Wyatt, Building Capacity, p. 1

Title: Building Educational Capacity in Greenland

Authors:

Tasha R. Wyatt, Ph. D. & Kattie E. Motzfeld

Inerisaavik: Institute for Arctic Education

Abstract

This article focuses on how Inerisaavik, a former agent of Greenland’s Ministry of Education, is building capacityto support national education reform. At a glance, it appears Inerisaavikis merely carrying out legislative orders to create a better school system for using “best practices” in professional development and successful reform. Closer investigation indicates that Inerisaavik is using principles of sociocultural theory to address school improvement on a national level. Acting as an intermediary between the government and Greenland’s schools, Inerisaavik’s design of the reform, implementation, and on-going interaction with the community is highly collaborative.The study reveals that Inerisaavik’s role in the change process is dynamic and responsive to the needs of Greenlandic schools and the larger community.

Keywords: Educational reform, assisted performance, capacity building, Greenland

Building Educational Capacity in Greenland

Description of educational reform in indigenous communities is limited. What has been written describes the importance of cultural compatibility in indigenous education and how reform leaders have involved the community in initial stages (Demmert & Towner, 2003; Rivera & Tharp, 2006). These descriptions do not provide a framework for how to implement changes and ensure schools and the larger community support the change effort. This article describes how Inerisaavik, a governmental agency in Greenland, is approaching educational reform.

Intermediary organizations have recently emerged as important units of analysis for research on school reform and change (Honig, 2004; McLaughlin, 2006). They function as knowledge brokers between many levels of the educational system by assisting in the development of knowledge, the tailoring of policy to local contexts, and co-construction of reform. Intermediary organizations are in a unique position to create change because they are not governmental or public entities and thus operate between the top and the bottom of the implementations process (McLaughlin, 2006).

much like the highly collaborative intermediary organizations found in the U.S. Drawing on research from sociocultural theory and school reform, we examine Inerisaavik’s reform activities for their responsiveness to the needs of Greenland’s schools and community. The first section describesGreenland’s nation-wide reform and the pedagogical strategies reform leaders adopted to assist in their efforts. These strategies will also be used as the theoretical framework for this study. Thelast section describes the importance of building capacity to sustain reform change, focusing on peer coaching as the current trend in educational reform.

Greenland’s Educational Reform

Greenland’s Educational Reform. In 1998, a small group of administrators from Inerisaavik were commissioned to develop ideas for a new school system in Greenland. Inerisaavik is the organization responsible for all public school affairs including in-service professional development, assessment, and reform implementation. At the time, Inerisaavik was under the Ministry of Education, but has recently been subsumed under the University of Greenland. The group decided Greenland’s new legislation would be built on clear performance standards while considering the effect colonization has had on Greenlandic culture and identity(Olsen, 2005). Any changes would move away from the Danish-Scandinavian models that have characterized Greenland’s educational system since the 1700s and towards more culturally compatible education. To assist in their efforts, reform leaders adopted the CREDE Standards for Effective Pedagogy.

The CREDE Standards for Effective Pedagogy

The Standards for Effective Pedagogy are principles of effective teaching and learning developed by researchers at the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE). They were developed through a synthesis of 30 years of research on effective instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students and were designed to help teachers maximize classroom interactions in ways that promote learning of concepts and higher-level skills (Tharp et al., 2000).The Standards are (a) Joint Productive Activity, teachers and students collaborating on joint products; (b) Language andLiteracy Development, teachers supporting language development in all classrooms and subjects; (c) Contexualization, teachers making connections between students’ prior knowledge and new information; (d) Complex Thinking, teachers supporting students’ engagement and skills in critical thinking; and (e) Instructional Conversation, teachers instructing through dialogue.

The CREDE Standards were derived from Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, which suggests that all higher psychological functioning has its roots in social interaction. By engaging in joint activity through symbols, such as language and numbers, children eventually appropriate those symbols. More proficient community members assist novices in performing the tasks and roles of their culture. Over time, less assistance is needed, until eventually learners can perform the behaviors independently. Greenland’s reform leaders adopted the Standardsto implement reform goals for two reasons. First and foremost, they are based on our era’s dominant international developmental theory (Tharp & Dalton, 2007). Sociocultural theory is a widely accepted theory in international education and research and the Greenlanders wanted to use a research-based form of pedagogy in their school system. Second, the pedagogy was developed specifically for cultural and linguistic students paced at risk by a traditional majority-culture education, many of which populations were currently or recently decolonizing (Tharp & Dalton, 2007).

The CREDE Standards as a Theoretical Framework.In this study, the CREDE Standards are used as a theoretical framework to describe how intermediary organizations create and sustain educational change. In the U.S., intermediary organizations are non-governmental agencies that work in collaboration with schools to implement reform work. They have become popular because of their unique position to broker knowledge between levels of the educational system (McLaughlin, 2006).

The Standardsfor Effective Pedagogy have been used to assist teachers in organizing their classrooms to provide students with greater assistance. However, because the Standards focus on the role assistance plays in the learning/change process, they are useful in describing how intermediaries co-construct reform.When intermediary organizations work with a reforming institution, such as a school, theywork side by side to achieve an outcome (Joint Productive Activity). In these activities, reforming institutions develop new ways of describing their problems and procedures in relation tothe literature and research on educational reform and change(Language and Literacy Development). The collaboration between organizations affords opportunity to develop solutions to streamline reform implementation (Complex Thinking). These solutions are generated through exchange in formal and informal dialogue (Instructional Conversation) and are situated in a meaningful context for the reforming institution (Contextualization). In time, schools become less dependent on the intermediary because they have appropriated and internalized the necessary skills to implement change independently.

Collaborative activities between schools and intermediaries allow reform efforts to take hold. Joint productive activity increases the likelihood the right type and amount of assistance is given (Tharp et al., 2000). Working closely with external organizations, schools gain perspective on the change process at their local site while developing new knowledge about how the reform functions in other levels. In this way, collaborative activities integrate policy and practice and help to ensure educational capacity is built.

Building Capacity for Reform

According to Fullan(2000), building capacity is one of the best investments reform leaders can make in the midst of educational reform.Most importantly, is the implementation of effective professional development that integrates what has been learned into educators’ everyday working conditions (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000). Most professional development targets teacher and classroom change. However, research suggests that professional development shouldn’t be limited to teachers alone, but include all education personnel(Datnow, Lasky, Stringfield, & Teddlie, 2005). From a reform perspective, principals, parents, and district employeesfunction as a unit. Interactions in one context generate outcomes in another that can potentially condition the interactions or workersin other contexts (Hall & McGinty, 1997). Therefore, the entire system needs to be supported to sustain educational reform.

Researchers have begun to recognize that learning is both an individual and social activity and have capitalized on this perspectivein creating professional development (Borko, 2004). The most effective modelshaveevolved into those that emphasize situated learning rather than disconnectedteaching sessions severed from their working environments. This requires a move away from the traditional workshop method for delivering new understandingand strong step towards a more embedded, systematic approach(Garet et al., 2001).

Peer coaching. Peer coaching is a situative form of professional development useful for building capacity in an educational system(Showers, 1984).This process involves teachers conducting classroom observations of co-workers’ implementation of new instructional strategies. The coach collects data on the teacher’s use of the new teaching tool and notes any changes in student understanding and behavior. Later, a coaching conversation is used to discuss what was observed and what adjustments should be made. In this model, the process is mutually beneficial for the teacher and coach. The observed teacher receives immediate performance feedback while the coach is able to correct her own approach to implementing a new strategy after seeing someone else’s attempt.

Peer coaching incorporates many core features of other successful professional development models. Teachers’ observation of each otheris powerful in creating instructional change (Seago, 2004). Observations afford teachers opportunities to see their experiences mirrored in other classrooms reducing feelings of professional isolation. Coaching conversations offer teachers sustained and ongoing communication with other professionals interested in changing their practice (Showers, 1982). These conversations afford opportunity for reflection and thinking about new ways to approach teaching(Garet et al., 2001).

The Purpose of This Study

The purpose of this study is to examineInerisaavik’s reform activities for their responsiveness to the needs of Greenland’s schools and community.

Methods

This is a qualitative case study analysis, with Inerisaavik itself as “the case.” The use of methods common to qualitative case study enabled Inerisaavik to be investigated in a real-life context and allowed the perspectives of those actually implementing or working with the reform to be presented (Yin, 2003). The research methods involved multiple sources of data including interviews, participant observations, and a review of relevant documents.

Data Collection

Participants. In keeping with the tenets of case study research, the participants were chosen purposefully to address the research questions. From Inerisaavik,one employee and two former employees wereinterviewed. From Inerisaavik, Kattie, the second author in this paper was interviewed. Kattie is the head of the implementation department and has implemented CREDE’s Effective Pedagogy in nearly all schools in Greenland. She is responsible for coordinating professional development and ensuring proper implementation. The other participant, Paartoq isthe former director of Inerisaavik and currently works in a high-level position at the Ministry of Education. He is responsible for initiating Greenland’s reform and ensuring support at the political level. Kaali, the former leader of Inerisaavik’s evaluation department currently works in the Ministry of Education. He was an early reform leader involved in creating and initiating the longitudinal database for student outcomes. Allinterviews lasted over one hour and weretranscribed.

Qualitative data in the form of participant observations were also gathered over the three years. Most of the participant observations collected for this study was collected by the first author who began reform documenting in 2005.The first author’s role at Inerisaavik was to assist reform leaders in understanding and adapting the CREDE Standards to the Greenlandic context. The first author was also hired to track the developments of the reform and participate in the planning of further development. The second author also contributed her own participant observations. Prior to position as Head of Implementation at Inerisaavik, the second author was a principal at one of four pilot schools that implemented the CREDE Standards in 2002. Her experiences both as a principal and reform leader are included in the results.

Data Analysis

Datafrom participant observations, interviews and documents were analyzed using constant-comparative methods. According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2000), constant comparison method of analysis has its roots in grounded theory in which the process of data collection and data analysis is interactive, iterative, and can be revised with new information. Using this technique, data are collected by comparing social phenomena across categories allowing new categories and dimensions to emerge. Because this study has its roots in grounded theory, these emergent themes shaped further lines of inquiry.

Data analysis began with codes that reflected Inerisaavik’s documented reform activities for capacity building. As the data was further analyzed, these codes grew and were separated into sub-codes. These subcodes were then analyzed for Inerisaavik’s role in reform activities. Finally, these codes were compared across categories to examine how Inerisaavik responded to the needs of the reform and their relationship with schools and the community.

Results

The Evolution of Inerisaavik’s Approach to Professional Development

Professional development in Greenland has been the cornerstone for building new knowledge of teaching and learning to support reform efforts. However, the models used in the implementation of Atuarfitsialak have evolved over time to include more responsive assistance and collaboration with schools and communities. This evolution has been driven by “best practices,” but also to better fit the types of relationships Inerisaavik wants to initiate in the school system.

In the early years of reform implementation, from 2004-2006, Inerisaavik relied on individual courses to educate teachers about the CREDE’s Standards for Effective Pedagogy. Teachers were flown in from around the country to a central location and given instruction on how to change their practice. These sessions were largely ineffective later evidenced in classroom observations.

The professional development was designed to develop classrooms that promoted higher levels of linguistic and cognitive development through small group discussions led by the teacher. In a classroom using the CREDE Standards, the teacher takes an active role in facilitating peer assistance and guiding students through activity centers on academic topics. However, after the first year of professional development in Greenland, classroom observations revealed the teachers misunderstood the application of the Standards and only implemented the supporting classroom management strategies. This included at times, extended periods of non-interaction with students, student rotation into activities that had no learning goal, and little to no focus on developing language or complex thought (Field Notes, September 20, 2006).These observations prompted the head of Inerisaavik’s implementation department, Kattie,to change her approach to teacher education. She realized that the design of the current model of professional development needed to be revised.

The first decision Kattie made was to change the name of the pedagogical method from what was being used in Greenland to one that was more meaningful. She changed the former reference to the pedagogical method, “CREDE”to what is now referred to as “Effective Pedagogy.” She explained the problem with the former name:

CREDE is the name of the center. It is a researcher center. It is a building. It is a house….[People always asked me] What is that? What does it mean? We wanted to find a word where [it] explains the content of the whole, of the goal (Interview with Kattie, November 4, 2008).

Changing the name was an important decision for implementation because Greenlanders are holistic in their thinking and the word “CREDE” didn’t activate any schemas they could relate to. Kattieexplainedthe importance of this issue

What I see very clearly is that we need to have a picture of our goals. And this is our Greenlandic way of thinking, too. If you just have a house as a picture of what you are going to reach to. If you don’t know what the content of that house is, you wouldn’t know what your goal is. That is how we think.…The Greenlandization [of the adoption process] is making [the goal] holistic so you just get a picture in your mind and you say, okay, this is our goal (Interview with Kattie, November 4, 2008).

Kattiealso intended to create more collegiality within the schools. She believed Inerisaavik’s model of professional development wasinfluencing how teachers worked within their own work environments. Kattie felt that if teachers didn’t understand the importance of collaboration in their schools they would not understand its place in classroom learning. She outlined this connection between Inerisaavik’s approach to professional development and how it affected teacher relationships.

What I could see was the individual teacher development done within the courses of Effective Pedagogy was not giving responsibility to the teachers at all. The responsibility kept staying at Inerisaavik. And Inerisaavik went out and gave the courses, came home, and then went out and gave the coaching. The teachers who had the courses were all by themselves and they didn’t have supports. The only supporters they had were at Inerisaavik (Interview with Kattie, November 4, 2008).

Therefore, the second change Kattie made was to include a peer coaching modelfollowing the work of Showers and Joyce (1996)that ran alongsideprofessional development workshops. Peer coaching was chosen as a model of professional development because individual teachers receive feedback on their current level of practice and the degree to which they have reached their goals from an external-expert perspective(Showers, 1982). This immediacy of applying new knowledge is powerful in changing practice. Kattie explained that by “coming and observing them and discussing . . . what they feel and what they see and what their goal is…gives them more confidence [that they are] doing the right thing.”