehensive system for young children across the

world.

References

Bertram, T., & Pascal, C. (2016). Early childhood policies and systems in eight countries. Retrieved

from: https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2019-04/ECES-policies_and_systems-report.pdf

Kagan, S. L. (Ed.). (2018). The early advantage 1—early childhood systems that lead by example: A

comparative focus on international early childhood education. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Kagan, S. L. (Ed.). (2019). The early advantage 2—building systems that work for young children. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-

year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Retrieved from:

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf

Richter, L. M., Daelmans, B., Lombardi, J., Heymann, J., Boo, F. L., Behrman, J. R., … & Paper 3

Working Group and the Lancet Early Childhood Development Series Steering Committee. (2017).

Investing in the foundation of sustainable development: pathways to scale up for early childhood

development. The Lancet, 389(10064), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31698-1

The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). Starting well: Benchmarking early years education across the

world. Retrieved from: http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/eb/Lienstartingwell.pdf

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2019). A world ready to learn: Prioritizing quality early childhood

education. New York, NY: United Nations Children’s Fund. Retrieved from

https://www.unicef.org/media/57941/file/%20A-world-ready-to-learn-2019.pdf

https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2019-04/ECES-policies_and_systems-report.pdf

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31698-1

http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/eb/Lienstartingwell.pdf

https://www.unicef.org/media/57941/file/%20A-world-ready-to-learn-2019.pdf

Book Review: The Early Advantage 2 Journal of Teaching and Learning 13(2)

70


The Journal of Teaching and Learning (JTL) acknowledges the land we operate on as part of the traditional territories of the Three Fires Confederacy of First Nations, comprised of the Ojibwe, the Odawa, and the Potawatomi. There are few places on earth where others have not walked before us or called it home. The JTL is an international, peer-reviewed journal. The journal seeks manuscripts that provide a critical examination of historical and contemporary educational contexts. The journal publishes original research that contributes to theoretical and applied questions in teaching and learning. These may include: issues related to indigenous education, gender, class, race, ethnicity and diversity, educational policy, teacher education, educational leadership, and theories of teaching and learning. The journal also welcomes critical and exploratory essays that focus on current educational issues. The JTL is published twice a year. Submissions to the JTL are anonymously peer-reviewed.

Editor:

Editorial Assistant:

Book Review Editor:

Kara Smith, University of Windsor

Brandon Sabourin, University of Windsor

Kara Smith, University of Windsor

Advisory Board:

Terry Sefton, University of Windsor Janice Waldron, University of Windsor Clayton Smith, University of Windsor John Freer (Graduate Student Rep.), University of Windsor

Editorial Board: Jonathan Bayley, University of Windsor Patricia Daniel, University of Wolverhampton, UK Benedicta Egbo (Founding Editor), University of Windsor Larry Glassford, University of Windsor Tim Goddard, University of Prince Edward Island Asha Gupta, Punjab University, India Susan M. Holloway, University of Windsor Roseanne Menna, University of Windsor Siegbert Schmidt, University of Cologne, Germany Miles Turnbull, Bishop’s University

Address: 401 Sunset Ave. Faculty of Education University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4

Telephone: (519) 253-3000; ext. 4068

Email: [email protected]

Website: http://www.uwindsor.ca/jtl

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.uwindsor.ca/jtl

For more information about the Journal of Teaching and

Learning, please visit our website:

www.uwindsor.ca/jtl


http://www.uwindsor.ca/jtl

practices of their teachers earning students of the

Documents