Eureka! Research Institute at UTS Fellowship Program Report

2016 Report on the Eureka! Fellowship Program

for Teacher Researchers

Made possible with funding from Newton Foundation

NEWTON FOUNDATION

7 Teacher Co-Designed Research: Contributing to Evidence-based Knowledge and Decision-Making

Rosemary Evans

Principal, University of Toronto Schools

9 Perspectives on the Eureka! Program

Susan E. French, O.C., Ph.D. Consultant, Newton Foundation

11 Reflections on the Eureka! Fellowship Program for Teacher Researchers

Clare

Kosnik

Ph.D.

Professor, Director Jackman Institute of Education, OISE/UT

Pooja

Dharamshi

M.Sc.

Doctoral Candidate, OISE/UT

Instructor, George Brown College

Instructor Master of Teaching Program, OISE/UT

Shelley Murphy Ph.D.

Instructor Master of Teaching Program, OISE/UT

27 The Eureka! experience: An observer’s perspective

Amy Paradine Director of Academic Programs, University of Toronto Schools

29 An Examination of Admission Profiles and Early Student Success at UTS

Garth Chalmers

Head of Foundation Years and Director of Admissions, University of Toronto Schools

43 Documentary-Game in Grade 9 Geography Classrooms

Mike Farley

Teacher and Department Coordinator of Canadian and World Studies, University of Toronto Schools

59 Maximum City

Josh Fullan

Founder and Director, Maximum City Outreach Coordinator, University of Toronto Schools

75 Self-Reporting of Most Significant Change by Teachers and Students Employing Integrative Thinking in a Classroom Setting

Christopher Federico

Academic Administrator, University of Toronto Schools

90 Using Digital Tools in the Guidance Classroom

Catherine Wachter, CSFP

Guidance Counsellor, University of Toronto Schools

103 Eureka! – Coming Together: A Synthesis of Findings

Heather Henricks

Vice Principal, University of Toronto Schools

Teacher Co-Designed Research:

Contributing to Evidence-based Knowledge and Decision-Making

Rosemary Evans Principal, University of Toronto Schools

University of Toronto Schools (UTS) was the fortunate beneficiary of the Eureka! fund established at the initiative of Richard Ingram ’61. Mr. Ingram and some of his fellow alumni were convinced that UTS teachers could contribute to the knowledge base for best practices in teaching and learning by conducting rigorous research, guided by professors of education with expertise in teacher research.

With this guiding vision, UTS arranged for Professor Clare Kosnick to facilitate a teacher research inquiry circle. As a renowned educator and researcher who has investigated teacher research, Clare was the perfect partner. A Professor in the Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto and currently the Director of the Jackman Institute of Child Studies, Clare has held a number of leadership positions including Director of the Master of Teaching program, Head of the Centre for Teacher Education and Development, and Director of the Elementary Preservice Program. In 2003, on leave from OISE, she became the Executive Director of the Teachers for a New Era research and development project at Stanford University, one of the largest initiatives in teacher education. Clare has been recognized

for her many contributions to teacher development. In 2014 she was awarded the 2014 University of Toronto J.J. Berry Smith Award for Doctoral Supervision and in 2009 she received the OISE Award for Distinguished Contribution to Teaching. Clare partnered with her graduate students and other researchers to support the Eureka! program. Every session was stimulating, informative and inspiring. Her collaborative leadership style instilled confidence and provided continuing motivation.

Guided by Clare’s informed facilitation, our teacher research initiative flourished. Six staff succeeded in completing an 18month investigation into problems which they had identified in their practice. They were taught to articulate researchable questions, to design appropriate research protocols, to conduct literature reviews, to analyze their data in order

to uncover evidence-based, defensible findings, and finally to present their results in front of their peers and others in the education community. This volume represents a collection of their work. As a model or laboratory school affiliated with the University of Toronto, UTS is a perfect hub for the Eureka! research initiative. Working in partnership with the renewed Master of Teaching (MT) Program, and as the home base for a cohort of MT teacher candidates UTS is

a centre for inquiry into best practices in teaching and learning and teacher education, both pre-service and inservice. This publication of our research documents some of our work. It is our hope that this publication recognizes the accomplishments and dedication of our staff and partners and might inspire others to join with us celebrating teaching and administrative staff as key contributors to both knowledge building and dissemination.

Perspectives on the Eureka! Program

Susan E. French, O.C, Ph.D. Consultant, Newton Foundation

In many disciplines, the increasing divide between research and practice has generated interest in finding means of ensuring that service providers are making evidenceinformed decisions based on the most up-to-date information generated through rigorous scientific research. Common strategies include inclusion of practitioners as members of research team, use of knowledge-brokers to assist in keeping practitioners up-to date, and professional development activities such as workshops and conferences directed toward acquisition of evidence-based practice skills. One strategy that is receiving greater attention is mentoring practitioners to conduct small scale but rigorous research on problems or issues arising in their daily practice for which no answers are available.

In 2000, Richard Ingram, Newton Foundation, provided monies to UTS for the establishment of the Eureka! Program. The Nursing Research Centre, McGill University Heath Centre (MUHC) under the leadership of Judith Rithchie, PhD (Nursing) and with co-funding from Newton Foundation and the Montreal General Foundation provided a Eureka! program for nurses in health services at MUHC. Modeled after the UTS program, that program had distinctive characteristics: there was an annual competition; applicants with the guidance of nurse researchers acting as mentors prepared and submitted proposals for the study of problems arising from the applicants’ clinical practice; all proposals were reviewed, rated and ranked by a panel of experts; and, each year, one Eureka! Fellow was

selected and given one year release time to work under the direction of a nurse scientist to obtain ethical approval , carry out the study and to report findings. Presentation at a scientific conference and publication in a referred journal were expected. That program was highly successful in generating new knowledge that was incorporated into practice leading to enhanced patient/family care/ outcomes as well as increasing the selfesteem of the practitioners.

Information from the Eureka! program at the MUHC, Montreal was brought to the discussion of Phase 2 of the Eureka! program at UTS. It was my great privilege to have the opportunity to monitor the Eureka! program at the MUHC in Montreal as well as and Phase 2 of the program at UTS. Each program reflected

the culture of larger organization and benefited from exceptional leadership. The Eureka! Fellows were highly committed and the mentors were of excellent quality. A particular strength of the Phase 2, UTS model was the selection, on an annual basis, of a small group of Fellows who with their mentors formed an effective community of inquiry. That feature provided the Fellows with an opportunity to perfect skills in sharing ideas and feelings, supporting one another and providing constructive feedback. Working through the research process with colleagues and mentors fostered increased understanding of the research process, greater appreciation of the interests and areas of expertise of others, and allowed for the provision of meaningful support when another experienced difficulty or discouragement. A key

variable in the success of each program was the support and interest from those in leadership positions within the larger organization. Having the Fellows present their projects to colleagues and others within the organization was an effective marketing strategy. An area for improvement in the Montreal program was the tracking of the Fellows over time and the long term impact of their projects.

The Eureka! programs at UTS and MUHC form a cycle with each building on the lessons learned from the other and bringing to fruition the vision held by the donor of the Eureka! program being transformational in strengthening and developing further the organizations as communities of inquiry contributing to knowledge generation and utilization and serving as resources to others.

Reflections on the Eureka! Fellowship Program for Teacher Researchers

Clare Kosnik Ph.D. Professor Director Jackman Institute of Education, OISE/UT

Pooja Dharamshi M.Sc. Doctoral Candidate, OISE/UT Instructor, George Brown College

Shelley Murphy Ph.D. Instructor Master of Teaching Program, OISE/UT

Dewey, in the early 1900s, said, “We never educate directly, but indirectly by means of the environment (1916, p. 32). He elaborated by suggesting, “education is essentially a social process. This quality is realized in the degree in which individuals form a community group” (1938, p. 58). The concept of a learning community is longstanding -- craft guilds, academic communities, individuals who share a hobby -- learning with others has long been recognized as an effective pedagogy. As Dewey noted, community can be a powerful form for learning; however, Grossman et al. (2001) observed that simply gathering a group of teachers together does not necessarily lead to improved learning or the formation of a community. This chapter describes a learning community, which is very much in keeping with the spirit of community described by Dewey.

Clare, a professor of Education, was approached by Rosemary Evans, the principal of University of Toronto School (UTS), to assist with forming a teacher research group. Rosemary had received funding for the Eureka! Fellowship program from Newton Foundation to start a teacher researcher group. Clare happily accepted Rosemary’s invitation then invited a current and former doctoral student (Pooja and Shelley) to co-facilitate because they had much to offer and the team approach would model collaboration. The research group consisted of 12 teachers/administrators (excluding ourselves) who were conducting a range of research. Over the next two years we met on a monthly basis for approximately two hours. This paper reports on our work cofacilitating the teacher research group.

ThEORETICAl FRAMEwORk

This research draws on two different bodies of research: teacher research and professional development. Although presented sequentially, we see them having overlapping goals and processes.

why Teacher Research?

Teacher research took root in the 1990s. It has been defined as the systematic “research that is initiated and carried out by teachers in their classrooms and schools” (Shagoury & Powell, 2012, p. 2). Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1990), early advocates for teacher research, felt that, “Those who have daily access, extensive expertise, and a clear stake in improving classroom practice have no formal way to make their knowledge of classroom teaching and learning part of the literature on teaching” (p.2). Understanding teachers as “uniquely positioned” (Cochran-Smith, 1990; Goswami & Stillman, 1987) to detect patterns in the classroom that others might not recognize (Hubberman, 1996), it is not a surprise that teacher research has developed as a meaningful contributor to research (e.g., Atwell 1987; Miller 2002; Ballenger, 2009).

The contemporary teacher research movement is defined by two guiding principles: “teacher research is based upon close observation of students at work” and “teacher-researchers depend upon on a research community” (Shagoury & Power, 2012, p. 6).

Teacher research communities initially developed in lab school settings; however, in recent years, mostly due to technological advancements, they have found their home in special interests groups in professional organizations such as American Educational Research Association (AERA) and National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (Shagoury & Power, 2012). Teacher research aims to fill the gap in research, which

connects directly to classroom practice. Since teacher researchers use inquiries from their own classroom practices, their research is centered on answering relevant and urgent questions which have the power to inform “systemic reform within individual schools and districts” (Shagoury & Power, 2012, p.6).

Professional Development

Professional development (PD) can take many forms. Earley and Porritt (2012) draw on the Training and Development Agency’s definition of PD: “a reflective activity designed to improve an individual’s attributes, knowledge, understanding and skills. It supports individual needs and improves professional practice” (Training and Development Agency, 2012). Bubb and Earley (2007) state that PD involves both “formal and informal learning experiences” (p. 4). Similarly, Schon (1983) argues that both reflection-inaction and reflection-on-action are important forms of professional learning. We do not want to enter into the debate regarding the distinction between PD and professional learning (Hardy, 2012) as we wish to use the term PD to include professional learning of various kinds.

Forms of Professional Development

There is an array of PD processes for teachers: completing formal courses, being mentored, pursuing individual needs, joining a research group, and attending conferences (Livingston, McCall, & Morgado, 2009). We have grouped the many processes into three broad categories: formal PD, informal

PD, and communities of practice. We recognize this division is somewhat arbitrary and some processes fit more than one category. However, we have found the framework useful in thinking about our Eureka! Fellowship Program.

Formal professional development comprises structured activities, which may or may not be optional. Examples include: attending a conference; conducting self-study research; engaging in action research; participating in an organization (e.g., children’s literature association); participating in service work in the community (e.g., outreach groups for LGBQT youth) and/or university (e.g., member of a search committee); formally observing other teachers; or completing a formal course (e.g., course on the teaching of reading).

Informal professional development is not mandatory and can occur individually or with others. Examples include: reflective practice (e.g., reflecting on your teaching); conversations with colleagues, community groups; and team planning and/or team teaching.

Communities of practice tend to be formalized and structured but not institutionally mandated. They involve “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 4). Interest in individuals learning together has a long history. Samaras et al. (2008) understand the power of community and its place in education:

The notion of community is a conceptually appealing one because it suggests a comfortable, socially supportive context. Yet community

can do much more than create a friendly environment. It can support learning. Community is not simply an add-on. Rather, it can be an integral and powerful force in learning (p. xvi).

The Ontario Ministry of Education (our context) produced the brief Professional Learning Communities (2005) which notes: “Although the term has grown to encompass a wide variety of concepts and practices, a professional learning community (PLC) is always a group of people who are motivated by a vision of learning and who support one another toward that end” (p.1). The Ontario Ministry of Education draws on Bolam et al.’s (2005), research in summarizing the features of a professional learning community:

• represents a collective effort to enhance student learning

• promotes and sustains the learning of all professionals in the school

• builds knowledge through inquiry

• analyses and uses data for reflection and improvement (2005)

The Ontario Teachers’ Federation took an invitational approach by offering financial support to individual teachers who wanted to form a PLC. Given the voluntary nature and funding support these have been quite successful. For more information and a report on the 33 projects that were completed see http:// www.otffeo.on.ca/en/learning/teacherlearning-and-leadership-program/ PLCs have a place in professional development if developed appropriately.

Modes of inquiry

This research used a grounded theory approach (Punch, 2009), which Punch (2009) explains, is not a theory, but a strategy used to generate theory that will be grounded in the data (p. 130). The theory is developed inductively from the data using a set of techniques and procedures for collection and analysis (Punch, 2009). Throughout the analysis, we identified key themes, and then worked together to select the themes that we felt captured our work. As Strauss (2003) puts it, “the basic question facing us is how to capture the complexity of the reality (phenomena) we study, and how to make convincing sense of it” (p. 16).

Data Sources:

• Co-facilitators’ reflections on each meeting

• Monthly agendas and notes for each

FInDInGS

Although we have organized our findings into three sections, logistics, identity, and learning, we recognize there is significant overlap among the themes. We have chosen to include findings about community in each section because it was so woven into our findings (as both a process and a product). It would have been hard to present community as a stand-alone finding because we were intentional about building community, the community influenced everyone’s identity, and it supported learning.

a. logistics

All staff members at UTS were invited

meeting

• Co-facilitators engaged in a structured discussion with focused questions twice over the year (e.g., What is working? What has surprised you?)

• At the final meeting in June, each teacher completed a survey

• In December of the second year, each teacher completed a short question and answer form.

Data Analysis

After reviewing our data a number of times, we developed a classification system:

1. Logistics

2. Identity

3. Learning

4. Community

We coded our data under these four headings, which were matched to our research questions.

by Rosemary Evans to be involved in the Eureka! Fellowship Program. Those who were interested were required to submit a proposal describing the research they intended to conduct. The principal along with two professors, who were members of the school’s Advisory Board (not us), reviewed the proposals. In the end, all teachers who wanted to be involved in Eureka! Fellowship Program were invited and all accepted the invitation. The first hurdle we, as facilitators, faced was determining how to organize the group. As outsiders to the school, we did not have a sense of the school’s cultural norms or typical processes

used for meetings or PD. All three of us had organized PD with teachers (e.g., workshops and courses) but the Eureka! Fellowship Program was different because it was going to be a sustained project using all three forms of PD: informal, formal, and hopefully a community of learners. We wanted to use a format where discussion among participants was the “driver” (rather than lectures or outside experts). We believed this would be a suitable format because through discussion participants would learn from each other and there was potential for a community to form.

Using a Discussion-Driven Process

Clare had used a participant/discussiondriven format in her work with a teacher researcher group previously (19992004). (For a detailed description of that group see Bell-Angus et al., 2008). This participant-driven process was also used for a course Works in Progress (WIPs) she had taught with Shelley and Pooja as facilitators. The course was designed to help doctoral students with their thesis work, regardless of where they were in the process (e.g., proposal-writing, data gathering, data analysis). This highly supportive process resulted in this semester-long course being exceedingly popular. We believed students learned a tremendous amount about the research process by listening to others’ work and providing feedback. Many students, at completion of their PhDs, credited WIPs with helping them through the process. The WIPs design ultimately informed our work with the Eureka! teachers.

The Principal, Rosemary, mid-way through the year was delighted with the discussiondriven format commenting, “Now I get it. I would never have thought such an informal style would work so well.” Susan French who represented Newton

Foundation attended our monthly meeting in May 2014. She made specific reference to the “interactive learning sessions as a means of teaching the research process and providing the teachers with an opportunity to learn and reinforce one another’s progress.”

After reading the proposals we felt the first step was to help the teachers narrow their topics. We spent a significant amount of time deciding on a format for the initial meeting because we wanted to set a collaborative tone and begin to build a research community. At our first meeting, Clare spent time outlining a number of research projects she had conducted. This turned out to be very useful because many of the teachers eventually used modified versions of the instruments she had developed. After the initial meeting Clare noted, “it went well. I felt we got off to a good start.” By the end of the third meeting Shelley commented,

For those who presented their research, there were wonderful questions/suggestions/ideas from the entire group and the conversation flowed freely and without lulls. After a long day of work for the teachers and even with it being a dark rainy day, there seemed to be great deal of energy in the room as a byproduct of such rich discussion.

Finding a “Doable” Research Topic

Initially, most of the participants had plans to conduct studies that were so broad they would require many years of data gathering with a multitude of data collection points. As facilitators we quickly had to adjust our expectations for the way Eureka! Fellowship Program would unfold because we realized we had to help each participants shape his/ her study into a doable research project.

The topics the teachers wanted to explore were all directly tied to their work so there was strong buy-in. Initially, we were somewhat thrown by the topics because they were unfamiliar to us as former elementary school teachers; however, it was apparent the teachers knew their discipline and pedagogy so we did not have to sort out teaching per se. Our responsibility was more on supporting the research process. For example, we provided examples of doable and non-doable research topics, facilitated large-group discussions and individual meetings with teachers, and presented flow charts of the research process. With this type of support, each of the Eureka! members eventually narrowed their research topic. Their topics were:

• Josh – using the city as a classroom for his urban geography course

• Mike – use of a gaming program (Fort McMoney http://fortmcmoney.com/#/ fortmcmoney) for his economics course

• Catherine – use of 3 different web-based programs devoted to wellness/stress she included in her Guidance Program (for 9th grade students)

• Heather – self-study of her work as a Vice Principal

• Christopher – studies integrative thinking in classroom settings

• Amy – reflections on the teacher researcher group

• Garth – application process to UTS (look at the applications of students who are currently struggling to determine if there were “red flags” which were missed)

Establishing a Format for Meetings

We eventually established a format for each meeting: Shelley led the opening activity were each person was invited to share an update about his/her work and/or his/ her thinking about the topic. Catherine, the Guidance Counsellor, provided this feedback on the structure:

I love the check in - it feels good to hear how others are doing (i.e. haven’t done much since last meeting!) whether it be progress or not. I definitely have months where I have accomplished little, so getting verification that we are all on a similar page is nice. And, everyone’s work is so interesting – it’s like being a part of a cool documentary process! I have found the focus after the check in is always spot on – and that’s because you ladies ask us if doing something for the next session works –so we get a hand in determining what we would like to focus on. Bingo –that’s awesome.

We recognized that given time constraints, teachers did not often have time to work on their research between meetings. So, we invited them to share their thinking about their topic, which allowed each person to contribute. Josh offered his feelings about the organization of our monthly meetings: “the format of the meetings works well and there are some terrific meandering conversations with surprising outcomes and nuggets to learn from everyone’s experiences.” Rosemary identified the features of the meetings she found useful. She noted:

1. food

2. timing

3. desk arrangement - circular format

4. starting with sharing and updates

5. focus on a research skill

6. assisting members of the group with their stage/ challenge through feedback

7. the modelling of the facilitators - the constructive comments and building on what the teacher/researcher is doing as a starting point - but not being afraid to offer direction

8. discussion of what worked and what didn’t so people are OK if things are not perfect and don’t work at first.

Working Through the Research Process

After the updates, we moved to the heart of the meeting where we addressed a specific topic. This proved to be an excellent structure because the teachers were systematically led through the research process. This kept them moving forward and the meetings were focused. For example, during the developing research instruments phase we shared various instruments (e.g., interview questions, surveys) we had used in our own research. We also showed them a few instruments that had not worked well. Rosemary and Heather noted that our honesty helped the teachers to understand that research does not always unfold smoothly and that it is acceptable to admit frustration and, at times, a need to return to the drawing board. By distributing samples of instruments that were effective we were able to scaffold their learning in a very non-threatening manner because we encouraged them to “borrow” wording from our instruments. We spent two full meetings helping each person with his/her particular instrument. As a group, we generated a few interview or survey questions for each person (depending on their data collection method and research topic). By doing this work as a group, the teachers were an integral part of each other’s process while they were also being guided by the facilitators. Rosemary commented on the fact that she was pleased by the crossdiscipline discussion. By collaboratively working on each person’s instruments all had a number of questions formulated and the specific sections identified so they could complete the instruments on their own (after the formal meeting). At the end of the first year, in their surveys all said they were feeling very positive about their research. Josh commented, “I feel good – I feel more directed/precise in my research question and audience.”

By the second year the teachers had collected data so we had to figure out what to do next; however, the next step was not obvious to us as the facilitators. In one meeting Pooja made an impromptu comment “Oh that data sounds interesting. I would like to see it.” This simple comment opened up the way for the next phase of the group -- working on each person’s raw data. Just as we had worked on each person’s instruments we analyzed a section of each person’s data as a group. For example, as a group we analyzed an interview Catherine had conducted with a student regarding her views of the online wellness programs introduced in the Guidance classes. The transcribed interviews were circulated beforehand and in the meeting we identified themes, discussed the richness of the interview, and so on. To assist Garth, the Admissions Director, we looked at three admissions applications to the school (all 3 students had been admitted but were struggling) to see if there were “red flags” that were not noted at the time of scoring the admission files. Since most of the participants in the group were teaching or had taught these students they could bring their insights to bear in the analysis. We looked at Garth and Josh’s survey data to find patterns. This collective approach to each step of the research process worked well for the group. Rosemary noted: “Every researcher in sharing their journey allows all of us to see more clearly the unique challenges and complications that can emerge but also the route through to deeper learning and more sophistication with the research process.” We also invited guest speakers: Clive Beck presented on coding interview data and Elizabeth Rosales talked about analyzing survey data.

When we look over our notes and agendas we can see four clearly defined

phases of the Eureka! Fellowship Program:

• narrowing to a doable research question

• creating instruments

• analyzing data

• preparing for dissemination

Perhaps these phases should have been obvious to us in the beginning but they were not. Perhaps because we had internalized the research process we took it for granted or did not think about the overall steps we would need to follow. In addition to not seeing the obvious steps of the process, we had underestimated how much time would have to be devoted to each phase and how much individual attention each person would need. We regularly received emails asking us to look over an instrument or some raw data. The teachers’ initiative and commitment truly demonstrated how invested they were in the process but we had not envisioned providing this level of individual support.

Interestingly, looking at our data we can see that working as a group on each phase (e.g., analyzing data) and on each person’s project provided support for individuals to work on their own data outside of the formal meeting. Working as a group through each step of the process kept the momentum, reduced anxiety, led to sharing, and helped form the community. In the feedback, teachers noted that having a monthly meeting ensured their research did not get put to the side – knowing they had a monthly meeting made them feel accountable (but in the gentlest way). As facilitators we too were a community; our bonds of friendship and as professional colleagues were strengthened through our involvement in Eureka! Fellowship Program. We recognized

each other’s talents and valued working together. We were in agreement with processes and shared the workload evenly. Our many informal conversations were helpful and seemed to be a way to manage what proved to be a demanding process. Since we are on other research teams together we had many times between Eureka! Fellowship Program meetings to talk together (e.g., informal PD). Two common themes in our discussions were: wanting to help the teachers be successful with their research and to be proud of their work. The shared value -- wanting teachers to conduct quality research -- was a solid foundation; therefore, there was no inclination to retreat when the workload increased or when we faced a hurdle. We wanted the teachers to be proud of their work and to disseminate it to the larger educational community. We never wavered from this commitment.

Over time our Eureka! Fellows became a community. This happened in a number of ways: we made personal connections through informal discussions we had pre-and post our meetings; and each person sharing updates on his/her work during every monthly meeting ensured everyone’s voice was heard. The group meetings were serious and focused yet there was a lot of laughter. Susan French praised our work noting both the rigour of the research being conducted and the sense of community among the group members. She commented, “it is interactive learning par excellence and the members are learning from one another as well as from the expert.”

b. Growing Identity as a Research Community

Over time, it also became apparent that the teachers began to identify themselves as competent researchers.

We began to talk about and interact with each other and the teachers in a way that was establishing us as a research community as opposed to a group of teachers from a school and a group of facilitators from a university. We also interacted with the teachers and invited them to interact with us as authentic researchers. It was through ongoing exchanges with and amongst each other over an extended period of time that we came to identify ourselves this way.

Teachers’ Growing Identities as Researchers

The Eureka! Fellows and the school principal also noted the growing research community. The community-identity seemed to grow out of the regular and ongoing opportunities teachers had to share and learn with us and each other in the monthly meetings. As Pooja commented, “many [teachers] made comments about how they appreciated the collaboration and hearing about their colleagues’ work.” As the teachers became more comfortable with the process - with giving suggestions and feedback to their colleagues, and with being open to learning from us and each other - we also noted shifts in their understanding of themselves as researchers. In the initial meetings, the teachers saw themselves more as tentative researchers; over time, they eventually learned to view themselves as more competent researchers. Their enthusiasm for the research also grew as they became more confident. As Catherine said, “I really had no identity as a researcher before… as I learn more about how to research I am gaining momentum and courage to move forward even if there are mistakes.” What is also encouraging is that many of the teachers reported feeling their classroom practice have been positively influenced

as a result of their participation within the Eureka! Fellowship Program. As Josh said, “I think I have become more reflective of my practice, more thoughtful and self-critical – I’m learning a lot from my peers’ research and practice and then applying it to my own.”

As facilitators, we were particularly pleased to learn that the collaborative group experience was positively impacting the teachers’ understanding of and engagement with research and their individual teaching practice. As Shelley commented:

After hearing Rosemary and Christopher share their research, Garth reflected on his experience of this sharing process by letting us know that he had written an entire page of notes of ideas for his own research based on listening to theirs. It was great to have the value of this [learning with and from each other] reflected back to the group by one of the teachers.

Rosemary, the school principal, shared her perspective on Eureka! Fellowship Program’s influence on her role and on the teachers’ professional growth. She said:

We use the term professional growth frequently but the Eureka! Fellowship Program experience actually makes it real. The group is so collaborative; I am seeing the true power of collaboration as a teacher. Also, further related to professional growth as a teacher, I believe that I am experiencing greater thinking and engagement with the research process and that is changing how we all view our work – [we’re] more analytical, more thoughtful, more collaborative.

c. Building Community and Mutual learning

Focusing on building community was key in developing a strong teacher researcher inquiry group. By the third meeting we were well into discussions on research topics. We began the practice of “checkins” to help the teachers talk about their research. Shelley explained, “We are in the stage of clarifying our research focus, it’s important to spend a lot of time thinking about, conceptualizing and refining. Talking about it often (even briefly) helps us to refine and become more comfortable with our research.” Although this practice was initially meant to help teachers refine their research focus, we felt it helped to cultivate community, and so the “check-in” became a regular practice at the start of each of our meetings.

Approximately six months after Eureka! Fellowship Program began (six meetings), we were still doing check-ins at the beginning of sessions, but noticed that the nature of the check-ins had changed; the teachers were more confident. The questions they were asking were more pointed and focused. Clare, in her monthly reflections commented:

As we went around the group each person reported updates on his/her research but more importantly each person had questions for the group. These questions were focused on their research, which indicated they know where they are going and they anticipated that the group could help them. And everyone did help. So many folks in the group responded to the questions and raised other concerns. This showed: their comfort level in talking about research; their knowledge of research; and their support of their colleague.

Being Transparent

As facilitators, we learned that modeling helped to break down barriers, and in turn contributed to building community. In regards to the research process, all three of us were very honest and transparent. We openly discussed our own research projects including what had worked and what went wrong. For example, in the April 2014 meeting, Pooja shared how she started with an unrealistically broad research focus for her doctoral research. She then explained how she was able to narrow it down to something “doable.” Similarly, in another meeting focused on data analysis, Clare and Pooja presented both the positive and negative experiences they had with NVivo, a qualitative software program. Heather, UTS’ VP, commented, “Clare and Pooja were careful to balance praising the advantages of using Nvivo with pointing out some of the challenges and issues with using it. They were transparent about their own frustrations and struggles, which contributes to a supportive climate in which people are willing to take risks.”

We learned that our transparency and willingness to talk about obstacles in research created space for the teachers to speak about their own challenges. In her reflections, Clare noted:

Honesty is so important. Folks need to hear from researchers about research that did not go well. This shows that we are human and we can console them when they have glitches with their research. Sincerity is essential but not the schmaltzy stuff but real sincerity.

Setting a tone for open and honest discussion led to mutual learning for

all members of Eureka! Fellowship Program including the teachers, administrators, and facilitators (us). As the meetings progressed, the teachers shared their progress including their accomplishments and difficulties. When presenting difficulties, we as a research community worked though possible solutions. For example, Josh, a humanities teacher, presented the group with a problem he was facing with data collection. His survey had unexpectedly gone out to more students than it was intended to. He was unsure how to proceed. As a group, we brainstormed possible next steps (e.g., have the intended students re-do the survey, determine which students were in his class, etc.).

Over time there was significant buy-in from the group. Clare commented after our fourth session, “The participants seem to have a much higher comfort level than they did in January. You can tell from their body language that they are more relaxed about us, the process…I think they know their time will not be wasted.” From the teachers’ surveys we identified a number of other reasons why the teachers’ commitment grew: each teacher’s research was addressed monthly; using the language of research helped them see themselves as researchers; and learning about other disciplines helped them make connections with teachers outside their subject areas.

As the teachers settled into the research process and had “doable” research questions, we wanted to emphasize to the teachers they were doing credible research. However, we struggled to find a way to effectively convey this message. By laying out a timeline for the research projects, with the end point

being knowledge dissemination (e.g., conferences), we sent the message that their research had value. To overcome anxieties of writing, we also discussed the advantages of having each teacher submit a report. Although most liked the idea of the report, several teachers expressed concern about the length. Clare reassured them that they would have plenty to say, and in fact, would have trouble keeping it short. This put many at ease and gave them a boost in confidence; they truly had learned a lot and as a result had plenty to write about. In regards to dissemination, we created a master list of conferences and journals relevant and appropriate for the teacher researchers.

Being Reflective Practitioners

We learned that being reflective was crucial if we wanted to be effective facilitators of a research community. We reflected on our practice in a number of ways: monthly written reflections; informal discussions; and formal meetings. After each meeting one of the facilitators wrote a one to two page written reflection about the monthly meeting. This task would rotate each month among the three facilitators and Heather, the Vice Principal. We also engaged in many informal discussions as a means of reflection. Often, after each meeting, the facilitators would informally de-brief for 15-20 minutes. We discussed what we thought went well and what could be worked on for future meetings. Lastly, we scheduled formal meetings every few months to examine the structure of our meetings and next steps (e.g., applying for AERA, collecting data from participants).

After the first meeting in early 2014, we quickly learned that the teachers’ voices would have to be central to the meetings

if we truly wanted to build a research community. Using the monthly written reflection, Clare outlined her thought process on decision-making during the meeting. She remembered having to make a decision on whether the group should engage in discussion (teachers talking) or review researching tips (facilitators talking). This transparency was helpful to the other facilitators because it provided them a glimpse into Clare’s decision-making process, and guided future practice. An excerpt from Clare’s reflection:

I was torn whether to open up the floor to discuss the video or not. On the one hand it would have been good to get the discussion started to show this will be a discussionoriented group but on the other hand I wanted to give them in-put on research design (helpful hints). With the weather being so nasty I wanted to finish early so I knew that we could not do both. I think it was a good choice to go with in-put than discussion. I did say I would never talk this much at a meeting. MUST be sure to be more discussion-oriented for the next meeting.

After reading the reflection and having an informal discussion on talking time, we became very cognizant of “air-time” during the sessions. We organized our sessions so that the teachers were doing more of the talking. To reflect more formally on our practice, we handed out feedback forms in our June 2014 meeting, the last meeting of the school year. We asked questions such as: How are you feeling about your research study? Regarding our Eureka! Fellowship Program monthly meetings, what worked for you? What would you like us to work on or do next year? (suggestions for

future meetings). We used the responses to better understand teacher’s perceptions of our teacher researcher group, and ways to improve our practice for the following school year.

Learning Through Collaboration

As facilitators, we were constantly collaborating and learning from each other and the group. Clare and Pooja learned about a number of computer programs that they could incorporate into their own practice (e.g. Fort McMoney), while Shelley deepened her understanding of developing a community of inquiry with teachers. Pooja gained greater insight into research practices through the monthly meetings. For example, we had the pleasure of an experienced professor from OISE speak about the coding process. The session was organized to provide the teachers an alternative to using qualitative software (which we had presented the month earlier). Clive, a professor from OISE, presented on how he hand coded transcripts. Not only was this learning for the teachers, Pooja learned a great deal from this session. Listening to Clive’s rationale behind his codes and coding techniques had her reflect on her own coding practices. The facilitators’ collaboration and learning were intertwined throughout each session. Clare commented on the collaborative process during the session with guest speaker,

I really liked the way the four of us interacted – we worked well as a team, building on each other’s responses but in a gentle way. It was not oppressive or arrogant (we know it all) tone rather we talked as a group of researchers. It was obvious to me that we had had these types of conversations among us many, many times. We are used to collaborating as researchers – as equals.

We learned that our effective collaboration was due largely to our similar facilitation approaches. We each valued each other’s opinions, as well as the teachers’. We also “freely chimed in” during discussions to make for organic and stress-free meetings. Shelley commented on this:

I think, however, our ability to be consistent and similar in our

DISCUSSIOn

Looking over our data, we can see that we did not have a clear vision of how the process would unfold for the Eureka! Fellowship Program. Although we had a broad sense of the research cycle, we had not thought through facilitating each phase of research for classroom teachers. Nor had we thought that each step would require different leadership and in-put from us. For example finding a doable research topic was more discussion-oriented while developing instruments required us to share our instruments. As well, analyzing data required us to move beyond our comfort zone (e.g., the admissions process at the school was very unfamiliar to us). From our data, we see that we made adjustments to the processes immediately. Since the three of us had a very good personal and professional relationship we could be very nimble in revising next steps, organizing the next phase, and so on. Without a strong relationship among the facilitators we probably would have had to spend more time negotiating the next steps. Instead, we were on the same “wavelength” and trusted each other. This meant we simply changed tactics without bruised egos or excessive discussion.

approaches if one of us is missing is a testament to our similar approaches due, in part, to our prior work together. For example, having all been a part of Works in Progress (Clare, Pooja, Shelley and Hope), we are comfortable with how to support research agendas in a way that is open, helpful, and that invites and values all comments, suggestions, and feedback from everyone within the group.

Returning to the three forms of professional development we can see that we used all three forms – informal, formal, and community of learning. The teachers talked informally with each other about their research, all attended conferences, and a learning community formed. As facilitators, we had many informal conversations about the group. It could be argued that the insights derived from their research would improve their work. We take the stance that all of the research done improved practice which in turn will improve student learning.

Consistent with Dewey who strongly advocated community as a form of learning, we feel that our Eureka! Fellowship Program group became a community through which a great deal of learning occurred. The teachers learned about research in general and about their colleagues’ topics; they truly owned their projects and were proud of them. The discussion-driven model was appropriate. The community did not form automatically; rather, we had to be intentional about building it and about finding ways for learning to be centrepiece. It was not just a social group or

a community in name as described by Grossman et al. (2001) – the genuine interest and support for each other created bonds that supported learning. Facilitating a teacher research group requires both research knowledge and interpersonal skills. We also learned it was essential for us, as facilitators, to be part of it. Building a research community and taking the teachers through the research process required us to be intentional and systematic in our work with them. As such, we

offered myriad examples and regular and ongoing feedback both within the formal meetings and beyond. Ultimately, we found that by creating a space for discussion, a community of learners was formed. Within this community, the teachers were able to learn not only from us but from each other. As Samaras et al. (2008) have suggested is possible, the Eureka! research community ultimately resulted in an integral and powerful force in learning.

REFEREnCES

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Ballenger, C. (2009). Puzzling moments, teachable moments. NY: Teachers College Press.

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M, Hawkey, K., & Greenwood, A. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. DfES Research Report RR637. University of Bristol. www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/ uploadfiles/RR637.pdf

Bubb, S. & Early, P. (2007) (Second edition). Leading and managing continuing professional development. London: Sage.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11.

Cole, A., & Knowles, J.G. (1998). The self-study of teacher education practices and the reform of teacher education. In M.L. Hamilton, S. Pinnegar, T. Russell, J. Loughran, & V. Laboskey (Eds), Reconceptualizing Teaching Practice: Self-study in Teacher Education (pp. 224-234). London: Falmer Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An introduction to philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier-Macmillan

Earley, P., & Porritt, V. (2010). Effective practices in continuing professional development: Lessons from schools. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Gee, J. P. (2000-2001). Identity as an analytical lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125.

Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Towards a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record 103(6), 942-1012.

Hamilton, M.L., & Pinnegar, S. (1998). Conclusion: The value and the promise of selfstudy. In M. L. Hamilton, S. Pinnegar, T. Russell, J. Loughran, & V. LaBoskey (Eds.), Reconceptualizing Teaching Practice: Self-study in Teacher Education (pp. 234-246). London: Falmer Press.

Hardy, I. (2012). The politics of teacher professional development: Policy, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.

Hubberman, M. (1996). Moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher research. Language Arts, 73(2), 124-140.

Livingston, K., McCall, J., & Morgado, M. (2009). Teacher educators as researchers. In A. Swennen, & M. van der Klink (Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator: Theory and practice for teacher educators (pp. 191 – 203). Dordretcht: Springer Academic Publishers.

Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2005). Professional learning communities: A model for Ontario schools. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/ inspire/research/PLC.pdf

Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage.

Samaras, A., & Freese, A. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. New York: Peter Lang.

Samaras, A., Freese, A., Kosnik C. & Beck, C. (Eds.) (2008). Learning communities in practice. New York: Springer.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Shagoury, R. & Power, B.M. (2012). Living the questions: A guide for teacherresearchers. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Strauss, A. (2003). Qualitative analysis for social scientists (14th Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge: Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

The Eureka! experience: An observer’s perspective

Amy Paradine Director of Academic Programs, University of Toronto Schools

As a non-researcher participant in the first Eureka! project team, I was at times able to act as an observer, and could ruminate on the value of the endeavour. In so doing, I was afforded the opportunity to reflect on my own past experiences, however limited, doing educational research. In looking back, I would describe one personal experience with a major independent research task to be like a child tracing through a paper maze. When I started out I was fairly keen, I had a vague sense of a path ahead that I thought would take me through to the other side -- that final paper that would come of my work. I was hopeful, but had my trepidations. As I progressed though, my clear path became foggy. I hit dead-ends, I retraced my steps, I went in circles. I panicked, I persevered. Then I ran out of steam.

In the end, I didn’t quite make it through the maze -- I never did write that final paper. I was also left with a series of “what ifs”. What if my research question had been better defined? What if my research tools had been more clearly developed? What if other things didn’t get in the way of completing my tasks? What if, what if? The trouble with “what ifs” of course is that we can’t always know whether the thing we are “what if-ing” was really a problem. And without knowing that, I was left feeling unsatisfied and a little disheartened.

As the teacher-researchers in the Eureka! project shared their thoughts and feelings on their experiences throughout the process and as we debriefed at the end, I heard some of the thoughts and feelings I had personally experienced retold by them, but there was a difference: where I ended up with “what ifs”, they made it through their mazes. More importantly, they made it

through with the support of the team. When someone’s energy was flagging, the Eureka! meetings gave them a timeline and target. When someone needed to know where to turn, the group weighed in to provide encouragement and suggestions. This unconditional support was noted by all members of the group as one of the significant keys to the success of the project and of the satisfaction felt by all as the project came to a close.

One of the areas that tripped me up in my own work, and is an area commented on by the Eureka! teacher-researchers, was confidence – or a lack of confidence at the beginning. The initial enthusiasm that led each individual to join the Eureka! project quickly evolved into moments of apprehension about the manageability of such a task while working full time, or unease about lack of experience undertaking such formal research tasks. One teacher-researcher revealed that

the thought, “What have I gotten myself into?” crossed their mind in the early days. Thoughts like these did not derail the teacher-researchers though – they attribute that to the support of the Eureka! group, and in particular of the mentors. For example, throughout the first few meetings, the Eureka! mentors, aided by the rest of the group, worked with the teacher-researchers to help them pare down their ideas and define specific research questions. Another teacherresearcher commented about how this very step in the process instigated a change in their thinking to “this is manageable, I can do this.”

Time to focus on the project was a challenge mentioned by many of the teacher-researchers. And while each individual’s experience was a little different, there were stages throughout the process when the teacherresearchers had to devote a lot of time to the project. In most cases, the teacherresearchers found those blocks of time during the summer months or when school wasn’t in session, but sometimes it meant staying a little later after work to review some data or summarize a possible finding. This challenge to find time would probably not surprise anyone who does research on a regular basis. In debriefing, some teacher-researchers noted how the challenge of time affected their overall experience. For example, one remarked that they felt they might have got more out of the process if they were not also teaching full-time, another highlighted the value of the “healthy pressure” the process put on them to continue moving forward. All that being said, the teacher-researchers overall found that the scheduled meetings and mapped-out process provided the impetus to work on their individual research projects and get the work done.

All of the teacher-researchers found meaning and/or personal value from the work they did with the Eureka! project. In some cases the value they gained was from the research itself, and in other cases, the value gained was from working with the various members of the Eureka! group and beyond. For example, one teacher-researcher noted that it was great to have data to back up their intuitions about the work they had been doing using an alternative teaching approach, and summarized that it is in the findings where you find the most benefit. Another teacher-researcher commented that the nuances and contradictions in student responses to a survey opened up an appreciation of the diversity of learners in the school. Most of the teacher-researchers expressed an appreciation for the opportunity to work with and hear from educators and researchers with other interests and in expertise areas different than their own. The meaning and personal value gained was not limited to the teacherresearchers. The mentors, guides, and non-researching participants like myself, also expressed their appreciation of the process and that it was a “gratifying” and “eye-opening” experience.

Looking back, I have a new “what-if”: What if I was part of a group like Eureka! when I undertook that now abandoned research work? This what-if does not leave me disheartened though. The experiences of my colleagues and my own involvement with the Eureka! project has provided me with knowledge and perspective, and the willingness and desire of the inaugural teacherresearchers to continue working toward improvements in the process and to support the next group of teacherresearchers, has affirmed my belief in the value of the Eureka! project.

An Examination of Admission Profiles and Early Student Success at UTS

Garth Chalmers Head of Foundation Years and Director of Admissions, University of Toronto Schools

I have been an educator for 18 years, most of which has been spent working at The University of Toronto Schools - a school for high achieving students. After 13 years teaching grade 7 - 12 Geography in the classroom, I moved into an administrative role. In this role, as Director of Admissions, I am responsible for all aspects of the admissions process - from recruitment to integration of 140 new students each year. Throughout my career I have been interested in student life, and as an administrator, I have continued to interact with the students on a daily basis in a variety of settings. For example, I coordinate the outdoor education and leadership trips. I coach teams and serve as the staff advisor to a number of student groups and organizations, including Student Council and the School’s Student Ambassadors. During my five years in Administration, my role has evolved and the level of responsibility increased so that I am now the Head of Foundation Years (grades 7 and 8). In my current role, I have been committed to refining the methods for assessing applicants in order to ensure that we admit students who will thrive at UTS. When the opportunity arose through Newton Foundation to systematically study my practice, I felt it was a natural extension of the my commitment to the admission process.

ISSUE ADDRESSED

UTS is a school with a merit-based admission policy, which means that students will be selected based on a rigorous application process. It is my belief that it is vital that we understand how to identify the best candidates for the school based on the combination of test scores, interview and application data provided in the application process. It is not unusual for many of our most successful students to have been selected from the wait pool. Likewise, we know from a look at who

wins various awards of distinction, that the top scoring candidates, are rarely the students identified by staff and peers as the most successful students (the meaning of “successful student” is discussed in more detail below). Therefore, my goal is to gain a deeper understanding of the material in every applicant’s file and to try to identify strong indicators of success so that we may better assess the candidates and make more informed decisions with the limited information available.

OvERARChInG RESEARCh QUESTIOnS

What are the best indicators of future success at UTS, in a student’s application file?

What are the most common characteristics of successful students?

lITERATURE REvIEw

The area of admission to secondary school is not very well represented within the academic research community. While a lot of attention has been given to college and university entrance –both in terms of application process and assessment of candidates, by researchers such as Robert Sternberg (e.g. Sternberg, 2010, College Admissions for the 21st Century), locating published research that focuses on secondary entrance is much harder. That said, the Secondary School Admissions Test Board has embarked on a significant research

Are there any indicators that might draw attention to students who will be less successful?

Can the methodology employed here be used by other academic institutions to identify their best candidates?

project with the goal of creating a test for non-cognitive skills and characteristics (SSATB, 2014a). Building on the work of Carole Dweck, Angela Duckworth and Camille Farrington, SSATB and Educational Testing Service have begun to look at what various secondary schools are doing to try to improve their admission process in order to best identify candidates (SSATB, 2014b).

Recent studies have shown the importance of character skills, such as grit, empathy and teamwork. The

evidence suggests these are as important to a student’s success at school, as cognitive ability or skills (Poropat, 2009; Salgado & Tauriz, 2012). Therefore, it seems reasonable to think that some of the learning skills, or non-cognitive skills, identified through various components of each student’s application may help improve the selection process.

There have been some interesting studies that look at behaviour patterns in youth and then correlate those to career success later. One such study was conducted by Segel as part of a PhD dissertation. The research explored behaviour patterns in young men in grade 8 and how those behaviours correlated with later labour market success and earnings (Segel, 2013). The research found that misbehaviour was more important than test scores in later success.

Other research has found that certain character traits will predict life outcomes, including divorce rates, mortality and occupational attainment (Roberts et. al. 2007). It is as a result of this type of research that admissions offices at both the middle/secondary level and university level have begun to look for methods of assessing applicants that go beyond test scores. Petway II et. al. (2015) refer to a number of studies that post secondary institutions completed that look at different ways of acknowledging non-cognitive factors. These include using non-cognitive situational judgement tests, resume data, measures of creativity, situational judgement and personality measures to name a few. It is clear that interest in this area is growing.

Petway II et.al. go on to describe a variety of non-cognitive tools and instruments being employed by K-12

admissions offices in an effort to improve their candidate selection process and outcomes. One school has been administering Angela Duckworth’s Grit Survey, while others have developed their own tools. Generally these seem to fall into two main categories, written assessments and observational assessments. Grigorenko et.al. (2009) identified the importance of considering certain aspects of self-regulated learning including self-efficacy, motivation and locus of control.

Phillips Academy partnered directly with Sternberg to develop a tool to develop a different approach in order to address the growing concern that numbers, such as test scores, were driving decision making more and more, and the “gut” component of admission needed numbers, too (O’Neill Grace, 2011). Phillips Academy worked with Sternberg to redesign rubrics for entrance tests in order to better differentiate candidates.

On the observational side, a number of schools are using various group sessions to observe the candidates, and score them on their control of impulses, problem solving, leadership and ability to work with others (Petway II, 2015). University of Toronto Schools has begun using the Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) technique, pioneered by McMaster University’s Medical School. In this process, students participate in an interview that involves a number of question stations. At each station, the participant responds to a task or question with one interviewer. The candidate is given a score for each station and the scores are tallied. The goal is to reduce bias in the interview process while at the same time get a wider perspective on the student’s abilities and strengths, as identified by

6 or more individuals (Chalmers, 2015). Research by the team at McMaster has found that the MMI is effective at identifying important non-academic strengths that test scores cannot (Eva, et.al. 2012).

As the literature suggests, there is growing interest in alternative measures of a student’s skills and characteristics. The central goal seems to be to employ

more than academic test scores to differentiate strong candidates. It is important to identify which of the character traits are predictive of future success. In the research conducted here, much attention was paid to the qualitative comments by former teachers, in the hopes of identifying some of those non-academic characteristics that may predict future success at UTS.

METhODOlOGy Introduction

This study has involved both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. The data used was collected as part of each student’s application file. As part of their application, each student was required to write the Secondary School Admission Test, a UTS admission test including an English and Math assessment, participate in an interview (MMI format), provide copies of their most recent June report card and their most recent progress report card, and complete a student profile.

Teacher Survey

In order to identify students for the study, the grade 7 (F1) teachers were surveyed at the end of the students’ first year at UTS (F1). The survey itself contained a variety of questions and is included in Appendix A. It included anecdotal comments as well as quantifiable statistics. The teachers were asked to define the term “success” and to then identify 4 – 7 students in their grade 7 classes whom they believed were the most successful, and 4 – 7 students whom they believed were least successful. The collection and analysis of these survey results generated a list of

the five most successful and seven least successful students in the grade.

The teacher definitions of success were also analysed and coded. This made it possible to identify the main components of success, as identified by the teaching staff.

Last, the comments provided by the teachers about each of the students they identified were reviewed and analyzed to look for commonalities between students.

Student Application File

Once the most and least successful students were identified, their admissions files were collected for further analysis. The goal was to identify components of the file that could be used to create a quantifiable statistical analysis of potential indicators of success for grade 7 students at UTS.

Through the reading and interpretation of the various components of the admissions file, the report cards were identified as the best source of information about the students. Because the data contained in reports cards is largely anecdotal, the comments on the reports was coded and recorded.

Coding of Data

Analysis of report card comments required the information to be coded. Initially a set of potential learning skill or character trait classifications were identified. These included common educational terms such as participation, organization, focus, communication to name a few. As the reports were read, additional classifications were added. A complete list is displayed in Figure 1. Each individual comment was

Positive Comments

+work habits

+collaboration

+organization

+locus of control

+initiative

+independence

+intellect

+motivation

+responsibility

+focus

+attention to detail

+confidence/risk taking

+participation

+leadership

+maturity

+communication

+problem solving

Analysis of the Coded Data

The coded report card data was compiled and analyzed through a histogram representation as well as observations. Likewise, the descriptions and definitions of success identified by the teachers were coded for further analysis. Finally, the comments made by the teachers were also coded, in a similar manner as those of the report cards.

The report card data was coded based on a number of categories. Appendix

assigned a classification and identified as being either positive or negative, in regards to the characteristic or skill. For example, “needs to participate more often” would have been classified as a negative-participation comment (e.g. -participation). Once all the report cards were read and analysed, each classification was counted and logged in a table. The most common positive and negative comments were noted and included in further analysis.

negative Comments

- work habits

-collaboration

-organization

-locus of control

-initiative

-independence

-intellect

-motivation

-responsibility

-focus

-attention to detail

-confidence/risk taking

-participation

B presents a list of the most common coding categories and an example of a comment for each.

Analysis of all three sets of data reveal that a number of characteristics identified by the grade 5 and 6 teachers, contributed to, and were noted by, the UTS teachers in grade 7. This reinforces the importance of these characteristics. Likewise, the definition of success, as generated by the UTS teacher comments, also demonstrate the importance of certain characteristics.

Figure 1: List of comments categories identified through the coding process.

Concept of Success

Teachers have a variety of ideas about what success looks like. The results of the coding exercise revealed that the teachers favour a definition that focuses most on themes such as engagement and work habits; positive relationships; risk taking; growth or improvement; and executive skills. The following represents the best definition of success for a student at UTS, according to the teachers:

Success is defined as a student who is engaged by the course, as exemplified by her work habits; a student who has developed positive relationships, as exemplified by her ability to collaborate, and work with others; a student who feels comfortable taking risks; who has the executive skills required to maintain an organized course portfolio and stays on top of expected work; and, a student who shows growth in her learning.

Comparison of Scores versus success

Analysis of the students’ admissions scores demonstrated that scores alone cannot differentiate the students. Figure 3 displays a comparison of the average scores received by the students identified as very successful and those identified as less successful. Essentially there is no difference between their SSAT scores, which are used as the first benchmark for determining which students to invite for further testing and interview. There are small differences in the averages of both the math and English scores, with the more successful students receiving scores that are on average approximately 10% higher than the less successful applicants. The interview scores are

Figure 2 is a histogram representing the occurrence of themes or terms in the definitions of success provided by the teachers.

Figure 2: occurrence of themes and terms in teacher definitions of success

identical, therefore this section of the UTS testing did not differentiate the students. Likewise, the averages of the SSAT scores are virtually the same with the successful group scoring 2006 and the unsuccessful group scoring 2007.

Possibly the most notable observation of the data relates to gender. Though not a large sample, it is interesting to note that boys make up a greater portion of the students identified as unsuccessful, while girls make up the greater portion of students identified as successful. This likely points to the stage of development of the students in this study. Typically girls are described as having stronger executive skills than boys in the middle grades. A program like UTS is rigourous both in terms of the level of academic work and study, but also in terms of the number of courses and different teachers the students must manage. Therefore, it would not be surprising to find that students with weaker executive skills, would have more trouble in the program.

Comparison of Frequency of Positive and Negative Comments

An analysis of the data reveals a number of interesting findings. Perhaps the most interesting is the direct comparison of the frequency of certain types of report comments. As Figure 4 displays, there are some factors that appear to contribute to a student’s level of success in F1 more than others. Likewise, certain negative comments appear to be indicative of a student who will struggle to be successful in her/his first year at UTS in the Foundation 1 program. The most successful students have few or no negative comments on their report cards in grades 5 and 6. Conversely the least successful students have many negative comments on their grade 5 and 6 report cards as well as positive comments. A closer look reveals some other important details. Successful students have many positive comments that fall into the following categories:

- work habits

- collaboration

Figure 3: Comparison of admissions scores for students identified as successful and less successful.

- intellect

-responsibility

The least successful students have many negative comments in the following categories:

- collaboration

- focus

- responsibility

- attention to detail

Interestingly, positive comments for intellect were almost equally high for both successful and unsuccessful students. In other words, there is no question that all of the students are quite bright, but certain strengths and areas for growth, beyond

intellect will impact how successful they are in their first year at UTS.

Perhaps one of the most notable observations is the importance of responsibility for successful students. Not only is the frequency of positive comments about responsibility highest of all category of comment, students who are least successful have almost no positive comments about their level of responsibility. In contrast, the least successful students presented the greatest number of negative comments in the category related to collaboration, while none of the most successful students received any

Figure 4: Histogram comparing the frequency of certain types of comments on students’ grade 5 and 6 reports. A ‘+’ before the term indicates a positive comment and a ‘-’ indicates a negative comment.

negative comments about their ability to collaborate. Taking it one step further, positive comments about collaboration is one of the more frequent comments for the most successful students. The indication is that students who exhibit strong collaboration skills and high levels of responsibility are likely to

be successful at UTS in Foundation 1. Students who struggle to collaborate with others, or at least do not demonstrate strong collaboration skills, will find it more difficult to be successful in their first year. All of this despite the fact that all of the kids have been identified as having a high level of intellect.

There are a number of important conclusions and inferences that can be drawn from the results. Possibly the most significant is that scores alone do not tell the whole story and in fact, other data, such as report card comments can have predictive power when considering which students will be most successful. The fact that the entrance score averages for both groups were so close suggests that UTS is admitting students that fit into a very small portion of the population. These high achieving, bright young students are difficult to differentiate based just on their academic success. However, the report card comments seem to offer some clear differentiation. Students who receive very positive comments are much more likely to possess the needed learning skills that are required to be successful in their first year. Strong collaboration skills, good work habits, good attention to detail and a high level of responsibility are all important contributors. Students who have a little more trouble in these same areas, especially collaboration, focus and attention to detail are more likely to be described as less successful. This leads to a second important conclusion: the teachers do not only consider academic

success, or grades, as important indicators of success, but they also include many of the learning skills in their assessment of a student’s relative success in Foundation 1 (grade 7).

These conclusions are helpful not only to the admission committee that reviews the files and offers admission, but also to the school’s academic team. Offering support to students who have struggled with executive functioning and collaboration in elementary school, will help increase their level of success in the middle grades, and could help them transition to UTS better.

A final conclusion focuses on the nature of this research. The value of a thorough review of the admission process is possible, and other schools may want to complete a similar investigation of their admission process. Every school is going to have students who are deemed more or less successful in relative terms, but by identifying some of the characteristics of those students, a school can then proceed to either refine the admission process, or better prepare to support the students it does admit.

REFlECTIOn On ThIS InITIATIvE

This research has provided an excellent set of insights into the application data provided through the UTS application process. If this research is to be repeated, and likely it should be at some specific intervals, then there are some important considerations. First, the survey should be collected in digital form, using Google Forms, Survey Monkey or other tool. This will expedite the data compilation process. In addition, the survey must be completed by a greater number of teachers so that the dataset is more complete. The next iteration of this research might involve additional data such as the student’s average for the year and a closer look at their entrance testing.

The results of this investigation will have a significant impact on the discussions conducted during the admission meeting

at UTS. The most specific benefit will be the ability to look more closely at report comments and make recommendations based on empirical evidence. Though this research has only looked at the most successful and least successful students, the admissions committee will be able to make many informed recommendations based on the types of comments provided by each student’s elementary teacher.

I would like to thank Newton Foundation for its support of this research. I also must thank Susan French, Rosemary Evans and Clare Kosnick for their help and guidance through the research process. Last, thank you to all the members of the Eureka! research group. The sessions were inspirational and provided me with the skills and motivation to move this research forward.

Teacher’s Name:

Course(s) Taught:

1. Success can be defined many ways. From your perspective, please define what success means to you, for an F1 student (in their first year). You are welcome to use point form.

2. To what extent do you think your views of “successful” are consistent with the ways students view being successful?

Not at all somewhat a fair amount a great deal totally in sync

3. To what extent do you think your views of “successful” are consistent with the ways parents view being successful?

Not at all somewhat a fair amount a great deal totally in sync

4. To what extent do you think your views of “successful” are consistent with the ways other teachers at UTS view being successful?

Not at all somewhat a fair amount a great deal totally in sync

5. For each F1 section you teach, please identify the top 3-5 most successful students. From your perspective please identify why they have been successful. For example, academic ability, level of engagement, attitude, parental involvement, and interest in course content may be reasons why they have been successful. Do NOT feel limited to my suggestions for the reasons why these students have been successful. The reasons why they have been successful may vary widely.

6. For each F1 section you teach, please identify the top 3-5 least successful students. From your perspective please identify why they have had limited success. For example, academic ability, level of engagement, attitude, immaturity, insufficient background knowledge, social issues, personal problems, and health problems may be reasons why they have been successful. Do NOT feel limited to my suggestions for the reasons why these students have had limited success. The reasons why they had limited success may vary widely.

(if you teach more than one section, please feel free to add lines to the table)

APPEnDIx B - CODInG CATEGORIES AnD SAMPlES FOR

learning Skill or Characteristic

Example of positive statement

Work habits is working hard; approaches each assignment with enthusiasm and interest

Collaboration works well with other; is a leader in small groups;

Organization consistently brings work on time;

Intellect Confident and original thinker; continues to do well; shown excellent knowledge;

Responsibility is reflective and works toward improvement; completed all class work

Maturity shows great maturity while working with others in class; approaches school with wisdom and maturity;

Example of negative statement

Collaboration needs to continue to self-monitor when working with others; usually contributes his fair share to groups;

Organization needs to improve time management; infrequently hands in work

Responsibility encouraged to ask for help; needs frequent reminders to complete work

Focus needs to work on understanding the difference between class disruption and participation; needs to listen more attentively

Attention to detail needs to make corrections to repeated errors; encouraged to re-check work

Confidence/Risk taking is hesitant to try something new; finds challenges difficult to face

Participation is disruptive during class discussions; needs to try harder to make positive contributions to class

REFEREnCES

Chalmers, G. (2015). Admission Process. www.utschools.ca/admissions

Eva, K.W., Reiter, H.I., Rosenfeld, J., Trinh, K., Wood, T.J., Norman, G. R., (2012). Association Between a Medical School Admission Process Using the Multiple Miniinterview and National Licensing Examination Scores. Journal of American Medicine, Vol 308, No. 21.

Grigorenko, E. L., Jarvin, L., Diffley III, R., Goodyear, J., Shanahan, E. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Are SSATS and GPA enough? A theory-based approach to predicting academic success in secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 964–981. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/101/4/964/

SSATB, 2014a, Think Tank on the Future of Assessment. Found at http://www.admission. org/who-we-are/thinktank/thinktankreport14/index.aspx

SSATB, 2014b, Non-Cog Summit. http://www.utschools.ca/uploads/Admissions/Press_ Release_SSAT_NonCogSummit_Fall2014.pdf

Farrington, Camille, 2013. Teaching Adolescents to Become Leaders: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping Performance. https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/ files/publications/Noncognitive%20Report.pdf

O’Neill Grace, C. (2011). Measuring what matters: Robert Sternberg's enlightened approach to admissions testing. Independent School. Retrieved online from http://enews.andover.edu/newsletter/cmm/documents/061011/MesuringWhatMattersIndependentSchoolMagArticle.pdf

Petway II, K. T., Coppola, E. C., Brenneman, M. W., Martin, J. E. and Kyllonen, P.C. (2015). Assessing Noncognitive Skills for High School and Middle School Admissions: Review and Recommendations. Educational Testing Services.

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345. http://pps.sagepub.com/content/2/4/313.full

Salgado, J. F., & Táuriz, G. (2012). The Five-Factor Model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 3–30. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.716198

Segal, C. (2013). Misbehavior, Education, and Labor Market Outcomes. The Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(4), 743–779. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1111/jeea.12025/abstract

Sternberg, R., 2010. College Admissions for the 21st Century. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.

Exploring the Use of the Fort McMoney Documentary-Game in Grade 9 Geography Classrooms

Mike Farley Teacher and Department Coordinator of Canadian and World Studies, University of Toronto Schools

The docu-game Fort McMoney, unlike any research assignment, gives the player a HUGE variety of perspectives, and we can see the full spectrum of the socio-economic impact of the oil sands. Talking to the homeless in Fort McMurray provides an opinion that is just as rich and useful as interviewing the mayor.

- Student survey response

PERSOnAl InTRODUCTIOn

I would like to thank the Newton Foundation for its generous support of this research. In the late 90s I graduated from the University of Toronto with an Honours degree in International Development Studies. I subsequently earned a B.Ed from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE/UT). I have been teaching middle and high school Geography and Social Studies for 14 years in the Toronto District School Board and currently at University of Toronto Schools (UTS). UTS is a university

A COnTExT FOR My RESEARCh

preparatory school, grades 7 through 12, affiliated with the University of Toronto. I have been using digital games with my classes for over ten years and in 2013 founded ChangeGamer, an organization comprised of teachers and academics who are passionate about game-based learning (www.changegamer.ca). I am a frequent presenter at conferences in Canada and the United States and a number of my game-related and non game-related activities have been published in a variety of sources.

I liked the element of endlessness that came with playing Fort McMoney and how you felt like you had never explored enough, that there was a whole world hidden by one decision.

- Student survey response

A little over ten years ago I stumbled across a game called PAX Warrior that put you in the shoes of General Romeo Dallaire in the months leading

up to the Rwandan genocide. The thought of using a digital game in class had never occurred to me, but I was teaching a Grade 12 World Issues

course and it seemed like a good fit. I was overwhelmed by the response from the students - even the most habitually disengaged students dove in wholeheartedly. Not only were the students on task, but they also displayed a tremendous depth of understanding of the complexity of the various forces and factors that led to the genocide. I have never looked back, having subsequently incorporated about 40 digital games into my Grades 7-12 Social Studies and Geography classes. Anecdotally I have witnessed the power of gamebased learning firsthand and time and time again - unparalleled engagement combined with solid learning about very complex issues such as climate change, natural disaster relief, economic disparity, and Middle East politics. The best games I have used usually immerse the students into the thick of an issue, where they often find themselves as key decision-makers under very difficult circumstances.

My understanding of the research about game-based learning has been quite limited which was one of the main reasons I wanted to carry out my own study. I decided to investigate Grade 9 students’ experience of playing the documentary-game ‘Fort McMoney’ which takes players into the hearts and minds of the residents of the oil sands boomtown Fort McMurray in Alberta (www.fortmcmoney.com). Students take

on the role of a reporter writing a story about the oil sands, and have the ability to explore 22 locations and interview up to 55 people. The game weaves together almost ten hours of documentary footage and game mechanics - the end result is a “choose your own adventure” journey in which players get to meet and interview real people from a wide range of backgrounds and beliefs.

My overarching research question was, “what do students learn from playing Fort McMoney, and how might their beliefs about the oil sands change as a result?” The debate about the oil sands project has been fiercely polarizing at a national and global level, usually boiling down to an argument of economics versus the environment (on the one hand they contribute a lot to Canada’s wealth, while on the other they also create a tremendous amount of pollution, such as carbon dioxide emissions). More specifically, what I wanted to find out from my study was if the game Fort McMoney could help high school students develop more nuanced and informed perspectives about the oil sands that included many of the local issues that are often left out of the discussion (e.g. homelessness, addiction, gender). I believe that this study can serve as a small, but not insignificant, addition to the growing body of gamebased learning research.

lITERATURE REvIEw

As noted by Kenneth Ginsburg (2007), play is an important element for healthy childhood development, including learning. Games provide opportunities for play through simulated environments, and can be an important part of learning and intellectual development (Ke, 2009). Games provide us with opportunities to think, understand, prepare, and execute actions (Gee, 2003).

Digital games, perhaps more than any other learning innovation, combine “motivation, engagement, adaptivity, simulation, collaboration, and data collection that can’t be achieved at scale any other way” (McClarty, et al., 2012, p. 22).

In his book ‘The Game Believes in You’, Greg Toppo (2015) writes that:

Games...have a little something for everyone. For the...student-centred, games scratch an essential itch, sucking kids into a deep stream of engagement and teaching them to think, negotiate, imagine, and problem-solve….For the skills-andassessment type, games scratch and equally essential itch: they frontload massive amounts of content, offer focused and efficient drill-andpractice, build on prior knowledge, strengthen grit, and, at the end of the day, deliver a personalized performance data stream that would make the most hard-assed psychometrician smile (p. 7).

-Sid

My focus for the past 10 years has been on the use of ‘social impact games’ with students. Social impact games aim to teach and possibly change attitudes about pressing complex local and global issues. A number of studies have been carried out to investigate the effectiveness of specific social impact games. For example, a study by Alhabash and Wise (2012) focused on the game PeaceMaker in which “people play the role of the Palestinian president or the Israeli prime minister and respond to various scenarios through diplomatic, economic, and military decision-making” (p. 356). One finding of the study was that “participants, before playing PeaceMaker, expressed higher favorability toward Israelis than Palestinians” but after playing the role of the Palestinian president “reported positive changes in explicit attitudes toward Palestinians”. Another study by Dana Ruggiero (2014) looked at the effect of playing the game Spent, a game about surviving poverty and homelessness in a major U.S. city. The study found that playing the game “significantly increased the affective learning score” of students in terms of their attitudes towards homeless people (p. 3423). Another study undertaken in Brazil focused on the game Stop Disasters which aims to teach about how different kinds of disasters, such as earthquakes and floods, impact communities (Felicio, et al., 2014). The study found that “the children who played the [game] significantly changed their perception of the risks faced” (p. 590).

A good video game is a series of interesting choices.

Meier

METhODOlOGy

I conducted pre- and post-game surveys with just over 100 Grade 9 Geography students at University of Toronto Schools (the entire Grade 9 class). There were approximately an equal number of males and females, with about 3% of respondents identifying as “Other”. Approximately 90% of the students were 14 years old, while about 7% were 15 and 3% were 13.

Students were not provided with any background material about the Alberta oil sands development project prior to the survey. The surveys contained both quantitative and qualitative questions. Students completed the pre-game online survey anonymously in class, and were then given three 75-minute periods over the course of two weeks to play Fort McMoney (many students also played additional hours at home). They

FInDInG 1 – FIRST IMPRESSIOnS

then completed the post-game online survey anonymously at the beginning of the fourth period.

The pre-survey included background questions about the students such as their age, gender, and frequency of playing digital games. Both the preand post-surveys contained identical questions that asked the students to gauge their understanding of key economic, environmental, political, social and demographic issues related to the oil sands (for ‘before and after’ comparisons). Both surveys also asked students to rate their overall stance on the oil sands and to provide a brief justification. In addition, the postsurvey gave students the opportunity to rate the effectiveness of Fort McMoney and to make suggestions to improve the game.

Before playing the simulation, I really did not know anything about the social aspect of Fort McMurray. I think that in a lot of ways it resembles my own community - on the surface, it looks nice, the community centres are large and luxurious, and the houses are big. But, deeper below the surface, there are people struggling on the streets trying to make a living as the gap between rich and poor widens.

-Student survey response

As stated previously, I wanted to find out if Fort McMoney would help students see that the issues related to the oil sands go far beyond the usual ‘environment versus the economy’ debate. These pre- and post-survey word clouds seem to suggest that the game is successful in this regard. While the pre-survey responses (see Figure 1) are heavily dominated by words such as “Alberta”, “money”, “dirty”, “economy”,

“pollution”, and “environment”, the post-survey responses (see Figure 2) include many of these words but we also see a high frequency of responses such as “drugs”, “alcohol”, “homeless”, “corruption”, and “opportunity”. Other words and phrases such as “mistreatment of women”, “Aboriginal”, and “health problems” also appear in the post-survey while they do not appear in the pre-survey.

One of the first questions the students were asked in both surveys was, “what word, phrase, or image comes to mind when you hear the term ‘oil sands’?”.

Here are the results displayed in word cloud formats (the size of the word is proportional to the frequency it appears in the responses):

Figure 1: Pre-Survey responses to the question “What word, phrase, or image comes to mind when you hear the term ‘oil sands’?”

Figure 2: Post-Survey responses to the question “What word, phrase, or image comes to mind when you hear the term ‘oil sands’?”

FInDInG 1 – FIRST IMPRESSIOnS

I didn’t realize the huge impact that the oil industry had on the cities and towns near it -- not only economically, but socially. The homelessness, the glut of people applying for positions, and the addiction problems...were all completely new for me.

-Student survey response

I also wanted to gauge student learning in a number of areas - again, not merely focusing on the obvious national/global environmental and economic implications, but expanding to include topics such as the local

demographics, social issues, and politics (note: students could rate their understanding on five-point scale with 1 meaning “no knowledge at all” and 5 meaning a “very strong understanding”).

I observed differences in the student’s ratings of their general understanding of the oil sands between the pre and post surveys (see Figure 3). For example, In the pre-survey, only 19% of the students rated their overall understanding of the

oil sands as a 4 or 5 out of 5 whereas in the post-survey, about two thirds (67%) rated their understanding as a 4 or 5. Overall, the average response for the pre-survey was 2.5 and 3.7 for the post-survey.

Figure 3: General overview of the oil sands

Overall Understanding of the Oil Sands

Economic Impacts of the Oil Sands (National and Local)

Figure 4: Economic impact on Canada

Figure 5: Economic impact on Fort McMurray and surrounding region

The students reported differences in their understanding of the economic impact of the oil sands before and after playing Fort McMoney. At the national level, for example, 23% of the students rated their understanding as a 4 or 5 out of 5 in the pre-survey, while 63% rated their understanding as a 4 or 5 in the post-survey (see Figure 4).

At the local level, however, the results are starker (see Figure 5). With regards to their understanding of the local economic impact on Fort McMurray, in the presurvey, only 6% of the students rated their understanding as a 4 or 5 out of 5 whereas in the post-survey, 82% rated their understanding as a 4 or 5. The average for the pre-survey was 1.6, while the average for the post-survey was 4.1.

Environmental Impacts of the Oil Sands (Global/National and Local)

As with the economic impacts, I observed a more stark difference in the pre- and post-surveys for the students’ understanding of the local environmental impacts compared to the national/global environmental effects on climate change. For example, for the pre-survey question focusing on the oil sands’ effect on global climate change, 8% of the students rated their understanding as a 5, while 11% of the students rated their understanding as a 5 for the post-survey (see Figure 6). The

average response for the pre-survey was 2.4, while the average was 3.3 for the post-survey.

For the question focusing on the local environmental impacts of the oil sands, however, only 5% of the students rated their understanding as a 5 in pre-survey, while 25% gave themselves the same rating for the post-survey (see Figure 7). The average response for the pre-survey was 2.2, while the average was 3.7 for the post-survey.

Figure 6: Impact on climate change

Local Level Social Impacts, Demographics, and Politics

Figure 7: Environmental impact on Fort McMurray and surrounding region

Figure 8: Social impact on Fort McMurray and surrounding region

I observed some of the most interesting differences between the pre- and postsurveys in the answers related to questions dealing with the local level social impacts, demographics, and politics. For example, for the comprehension of the local social impacts less than 1% of the students gave themselves a 5 in the pre-survey, while 41% gave themselves a 5 for the postsurvey (see Figure 8). The pre-survey average was 1.6, while the post-survey average was 4.2.

For the understanding of the demographics of Fort McMurray and the

surrounding region only 5% of the students gave themselves a 4 or 5 in the pre-survey, while 71% scored themselves a 4 or 5 for the post-survey (see Figure 9). The pre-survey average was 1.4, and the postsurvey average was 3.8.

Finally, for the local politics of Fort McMurray 9% of the students rated their comprehension as a 4 or 5, while 52% gave themselves a 4 or 5 for the post-survey (see Figure 10). The average for the pre-survey was 1.6 and the average for the post-survey average was 3.5.

Figure 9: Demographics of Fort McMurray and surrounding region

FInDInG 3 - nOT A BlACk AnD whITE ISSUE

I learned that the world, especially when it comes to controversial topics like oil, is not black and white. The oil sands are covered in a blankets of grey... there are pros, there are cons, and they are lacking in transparency. Many are divided on whether the oil sands are a blessing or a curse and nobody’s really sure what to do with them.

-Student survey response

A key part of my investigation was to determine if Fort McMoney would influence students’ attitudes toward the oil sands (pro, con, or neutral). I simply asked students to choose a statement that best described their stance on the oil sands (all things considered). I wasn’t concerned if the game would sway them one way or another, rather I was simply looking to see if there was some type of shift.

The data in Figures 11 and 12 reveal some interesting insights. While over a

third of the students (36%) stated that prior to playing Fort McMoney they “did not know enough about [the oil sands] to have an opinion”, less than 2% stated the same after the game. Perhaps the more important observation is that almost 85% of the students responded with one of the more moderate opinions (“Overall against them, but realize there are some benefits”, “Overall in favour, but realize there are some negative effects”, or “Neutral because the pros and cons balance each other out”). If the game was heavily biased, we might expect to

Figure 10: Politics related to the oil sands and Fort McMurray

see higher numbers in the post-survey for either of the extreme pro or con positions (“Strongly against them” or “Strongly in favour of them” ). This is further highlighted in the short written responses students provided to justify their stances (whether ultimately pro, con or neutral). Responses from the post-survey such as the following were not uncommon:

Neutral: “I think that the oil sands are important for Canada’s economy and they do bring in a lot of much needed money. However they have caused lots of problems: environmental and social which this game really highlights. Either way, I’m glad I was able to learn about this and be able to form an educated opinion.”

Mainly against: “Although the oil sands development in Alberta contributes to a

large part of Canadian GDP, its effects socially and environmentally outweigh this. Not only that, but the oil sands also affect the economy locally, like driving the cost of living up and bringing inflation. Finally, there is a problem of homelessness, alcoholism, and drug abuse tied with the boomtown nature the oil sands bring.”

Mainly in favour: “Although I do realize that there are some environmental aspects about Fort McMurray, there are also many benefits to the economy. Through the game I learned how Albertans rely on the revenue from the oil sands, and how badly impacted they would be if the oil sands were to shut down. Many jobs would be lost, and the economy would take a huge blow.”

Figure 11: Stance on the oil sands before playing Fort McMoney

Figure 12: Stance on the oil sands after playing Fort McMoney

FInDInG 4 - STUDEnT CRITIQUE OF ThE GAME

With something like a documentary, I feel like everything is pushed at me, and I can’t really absorb all the information, and I don’t feel like I’m actually there. With something like Fort McMoney, I can look around, watch screens, go to museums, and talk with homeless people. I think the reason it feels more authentic is because it forces you to interact and engage with the material, rather than just sitting back and letting the images wash over you.

-Student survey response

A key part of the post-survey gave the students a chance to voi ce their opinions of Fort McMoney:

Figure 13: The effectiveness of Fort McMoney in educating about the oil sands

Figure 14: Likelihood of students to recommend using Fort McMoney for future Gr.9 Geo classes

As shown in Figures 13 and 14, overall the student response to Fort McMoney was quite positive. The students gave it an average of 4.1 out of 5 in terms of its effectiveness in educating about the oil sands (see Figure 13), and an average of 4.0 out of 5 in terms of whether or not they would recommend using the game in the course next year (see Figure 14). Many students noted that they liked the element of choice in the game, and that they felt in charge of their own learning. Various permutations of the following quotes were frequent in the post-survey:

“I liked the way that the choices fall to the player instead of some pre-written program. This really helps immerse the players and keep them interested.”

“[Fort McMoney] provided a lot more insight than a conventional textbook, and it was so much more interactive. The quality of the game was outstanding, and extremely effective as a simulation.”

Another common theme in the student critiques of the game was its lack of bias. Although most students pointed out that no

COnClUSIOn

At the outset of this study I aimed to answer: “what do students learn from playing Fort McMoney, and how might their beliefs about the oil sands change as a result?”

In answer to the first part of this question (student learning), students self-identified significant increases in their understanding of the oil sands in a variety of areas. Not only did they show gains in their

resource was completely free of bias, they felt that Fort McMoney struck a pretty good balance. For example, one student stated:

“I really liked how you could interview people from both sides of the oil sands: those who supported them, and those who didn’t. This gave me an overall perspective of the oil sands, which then allowed me to form my own opinion about them.”

Students, however, also pointed out a number of aspects that they did not like about Fort McMoney. A common critique was that the Dashboard interface was overly confusing and glitchy (for example, many students noted that the Dashboard did not accurately keep track of their achievements in the game, such as the number of places they had visited, the people they had interviewed, and the items they had collected). Many students also felt that the game was too long and dragged at times. A few students felt it was unnecessary to have footage they considered to be adult-oriented. Although this footage was brief, they felt that at a minimum an advisory should warn players about this.

understanding of more publicized issues such as the effect of the oil sands on the national economy and global climate change, but they also noted even greater learning with regards to more local issues such as the economics, pollution, social issues, politics and demographics of Fort McMurray and the surrounding area.

With regards to the second part of my research question (change in beliefs), the

debate about the oil sands is one of the most polarizing issues in Canada and beyond. It is a prime example of many of the complex and messy topics we explore in the study of Geography at the high school level in Ontario. Rarely in class do we come across an issue where there is an absolute “right” or “wrong” answer or solution for these very challenging issues. One of my main goals as a Geography teacher is to help students see and weigh multiple perspectives and opinions. I want students to dig deep, far beyond the sound bytes and hyperbole. From what I have discovered in my research study, the docugame Fort McMoney helps to achieve this goal. For example, after playing the game

ACknOwlEDGEMEnTS

The past year working on this research study has been very rich. I feel like I have just dipped my big toe in the fields of teacher-led and game-based learning research. I am looking forward to engaging in more research moving forward.

Of course, none of my research would have been possible without a large number of people who assisted me along the way. I would like to sincerely thank the Newton Foundation for providing the Eureka! funding for this research study. I am also indebted to the skillful facilitators of the Eureka! program:

● Clare Kosnik, Pooja Dharamshi, Shelley Murphy, Elizabeth Rosales (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto)

● Rosemary Evans, Heather Henricks, Amy Paradine (University of Toronto Schools)

I would also like to thank my fellow Eureka! researchers who were not only a huge

almost 85% of the students had adopted a more moderate opinion on the oil sands (meaning that they took a stance that acknowledged both the pros and cons). In addition, over a third of the students (36%) stated that prior to playing Fort McMoney they “did not know enough about [the oil sands] to have an opinion”, while less than 2% stated the same after playing the game.

Finally, students seemed to like the game, overall. The students gave it an average of 4.1 out of 5 in terms of its effectiveness in educating about the oil sands, and an average of 4.0 out of 5 in terms of whether or not they would recommend using the game in the course next year.

support, but are some of the best teaching colleagues one could ever hope for:

● Garth Chalmers, Christopher Federico, Josh Fullan, and Catherine Wachter

My external advisor, Sarah Chu, has been instrumental in keeping me on the right track. Sarah is a Ph.D. candidate in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she does research in the field of games and learning.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the insightful Grade 9 students at University of Toronto Schools - their eager willingness to participate in this research study has been invaluable.

Finally, I would like to thank the National Film Board and David Dufresne, the creator of Fort McMoney, for this powerful addition to the field of gamebased learning.

REFEREnCES

Alhabash, S. and Wise, K. (2015). PeaceMaker: Changing Students’ Attitudes Toward Palestinians and Israelis Through Video Game Play. International Journal of Communication.

Felicio, et al. (2014). Stop Disasters Game Experiment with Elementary School Students in Rio de Janeiro: Building Safety Culture. (pp.585-591). Proceedings of the 11th International ISCRAM Conference.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1–4.

Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119, 182–191.

Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In R. E. Furdig GAMING IN EDUCATION 29 (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (pp. 1–32), New York: IGI Global.

McClarty, et al. (2012). A Literature Review of Gaming in Education. Pearson.

Ruggiero, D. (2014). Spent: Changing Students’ Affective Learning Toward Homelessness Through Persuasive Video Game Play. (pp.3423-3432). CHI ‘14 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Toppo, G. (2015) The Game Believes in You: How Digital Play Can Make Our Kids Smarter. St. Martin’s Press.

Maximum City

Josh Fullan Founder and Director, Maximum City Outreach Coordinator, University of Toronto Schools

I am an educator and public consultant with over 10 years teaching experience at a variety of levels and over 5 years of experience as a consultant, facilitator, and engagement specialist. My educational social enterprise, Maximum City, has been recognized locally and internationally as a model for bringing civic literacy, urbanism, and sustainability education to youth. I have worked as a public consultant and strategic advisor on policy, urban design, and education projects for governments, schools and organizations, specializing in reaching underserved and under-engaged populations through innovative consultation and engagement methods.

RESEARCh QUESTIOn

Primary: What is the impact of Maximum City curriculum on students?

Secondary: How is it different from the typical classroom experience?

ExECUTIvE SUMMARy OF FInDInGS

• Students reported an increased knowledge of the subject of cities and city planning at the completion of Maximum City curriculum modules.

• Students reported a high level of interest and engagement in Maximum City learning activities.

• The preferred ways of learning for Maximum City students were working by oneself, going on a field trip, and working on a group project.

• Students most liked the hands-on, collaborative nature of activities; tackling interesting problems that were relevant to their daily lives;

and the feeling of empowerment of being treated like adults in real-world scenarios.

• Student least liked the lack of background information or resources provided in certain learning activities, and the lack of sufficient time provided in class to complete projects.

• There was a strong current of empathy in student responses expressing an increased capacity of being able to imagine how other people live in cities.

• Students enjoyed the novelty of Maximum City content and teaching methods compared to their other courses.

COnTExT

In 2008, I started teaching at the University of Toronto Schools (UTS), a powerhouse of an independent school for high-achieving middle and high schoolers on the University of Toronto campus. At the time it was a terrific school filled with bright, lively students with a talented, dedicated staff delivering an excellent program, and I was excited to work in this environment—but something was missing. The thing I really wanted to teach wasn’t being offered at UTS. In fact, it wasn’t being offered anywhere at the middle or high

school level in Ontario. I wanted to teach about cities, about architecture, transit, sustainability, smart technology intensification, urban design—all of it. For a couple of years at UTS, I found ways to formally or informally work urban content into my classes, including student-led neighbourhood walking tours inspired by the late urban thinker Jane Jacobs and guest speakers from the world of urbanism. Then in 2010 I asked my principal if I could use a classroom for a week in August to run a pilot program for students interested in learning about

cities in a more purposeful way, a mini summer course in how cities work and are built. The program ran for the first time in August of 2011 for thirty students from two different schools, and I received a small grant to keep the cost down for students. I hired a team of experts in different urban fields to do the teaching and carefully recorded everything they said along with everything the students did and produced, then spent the next six months turning all of this into lesson plans, exemplars and curriculum content. The pedagogical approach was not simply to teach students about cities but to have students solve problems that they identified in the urban environment around them.

The one-week summer pilot program, called Maximum City, has since grown

into a leading educational social enterprise with over two hundred hours of expert-generated content in a range of urban topics from sustainability to smart technology. The programs and curriculum have reached thousands of students in southern Ontario and worldwide through summer camps, videos, curriculum units, and lesson plans taught in various subject areas at the middle, high school, and university levels. Members of the Maximum City team and I have taught the content in a broad spectrum of contexts, from high school geography classes to university architecture courses to college business classes. I am sometimes surprised, though shouldn’t be at this point, by the relevance and number of applications urbanism has as a topic in classrooms, labs and lecture halls.

Maximum City students collaborate on the Transit Mapping Task

why TEACh CITIES?

There is a new imperative for what we teach our children in the 21st century, and cities hold the key. More people live in cities and towns now than in any moment in history, and that statement will continue to hold true with each

urgency by the students currently in our kindergartens, elementary, middle and high schools. If we expect this generation and the generations after it to take meaningful part in the solving of these problems, if we hope to give them

1. United Nations, “World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision,” March 2012.

solvers in the present by teaching and engaging students now in the subject of cities, and reap the benefits after. While increasing urbanization is the most obvious reason for the need to study cities at every level of schooling, a richer, more nuanced approach is required with students. Cities are a subject that will be new to most students outside of specialized Geography, Planning, Engineering or Architecture programs, and the point of entry must be relevant and engaging to all students at any level or setting. Demographic data may compel researchers and academics, but should be used strategically with students as a starting point upon which to build a narrative with a learning purpose. One way to frame the problem for students, as above, is to tell them that the greatest challenge of their time will be how to live together sustainability in an increasingly urbanizing world. But this is essentially a motherhood statement, bland and impossible to disagree with, and therefore not much use to a teacher looking to stimulate thought and engagement in a critical issue. Try this in a classroom and you are likely to get a few nods and many blank stares. The real question for educators, the question to pose to students, is—why does urbanization matter and what are we going to do about it?

Below is an illustrative example Maximum City uses when addressing Toronto area students in an opening lesson on urbanization:

In the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), we live in a region that will add more than 2 million people in the next couple of decades,2 largely through immigration.

In other words, by the time you are fully in adulthood, there will about 9 million, or 50 per cent more, people in our region. The good news is that a lot of people want to live here; the bad news is we have to update and provide services for all of these people. Imagine an activity you took part in this week that relies on municipal services—riding a bus, visiting a park or a community centre, using water. Now imagine yourself as an adult with 50 per cent more people using those services. So if there were a 100 people on your bus this morning, picture it with 150 people while you are commuting to work or taking your kids to school in 20 years. Imagine 100 more elbows digging for space or 100 more feet to avoid tripping over, 50 more smartphones operating. What happens to the experience of your bus ride? Can your bus even function with 50 more people? Do you think the city can handle this population increase and its demands? Are we prepared for this?

The above may be a blunt extrapolation of the data but the story works as an engagement tool and starting point for students. It gets students thinking about the real consequences of places that must absorb more and more people and provide for them, which will be true not just of Toronto but of many urban centres worldwide. Students see themselves navigating this complex and crowded future urban world, and get excited and a little scared by what it means to their futures. The illustrative example might be different in different cities or towns with different pressures, but the concept is the same. Make the urban problem real and authentic, relate it to students’ own experience as inhabitants of a place, and engagement follows.

2. Ministry of Finance, “Ontario Population Projections Update: 2012-2036,” Spring 2013.

In Belleville, a town of fifty thousand in southern Ontario where I was part of team working on a downtown revitalization project, I framed the problem for a group of business students this way:

The city is spending $20 million to revivify downtown. How are you going to convince people, especially young people, that this new and improved downtown is worth going to to spend money and time, and to live in? How will you market it to them? Because without people, the new downtown will fail and the city will have wasted a lot of public money.

As with the GTA bus-riding example, the stakes are high and the problem is one that they can see and touch in their immediate urban environment. It forces them to consider the challenges and opportunities of a new kind of urban life in the future. The secret when looking

hOw TO TEACh CITIES?

In March 2014, I was part of a team that organized a conference at the University of Toronto Schools called School in the City/City in the School, which looked at the role schools play in citybuilding, and how cities can inform what is taught in schools. In the afternoon session we had students and educators from all over the region participate in a design challenge to build a better school, but we started the day hearing from expert panelists and speakers, including teachers, a university president, and a dean of architecture. One of the panelists was Catherine Vlasov, then a grade 11 student, who spoke of her learning experience in the Maximum City curriculum units or modules, and how

for a hook to engage students with in the topic of urbanism is to not look very far. Look outside the classroom window, look at the immediate school surroundings, look at their daily commutes, the city stuff they do every day.

The above answers the why teaching about cities matters and how to best engage students in the topic but doesn’t address the more critical what are we going to do it about question, which is where the real excitement and potential for deep learning starts. It is one thing to get students to talk about a regional mobility crisis with overcrowded buses or a new downtown fueled by public investment, but how to do you get them to dig into the problem and come up with solutions? It is not simply enough to teach new and innovative content; it must be taught in a way that is transformative and impactful.

they provided a learning opportunity that was different from her usual experience in the classroom. Below is an excerpt from Catherine’s talk, which was delivered as articulately as any of the panelists and experts:

For me, the value of each [Maximum City] module came from the fact that we had a hands-on activity for each one. For example, in the cycling module, we learned about bike lanes. Let’s imagine that cycling is being taught in a normal class at school to students, of which some are half-asleep, others are hungry, and some are simply not paying attention. This is the way I see it. If the curriculum and teaching methods

remain the way they are now, the teacher will show the students an image of a street without bike lanes, one with narrow bike lanes, one with wide bike lanes, and one with separated bike lanes and proceed to ask the students how they would feel biking down each of those streets. Likely, a few attentive students will answer the question, the class will be tested on the pros and cons of each bike lane the next week and the class will move on to a new topic. However, if a more advanced and relevant teaching style was used, the lesson would be carried out like it was at Maximum City. We were shown a quick PowerPoint about bike safety with a few pictures and then we were taken out on a bike ride around the downtown core on streets with all the different types of bike lanes that I mentioned earlier. After that experience, there would be no need for students to be asked questions or be tested, it would be almost impossible for them not to have learned the pros and cons of each type of bike lane.

Learning by doing is not a new concept, but it is an essential piece of the strategy on how to best teach cities to students. You simply cannot get the impact and

deep learning without a skill-building, hands-on component after the initial knowledge delivery stage. This applies to cycling and to every topic taught in the Maximum City urbanism curriculum. The best way to teach about parks is to first have a landscape architect talk to the students about park design, look at some local examples of things that work and don’t work well, then finally have students design a park using a real live site for their project. The materials can be as advanced as 3-D foam core models, or as basic as Popsicle sticks and cardboard. What matters is that students try to solve the real problem in an authentic and collaborative way given specific criteria. Catherine says it best when she concludes with, “There would be no need for students to be asked questions or be tested, it would be almost impossible for them not to have learned.”

There are two fundamental principles to this approach: use the city as a classroom (both figuratively and literally), and have students collaborate on real-world urban problems in their local environment. The below research report tries to capture the impact on students and learning of these two guiding principles.

lITERATURE REvIEw - ThE nEw URBAn PEDAGOGIES

Since this is an emerging field of research, there is not much background literature analyzing the teaching of new urbanism content in innovative and hands-on ways to middle and high school students (For the purposes of this report and elsewhere, I am calling this approach the New Urban Pedagogies). There are, however, a few key books on the topic of the role of youth in

urbanization and citybuilding, along with the importance of engaging youth in participatory design practices. Below is a selection of the key background texts to consider, highlighted by an important passage from each.

1. Louise Chawla, Ed., Growing Up in an Urbanising World , 2002, UNESCO Publishing

The criteria by which young people evaluate their local environments form important indicators for several reasons. Children’s happiness is a good in itself, to be prized in the moment. A further benefit is that through satisfying experiences in the public realm, children have opportunities to grow into new roles and competencies. In the long term, the experiences of childhood form a foundation for the ‘habits of the heart’ of adulthood, in the sense of people’s accustomed relationships to their community, public life and public space. (221)

should happen, when they should happen, and where they should happen. A meaningful programme of child and youth participation requires a network of adults who have the power to implement change in the local area, are willing to engage young people in reaching consensus on what needs to be done, and are committed to using their power (ideally, assisted by young people) to make it happen. (37)

Adults run the world. They hold the power to determine what changes

Remember, public space is yours. You have every right to get pissed off about sold space, ugly space, unused space and wasted space. But ownership comes with responsibility, and that means doing something when you see a problem. (69)

2. David Driskell, Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth, 2002, UNESCO Publishing

3. Hadley Dyer and Marc Ngui, Watch This Space, 2010, Kids Can Press

Allow someone younger than you to become your advisor on hopes and dreams, and let those aspirations become inspirations for learning environments. (197)

Articles Authored or Co-Authored by Maximum City

Maximum City has authored or coauthored a number of articles on its educational principles and practices. Below is of selection of these, highlighted by some key quotes. Maximum City was also invited in April 2015 to present at a Toronto TEDx event entitled City as Laboratory, which brought together practitioners at the university and high school level to speak on the New Urban Pedagogies (an emerging practice of teaching students at various levels about cities in hands-on and authentic ways).

1. Josh Fullan, Pedestrian City, Green Teacher #96, July 2012

Walking is the most basic mode of urban transportation we all share, a phenomenon aptly described by architect Jan Gehl in the 2011 film Urbanized: “Cultural circumstances may differ, economic circumstances may differ, climatic circumstances may differ, but basically we are the same little walking animal.” Walking is also critical to sustainable urban design since neighbourhoods that prioritize pedestrian use make for economically, environmentally, and socially vital places. These factors make a study of walking an obvious jumping-off point for an authentic discussion of sustainable urban transportation and

design at the middle or secondary school level. (8)

2. Josh Fullan and John Lorinc, How To Make Civics Class Matter To Kids, Toronto Star, September 8,

Let’s reshape civics to focus on the communities and cities where our students live and learn, specifically, the municipal issues that make — or break — their neighbourhoods: transit, parks, community design, architecture, public spaces, streetscapes, cycling, walking, social inclusion and so on.

With school resuming this week, one way to begin a conversation about civic empathy is to tackle it at the most basic level: how do people from different income levels manage household budgets in Toronto? It seems like a promising way to unpack these questions. After all, most teens think about money. They may have allowances or part-time jobs. They want to buy things, and go out with their friends. They may even do some rudimentary budgeting. So why not ask them to figure out how families in Toronto make ends meet?

Existing Research on Maximum City

Maximum City has been the subject on some existing academic research. Below are a few examples, highlighted by a quote.

4. OWP/P Architects, VS Furniture, and Bruce Mau Design, The Third Teacher, 2010, Abrams

2013

3. Josh Fullan and John Lorinc, Learning What Income Inequality Really Looks Like, Toronto Star, August 31, 2014

1. Evan Perlman, Education on Urban Planning Issues, Ryerson University, 2011

Education is a key tool in a bringing about change to a particular issue, as it is not merely about the regimen of absorbing knowledge but is also part of a process that shapes one’s identity and character (Castree, 2005). Teachers can therefore do a better job in instructing today’s youth about urban issues - whose consequences will greatly impact the lives of the upcoming current generation. (3)

METhODOlOGy

My research conducted pre and post surveys with 3 classes of Grade 8 students studying Maximum City curriculum modules at various points throughout the school year in their Grade 8 Geography course, which met 2-3 times per week for 74 minutes at the University of Toronto Schools. The pre surveys were conducted in October of 2014 using Survey Monkey and the post surveys were conducted in April of 2015 using Google Forms . The classes were comprised of 70 students, 42 female and 28 male. I was the classroom teacher for 1 class and Rebecca Levere was the teacher for the other 2.

Students were asked both qualitative and quantitative questions in order to determine what and how students learned best during Maximum City learning activities, and the post survey results sought to measure the impact of the curriculum on their academic and daily lives. For Question 3 of the post survey, students were asked to think about what they studied in Maximum

‘TOcore’ Downtown Planning Project, York University, 2015

Research also shows us that planning and designing communities with children will have far more benefits than solely planning for them (e.g. Chawla, 2009; Ergler & Kearns, 2013; Malone, 2013; Percy-Smith & Burns, 2013). Participatory planning with young people is a valuable method of community engagement that incorporates the often marginalized voices of children and youth into urban planning initiatives. (8)

City and provide words that described what they thought the course content was about. Below is word cloud of their responses, which reveals a strong theme of the role of social justice in cities :

2. Ildiko Kovacs, Child Friendly Toronto: Engaging Children and Youth in the

Quantitative Questions and Findings

Questions 4-7 of the post survey were quantitative in nature and sought to measure levels of student engagement and learning, and how students learned best in the various Maximum City learning activities. Student responses should a high level of interest and engagement in the course material and activities, as shown in the charts below:

rating of 2.85 with 83% of students rating their knowledge as low (1 or 2) or middle (3). The post survey in April 2015 repeated the same question to gauge any difference in terms of how students selfreported their knowledge of the subject after 6 months of various Maximum City learning activities. The results, with an average rating of 3.6, show that students self-reported a greater knowledge of the subject of cities and city planning as shown in the chart below:

In Question 4 of the Pre Survey, students were asked to rate from 1-5 their knowledge of the subject of the cities and city planning at the outset of the Maximum City learning activities in October 2014. This resulting in average

Question 7 asked which ways students to rank from 1-5 the ways they learned best. The preferred ways of learning for Maximum City students were working by oneself (average ranking 2.7), going on a field trip (2.99), and working on a group project (3.01).

Qualitative Questions and Findings

Questions 8-22 were mostly qualitative in nature. These questions sought student feedback on the four major units and assessments in the Maximum City curriculum: The Transit Mapping Task; The Household Budgeting Activity; The Downtown Project (Mr. Fullan’s class only), and Child Poverty in Toronto (Ms Levere’s class only).

In response to questions about what students like most about the Maximum City learning activities, students most commonly reported that the exercises were interesting, authentic and resonated with their daily lives in the way other school exercises did not. In response to questions about what the students liked least, students commonly reported that they would benefit from more background resources, direct instruction and time.

Below are examples of the most common kinds of quotes under 5 bolded subheadings..

1. Maximum City content was relevant and relatable. This is important because it makes students more eager to engage in the curriculum:

2. Students enjoyed the hands-on nature of the Maximum City projects. This is important since the curriculum is meant to have a strong kinesthetic component and engage different kinds of learners and skills.

“I enjoyed planning something physical in my own city.”

“It’s cool and collaborative and hands-on.”

“I liked the way it was very hands on. I did not know anything about the TTC and would always just wonder why our TTC isn’t better. Now after this assignment I know why there is a Scarborough LRT not a subway and so on.”

3. Students reported appreciating the feeling of empowerment that tackling

normally wouldn’t be given to the judgement of a 13 year old.”

“[I liked] the ability to change something that I am affected by in my life.”

“It teaches us how to think like adults, and makes us aware of the problems we will face in adulthood, which is what going to school and learning is really about!”

“I liked how they made us feel like we were adults making decisions. It gave us a sense of reality and how important it is to budget, while also the responsibilities and worries of an adult.”

4. In response to what they like the least, students most commonly reported the following gaps in the curriculum and teaching methodology: not enough background information

and resources given by teacher; not enough time provided in class to work on projects; not enough student knowledge of TTC and Toronto geography. This is an opportunity to improve the initial design and delivery of the Maximum City curriculum.

“I would have preferred to have more information provided. I found myself wading through the Internet a lot trying to find relevant information.”

“Not enough resources provided.”

“I found that we didn’t get enough time.”

“I really enjoyed the project and can’t think of too many changes I’d implement. However, I’d say that allocating more class time for the completion of the

project would be my greatest concern/ area for improvement.”

“It was really hard for me to do this task, as I did not frequently use the TTC, and therefore my friends had to explain to me where the TTC was constantly crowded, how it feels to be in a crowded TTC thing.”

5. There was also a strong current of empathy running through many of the student responses, particularly regarding the Household Budgeting Activity. This relates to one of the primary dual goals of the Maximum City curriculum: building civic empathy and literacy.

“Creating a family and seeing how we would live on $20 000 a year. It was interesting to imagine myself in a situation where I would have to sustain a family on such little money, and I realized that people go through this for their entire lives.”

“I enjoyed that it gave me new perspectives. The transit mapping gave me a sense of what it’s like to build the TTC, and made me not hate it as much. The Household Budgeting gave me perspective of what it’s like to live in a family in Toronto.”

“It taught me a lot about different points of view of the problem of poverty.”

At the end of the post survey, students were asked what they thought the top 3 issues facing Toronto. Below is a word cloud of their responses, which again reveals a strong concern with social justice.

6. Students found the Maximum City approach distinctly different from other courses and enjoyed the novelty. This finding helps to answer the secondary research questions about how Maximum City differs from the typical classroom experience.

“It was very different than other things I had learned in geography before so I learned a lot.”

“I liked the freedom, way greater freedom of what to work on than other courses.”

“I thought that all of the things we did were interesting projects as opposed to making us write essays or something along those lines. I also really enjoyed the trip to the Distillery District/Regent Park/Corktown Commons. I thought it was very fun but also really educational. I think I learned a lot at Regent Park.”

COnClUSIOn AnD RECOMMEnDATIOnS

Two questions were asked at the outset of this research project: What is the impact of Maximum City curriculum on students? And how is it different from the typical classroom experience? The qualitative and quantitative data support that students are eager to study the subject of cities and city planning in new and authentic ways that engage their problem-solving and collaboration skills but point to important ways in which the curriculum can be enhanced or improved for maximum impact. The major findings of the research can be summarized in the following executive summary:

• Students reported an increased knowledge of the subject of cities and city planning at the completion of Maximum City curriculum modules.

• Students reported a high level of interest and engagement in Maximum City learning activities.

• The preferred ways of learning for Maximum City students were working by oneself, going on a field trip, and working on a group project.

• Students most liked the hands-on, collaborative nature of activities; tackling interesting problems that were relevant to their daily lives; and the feeling of empowerment of being treated like adults in real-world scenarios.

• Student least liked the lack of background information or resources provided in certain learning activities, and the lack of sufficient time provided in class to complete projects.

• There was a strong current of empathy in student responses expressing an increased capacity of being able to imagine how other people live in cities.

• Students enjoyed the novelty of Maximum City content and teaching methods compared to their other courses.

These findings speak to the fact that students are impacted by interest, engagement, empowerment, and novelty throughout the Maximum City learning activities, and to an opportunity to develop additional resources and time to support deeper student learning. The major recommendations resulting from this research can be summarized in the following:

• Continue to teach and promote the teaching of urban issues in hands-on, authentic and novel ways.

• Continue to empower students to solve real-world problems and treat them as equal and important stakeholders in those problems.

• Continue to present problems in an open-ended, student-driven way.

• Continue to use city as classroom.

• Provide more resources for students at the outset of learning activities.

• Provide more direct instruction for students with different levels of existing knowledge.

• Provide for more scaffolding and clear steps for particular kinds of learners.

• Provide more support for crafts components of learning activities.

• Provide more time in class for completion of activities, both alone and in groups.

• Provide more opportunities for field trips and on-site learning activities.

• Incorporate more social justice and empathy content into learning activities.

There is both a clear appetite and compelling need to teach students about cities in the 21st century. More importantly, schools must engage students in the process of designing and redesigning their urban environments to make them stewards

of the increasingly urban world they inhabit. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the generous support of Newton Foundation and the collective wisdom of the Eureka! Team at the University of Toronto Schools, along with my colleague Rebecca Levere.

Self-Reporting of Most Significant Change by Teachers and Students Employing Integrative Thinking in a Classroom Setting

Christopher Federico Academic Administrator, University of Toronto Schools

I am indebted to Newton Foundation for its generous support of this project. I have been an educator for the past 18 years, working with students and teachers from the elementary to post-secondary levels in separate, public, and independent schools. Currently, I hold the positions of Director of Problem-Based Learning and Academic Administrator responsible for Curriculum Design and Implementation, Research, and Partnerships at the University of Toronto Schools and serve as a Fellow of I-Think Initiative at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.1 In all of these roles, my work has become increasingly focused on the professional learning of preand, especially, in-service teachers. My academic background, and thus my teaching field, comprises an eclectic mix of history, geography, economics, political science, war studies, leadership, and public policy. While the content of these disciplines is certainly disparate, what links them in my mind is their common emphasis on the solving of complex problems, asking how they have been solved, how they might be, or both.

There are many dimensions to my fascination with problem-solving. As a leader I am in the first instance interested in understanding how individuals and groups do and ought to go about solving problems—especially “wicked” problems—in a world where doing so is becoming more and more important, but where we remain cognitively constrained by linear ways of thinking and a focus on yes-or-no answers. As an educator I am interested in understanding how best to teach problem-solving, which means determining not only the best ways to teach students to solve problems, but also the best ways to help teachers to teach (with) problems, and how classrooms and outcomes change when that is done. Put another way, there is no doubt that we are increasingly placing a premium on creativity in both the ‘real world’ and in education, but we are still unsure how that creativity is to be developed or how it might best be put to use. I am in pursuit of answers to both these questions.

1. The I-Think Initiative is a small cell within the Rotman School of Management that teaches and supports the application of Integrative Thinking in K-12 education.

SCOPE OF ThE RESEARCh

This project explored the outcomes associated with the use of Integrative Thinking by students and teachers in K-12 classrooms. Developed by Roger Martin, former long-time Dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, Integrative Thinking itself is a particular approach to solving complex or wicked problems, specifically those in which problem-solvers are torn between two opposing models of a solution, each one promising a distinct set of benefits and costs. Based on Martin’s research into the reasoning of successful leaders in a number of fields of endeavour, remarkable innovations can result when individuals are able “to face constructively the tension of opposing ideas and, instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generate a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new idea that contains elements of the opposing ideas but is superior to each” (Martin, 2007a, p. 15). The promise of Integrative Thinking, therefore, is that it allows problem-solvers to develop new and innovative solutions which offer greater benefits and fewer drawbacks than could have been achieved had they simply made a choice of one existing option over another.

The approach comprises both an affective and a cognitive component. That is, the application of Integrative Thinking relies upon the capacity of the problem-solver to combine a mindset or ‘stance’ with respect to the possibility of innovation and change in a complex world with the understanding of a process for thinking through ill-

structured problems in order to develop better solutions (Martin and Austen, 1999). This fact raises a number of questions for those endeavouring to teach Integrative Thinking, especially with respect to how and in what order these each might be taught and how one might assess the impact of that teaching on the student. The current approach to teaching Integrative Thinking in the K-12 space is to focus more heavily on the tools and processes with the belief that the building of capacity and confidence in the cognitive domain will lead to, or at least support, the development of the desired stance.

In that context, my overarching research question is:

• What are the most significant behavioural and affective changes reported by those who have participated in training in Integrative Thinking and are applying it in a K-12 classroom setting?

with the following sub-questions:

• To what extent do the reported outcomes align with the intended or expected outcomes of Integrative Thinking?

• Are there patterns in these responses and to what extent do these patterns vary based on context (e.g. respondent age or developmental level; student v. teacher)?

• What implications are there for revisions to the content or methodology for teaching Integrative Thinking?

lITERATURE REvIEw - ThE nEw URBAn PEDAGOGIES

Although there is a small body of writing by Roger Martin and others at Rotman on the ideas and practice of Integrative Thinking, there is exceedingly little published on the teaching of the approach beyond what has been developed internally at the Rotman School of Management, and to my knowledge as yet no other formal inquiry into the outcomes. Earlier publications on the subject (Martin and Austen, 1999; Martin, 2002; 2007b; Martin and Moldoveanu, 2007), and indeed early instruction at Rotman, tended to focus on identifying and labelling the thought patterns of individuals whose successful resolution of complex problems had led them to be identified as ‘natural’ Integrative Thinkers and then reverse engineering those patterns into either specific components of stance or stages in a generalized problem-solving process. While it was held that both the stance and the process could be learned (Martin 2002; 2007) it remained unclear how it could be taught beyond simply providing examples and exhorting students to follow them, rather like asking someone to become a painter or a pianist by simply observing other painters or pianists at work and then experimenting for themselves (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009).

It was not until relatively recently that surveys of the characteristics of the Integrative solutions themselves (Riel and Martin, 2012) led to the observation that there exist a relatively small number of ‘pathways’ or heuristics that may be used in coming to answers to complex problems involving undesirable trade-offs. These ideas and others gleaned in part

from the experience of endeavouring to teach Integrative Thinking to university students and business executives were incorporated into a subsequent article suggesting refinements to the approach and areas for further study (Riel and Martin, 2014).

There is a single article (Avishai, 2013) which describes the experience of one group of secondary school students who participated in a course on Integrative Thinking and then applied it to a realworld problem in their school. It provides what is certainly the most detailed overview of the teaching of the process and how it might be applied by those who have recently learned to use it. The article does offer some insight into the student experience, “I learned I don’t have to sacrifice one option for another,” (Avishai, 2013, p. 1/6) for example, but does so in the context of how use of the process can produce better outputs in the classroom (i.e. more divergent thinking and more innovative solutions) rather than focusing specifically on the behavioural or affective outcomes from a student perspective.

In light of the foregoing, what we were ultimately interested in uncovering was simply the extent to which our teaching of Integrative Thinking was actually helping people to become Integrative Thinkers. In other domains, such questions are often easier to answer because there are clear, testable, criteria for making that determination. Prior to this research such criteria did not exist for Integrative Thinking; thus, before we could go about measuring the effects of our teaching, we had to first determine what the measurements would be.

Determining the Indicators

The final set of indicators used in the study was developed in a three-way collaboration along with Ellie Avishai, then Director of the I-Think Initiative, and Job Rutgers, Professor of Interaction Design at OCAD University. Our initial step was to generate a list of key attributes of Integrative Thinkers along with draft definitions and observable behaviours that we expected would be exhibited by an individual who possessed that trait. With that as our starting point, we worked to refine that list, eliminating traits which were superfluous, redundant or overly specific, and reworking or subdividing those which were vague or overbroad. The result was a set of 16 indicative cognitive or affective traits and their definitions along with sample indicative behaviours and quotations which we then intended to validate with a larger group of teachers of Integrative Thinking.

That validation process was conducted as a series of interviews with members of the I-Think Team, Rotman faculty (including Roger Martin himself) and others involved in the teaching of Integrative Thinking. As an aid to communication and understanding, a “trading card” was produced for each trait, including a verbal statement of the trait itself, a definition, and a representative image. Interviewees were given a number of prompts which required them to think aloud while arranging and sorting the cards in different ways. In total 10 of these initial interviews were conducted; in several of these, the interviewees noted that some of the indicators we had chosen were not necessarily unique or important to

Integrative Thinking, although they might be preconditions to or by-products of successful practice of the approach. At the same time, it was identified that there was some degree of both overlap and causation among the indicators and that some pruning of the indicators was likely possible. Given that the focus of the research was to be on the changes reported by those newly exposed to Integrative Thinking it was decided nonetheless to retain these in our coding options at this point, leveraging the findings of this preliminary research for further refinement of the indicators. On the basis of these feedback sessions, the list was again revised with the addition of two new indicators, leaving us with a list of 18 (Table 1) with which to move forward, confident that we would be looking for the right things.

Gathering and Coding the Data

Data was gathered through a total of 40 open-ended interviews following the Most Significant Change (MSC) technique. This method was pioneered in the field of development studies and first used to evaluate the success of a social development programme in Bangladesh in 1996, but its use has since been expanded to many other fields of evaluation and performance measurement (Dart and Davies, 2003; Davies and Dart, 2005). The technique was appealing to us as researchers for a number of reasons. First, the personal story-telling approach followed by MSC meshed closely with the emphasis on stakeholder voice that is an essential element of Integrative Thinking. Second, because our interviewees would come from a number of different

Indicator Definition

Displays Cognitive Flexibility

Switches easily between thinking about two different concepts or ideas, or considers multiple concepts simultaneously. Makes Thinking Explicit Clearly expresses one’s own thinking and where it came from.

Explores Others’ Thinking

Actively seeks out the perspectives and points of view of others.

Iterates and Experiments Willing and able to revise and/or refine own ideas. Persistently revises work until satisfied with the outcome.

Seeks Multiple Pathways Finds ways to overcome obstacles that would otherwise be a roadblock. Suggests multiple ways to complete a task, challenge, or thought to others.

Embraces Tension

Embraces the idea that there is value in tension created by conflicting perspectives.

Wades into Complexity Tackles a challenge even when details are messy, the answer is ambiguous, or the question is not readily seen at the start. Seeks out interconnectedness between factors of a problem.

Forges New Connections

Synthesizes separate elements in order to form a new coherent idea.

Thinks through Models Understands that people (including themselves) think in limited models of the world and do not see all of reality.

Explores Playfully Able to explore and do things for the sheer delight of doing them.

Perseveres Has the self-discipline to see tasks through to completion despite meeting difficulties along the way.

Thinks about Thinking Has an awareness and understanding of own thinking processes.

Self-Reflects Adapts behaviours based on analysis of own past actions and their outcomes. Understands own motivations, values, fears, etc.

Takes Risks/Displays Creative Confidence Undertakes the unfamiliar.

Displays Empathy

Recognizes and understands the feelings and motivations of others.

Self-Motivates Undertakes and persists in a task for personal satisfaction.

Prototypes New Answers Designs tests and seeks feedback on new ideas before implementing them.

Builds on the Ideas of Others2 Sees value in work done by others and incorporates their new ideas into own thinking. Provides thoughtful feedback to others and works to develop solutions through collaboration.

2. Displays Creative Confidence, Prototypes New Answers, and Builds on the Ideas of Others were added as a result of feedback we received during the validation interviews.

developmental levels, from middle school student to vice-principal, it was important that the structure of our interviews be able to accommodate different levels of conceptual understanding and language use without requiring us to develop multiple versions of the assessment instrument. Third, because the interviewees are given the freedom to describe the changes that are of greatest significance to them, we avoid the problem of unintentionally “nudging” them to report on changes that might seem important to us. Finally, and related to the last point, the scope offered by the open-ended question means that there was a greater range and richness of answers possible than we might have anticipated or that we might have been able to elicit had we prepared more specific, closed-ended questions (Davies and Dart, 2005). In this case, the question posed to all the interviewees was “What is the most significant change that has occurred for you as a result of your use of Integrative Thinking?”

The interviews were conducted oneon-one with subjects by a member of the I-Think team. In each case, the interviewers were paired with subjects with whom they had not worked closely in the past so as to again avoid the problem of interviewers unintentionally nudging or filling in gaps in the stories. The final cohort of interviewees for this study comprised six middle school students whose teacher had used Integrative Thinking techniques in the classroom; 24 senior high-school students from three different classes whose teachers had explicitly taught the Integrative Thinking process with support from members of

the I-Think team and from a summer programme delivered directly by I-Think; and 10 K-12 teachers who had been trained in Integrative Thinking and had since applied it in their classrooms. The interviews, which ranged in length from roughly 10 to 25 minutes depending on the subject, were recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Those transcripts were then coded by scanning the interviewees’ MSC stories for passages describing a change in behaviours or attitudes consistent with one or more of the indicators discussed above. In many of their responses, interviewees described multiple significant changes, in which case all were captured. In total, the 40 interviews yielded 159 coded entries.3

Findings

Figure 1 shows the breakdown of responses based on the raw number of interviewees whose responses described a change in each particular indicator group. Figure 2 shows the same data by percentage of total interviewees. Immediately obvious in this data is the fact that no passages were identified as describing a change in the Perseveres or Self-Motivates indicators; this is consistent with the consensus of the team that they were neither unique nor particularly important aspects of Integrative Thinking. Of the remaining 16 indicators, five were represented in the responses of 35% or more of interviewees; these were, in descending order: Explores Others’ Thinking, Thinks about Thinking, Seeks Multiple Pathways, Takes Risks/Displays Creative Confidence, and Thinks through Models.

3. A single quotation was counted as multiple entries if it was determined to be describing multiple indicators. Conversely if an interview contained multiple passages describing the same indicator it was counted only once.

Figure 1: Total Coded Responses by Indicator

Figure 2: Coded Responses by Percentage of Total Interviewees.

Figure 3 shows the breakdown of responses by the percentage of each group that described a change in a given indicator. Here is it interesting to note that, notwithstanding the small size of some of the groups, notably the middle school students, there was significant variation in the number and type of changes described by each group, particularly among those same top five indicators, and especially in the Takes Risks/Displays Creative Confidence category where a willingness to take greater risk was noted by five out of six students from the middle school cohort, a far higher proportion than in either of the other two groups.

Middle School Students

The most significant change I’ve seen is in the way I learn. With me, I am a perfectionist so everything has to be perfect. And when I’m doing, like, the same work as somebody else, like I know it’s the same but it’s different. It needs to be, like, the same as theirs. Like everything has to be the same and it has to be perfect. Because I’m scared that I will fail if it’s not like that. So I think with this, I can just go off, do my thing, come back and if it’s wrong, brush it off because everybody else is doing something different. I think it’s more accepting because nobody’s, like, everybody’s open to listen to your ideas and from those ideas you can kind of build on to bigger ideas and better ideas.

~Middle School Student

The most significant change I’ve seen in myself is that I think I’m being more independent from my work. So I have more confidence in what I’m doing. And with all the work that we’ve

been doing it’s given me a boost in self-esteem to know that I’m doing better, not working and not asking so many questions. That I’m confident in my final answer. Well before we started working with you guys I used to be that person who needed to get the right answer, what the teacher wanted and the curriculum. So now with the work that we’ve been doing, it’s given me pretty much free will to think ‘Okay, I took this path and I chose the right answer.’ And I’m thinking that it’s the right answer and I’m happy with the answer I’ve chosen.

~Middle School Student

In the past I would not raise my hand when a teacher asked a question because I was afraid of getting it wrong. I’m more confident because we were taught that nothing is necessarily a really bad idea. You can always put some good into it. Because in good there’s always some bad but in bad there’s always some good. But you have to dig deep down to find the good sometimes.

~Middle School Student

Overall, the middle school group displayed a much smaller range of answers. While this might be expected based on its small size, this group’s interviews yielded on average more coded responses per student (4.7) than the senior high school group (3.3) and only slightly fewer than the teachers (5.1), suggesting a more circumscribed, but perhaps more pronounced, set of outcomes for those at this level. Specifically, there were no responses coded for Makes Thinking Explicit, Iterates and Experiments, Displays Cognitive Flexibility, Perseveres, Self-Reflects,

Embraces Tension, or Self-Motivates indicators (Figure 4). Considered together, the trend of the middle school responses suggests a much greater willingness to engage with ill-structured problems and to explore multiple possibilities collaboratively with others.

Senior high School Students

I never knew that thinking was a thing, either.[…] Everything revolved around thinking. And it was a big part. And also, like, this course, it made me aware of, like, thinking in

general. Like every time I sit I’m like, ‘Okay, I have to think about this.’ And I know that ‘think’ is not the ‘think’ that I knew before. It’s another ‘think.’

~Senior High School Student

Before, I was one of those guys, like, when I came up with one idea, like one conclusion, I’ll just stick with it. Like, I’ll never acknowledge, like, I was just too stubborn to change it. Like, that’s the answer, I’m sticking with it […] Like, I’m not a big fan of English. Like, we’re doing a lot of reading and pretty much half our quizzes

Figure 3: Coded Responses by Percentage of Interviewee Group

and tests are multiple choices and, like, short answers. And when I read my short answers, like I write with pencil so I just write something that first comes to mind and then I read it over again, and it just continues flowing, like I expand, and I erase, and my answers just keep getting better and better throughout. I used to write everything with pen before, but I started writing in pencil, actually after first semester, right after I finished the [Integrative Thinking] class. It just became like a habit, like I just got stuck with after first semester finished.

~Senior High School Student

The most significant change for me would definitely be the thought process, the idea of taking, like, multiple ideas and different opinions and somehow putting it together to get a bigger and better solution

to everyone’s problem. That’s the process that I got from it mainly. It really helped because it let you get a new perspective on things. Like, instead of just looking at a problem and being like ‘Okay, there’s only one way for me to go at this,’ maybe I should ask somebody else and say, ‘How did you get this?’ and just be like ‘Okay, if I can combine that with how I think then maybe I can go from a completely different angle, that’s completely different from theirs and different from mine, and somehow get to that problem and come up with a better solution.’

~Senior High School Student

The responses coded for the senior high school students (Figure 5) demonstrated the greatest variability; that is to say that there was both a wider range of changes identified in the

Figure 4: Middle School Student Coded Responses by Indicator

passages and a lower concentration of passages coded as corresponding with any single indicator. While five out of 11 indicators coded were identified by 50 percent or better of middle school students, only one out of 16, Thinks about Thinking, was coded for more than even 35 percent of senior high school students.

That said, more passages were coded for this indicator from senior high school students than from either middle school students or teachers. This is also true of Protoypes New Answers, and Iterates and Experiments, though altogether far fewer responses were coded for these indicators. Whereas the trend of responses from middle school students seemed to demonstrate more attitudinal changes, an emphasis on metacognitive changes is more evident among the responses of the senior high school students.

Teachers

So it’s changed how I think and I think that’s a fundamental shift that had to take place first before you even begin to see the impact in the classroom. So I now look at things differently. I’m more open to ideas. I’m more looking for where tensions are. Where I might get more information than I would have in the past --whereas before I would have taught towards the kids understanding one concept or one idea or one piece of information, something that I now bring into it is the idea of flexibility of thought and that they’re constructing their mental model and that there’s an awareness as I teach them more in the classroom that anything we’re learning in this point in time is only temporary and it will change.

Figure 5: Senior High School Student Coded Responses by Indicator

It’s given us a way of working with the complexity that doesn’t just let us stop just at “Okay this is really complex,” but actually dig in a little bit and look at the different possibilities and look at the different perspectives and then really work with, you know, “How would we do this? How might we deal with deforestation? We’ve got logging companies who are employing people and are we just going to shut that down? But we’ve also got these forests that need protection.” So what are we going to do? And not just say “Ugh, there’s nothing we can do.”

~Teacher

Because I always thought that I gave my children every chance to express themselves and, you know, valued their opinion and listen to the things they said. But through the means of questioning and through the thoughtprovoking way of wording things with I-Think, the responses that I got from my children even blew my mind. At the risk of sounding cheesy, I thought I was trusting my kids enough. But through this program I learned that I needed to trust my kids. That they can give me and do more on a higher level than I believed they could in grade five.

~Teacher

More teachers tended to emphasize more changes. Teacher responses were coded for 15 out of 18 indicators (Figure 6), of which 50 percent or more teachers identified four, Seeks Multiple Pathways, Wades into Complexity, Explores Others’ Thinking, and Builds on the Ideas of Others, with another four, Makes Thinking Explicit, Explores Playfully, Thinks Through Models, and Thinks about Thinking, coded in 40 percent of the interviews. A notably higher proportion of teacher responses were coded for Makes Thinking Explicit, Seeks Multiple Pathways, Explores Playfully, and Displays

Cognitive Flexibility than for the other two groups, as well as for Thinks through Models, Self-Reflects, and Embraces Tension, albeit by somewhat smaller margins. Although not coded separately, many of the teachers also noted in their interviews the way in which their teaching practice had changed as a result of their exposure to Integrative Thinking, citing, for instance, a greater tolerance for ambiguity in the classroom, and changes in their teaching strategies and assessment practices towards methods that both promoted and demanded Integrated Thinking and real-world problem solving in their classrooms.

COnClUSIOnS

The sample size in this study, notably of the middle school and teacher cohorts, is undeniably small and it would be important to extend the study before making any firm conclusions. That said, the foregoing results certainly seem to indicate that our current programme of Integrative Thinking training is producing behavioural and affective change in the domains that we predicted and in the directions that we hoped. Whether or not these changes are peculiar to Integrative Thinking or Integrative Thinkers, it would be hard to deny that increased confidence, willingness to explore complexity, or openness to new ideas are important and desirable outcomes for either students or teachers irrespective of

their proficiency in the application of the actual process from start to finish. What is more, these changes were not reported solely by those teachers and students whom we at I-Think had directly instructed in the processes of Integrative Thinking, but also where they had been introduced by the regular classroom teacher, suggesting that the impacts are scalable and replicable. Among all these outcomes, perhaps the most interesting—because it seems counterintuitive—was the number of individuals who reported that a realization of the complexity and ambiguity in a particular problem produced greater confidence and willingness to offer a solution. This was most pronounced among the middle

Figure 6: Teacher Coded Responses by Indicator

school students, but also evident in the responses of the teachers and senior high school students as well.

What is not apparent, and thus ripe for further study, is the exact mechanism by which these outcomes are produced, especially in those cases where it is the classroom teacher who has been the primary agent. In other words, to what extent is it exposure to the Integrative Thinking process that has produced these results versus exposure to educators— whether the I-Think instructors or classroom teachers—who have embraced an Integrative Thinking stance and model that in their practice? It must also be acknowledged that the teachers who have participated in Integrative Thinking training, and certainly those whom we interviewed, were also self-selected and

ACknOwlEDGEMEnTS

From my point of view, not only are the findings of this research incredibly positive, but so too has been the process of the exploration, a process that could in nowise have been completed without the collaboration of a large number of dedicated people: the students and teachers from across, and in some cases beyond, Ontario who so willingly shared their Integrative Thinking stories; Ellie Avishai, Josie Fung, and Nogah Kornberg, for their work not only in gathering many of the MSC stories, but more broadly for their work in bringing Integrative Thinking to the world of K-12 education; Job Rutgers for his work on

at least open to new possibilities even before having been taught the process. It would be interesting (if challenging) therefore to attempt to isolate the effects of Integrative Thinking per se from the impact that any great teacher might have on his or her students.

A second iteration of this research would also involve a further refinement of the indicators, as, during the process of coding, it became apparent that there was still a degree of overlap and overbreadth among the definitions and descriptors. The capture of additional MSC stories is ongoing with both teachers and students, including the video recording of interviews with students as young as grade 2 whose teacher has brought Integrative Thinking into her classroom.

co-developing the indicators and the trading-card interview methodology; Roger Martin, Hilary Austen, Jennifer Riel, Nouman Ashraf, and Darren Karn for their continuing work in the field of Integrative Thinking and in particular their feedback on the indicators; Clare Kosnik, Pooja Dharamshi, Shelley Murphy, and Elizabeth Rosales for their ongoing support to the project; and Rosemary Evans, Heather Henricks, Amy Paradine, Garth Chalmers, Josh Fullan, Mike Farley, and Catherine Wachter, my colleagues and fellow Eureka! researchers at the University of Toronto Schools.

REFEREnCES

Avishai, E. (2013, November). Cultivating an Opposable Mind: A case study in Integrative Thinking. Education Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/ education-canada/article/cultivating-opposable-mind.

Dart, J., and Davies, R. (2003). A Dialogical, Story-Based Evaluation Tool: The Most Significant Change Technique. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 137–155.

Davies, R., and Dart, J. (2005). The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use. Retrieved from http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf.

Martin, R. (1997). Strategic Choice Structuring. http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/ rogermartin/newScans/ strategicChoiceStructuring.pdf

Martin, R. (2002, Fall). Integrative Thinking: A Model Takes Shape. Rotman Management, 6-11.

Martin, R. (2007a). The Opposable Mind. Boston, Ma: Harvard Business School Press.

Martin, R. (2007b, June). How Successful Leaders Think. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/06/ how-successful-leaders-think.

Martin, R., and Austen, H. (1999, Fall). The Art of Integrative Thinking. Rotman Management, 2-5.

Martin, R., and Moldoveanu, M. (2007, Winter). Designing the Thinker of the Future. Rotman Magazine, 5-8.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009, Spring). Leadership and Integrative Thinking. In Conversation, 1(3). Retrieved from https://www. edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/ leadership/spring2009.pdf

Riel, J. (2012). Leveraging Diversity. Developing Leaders, 7, 34-38.

Riel, J. and Martin, R. (2012, Spring). Integrative Thinking Three Ways: Creative Resolution to Wicked Problems. Rotman Magazine, 5-9.

Riel, J., and Martin, R. (2014, Winter). Integrative Thinking 2.0: A User’s Guide to Your Opposable Mind. Rotman Management, 5-9.

Using Digital Tools in the Guidance Classroom

Catherine wachter, CSFP Guidance Counsellor, University of Toronto Schools

I would like to thank Newton Foundation for its generous support of this research.

I bring a number of experiences to my work as a guidance counsellor. I have five years of classroom experience at multiple independent secondary schools, I am a Certified Solution-Focused Practitioner (CSFP), and have been a life coach for adults and youth for the past five years. I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in history and I completed a three-year conservatory program in acting in New York City. Before entering into education, I worked in the creative industry as an actor and filmmaker in Canada and the U.S.

I joined the University of Toronto Schools in 2013. Having worked in public and independent schools as a guidance counsellor in both Canada and England, I have an appreciation of the diversity of students and teachers within both of these settings.

During my first year as a guidance counsellor at UTS, I provided support for students through individual, face-to-face counselling sessions. I started to wonder how I might reach students who were opting out of seeking my support despite the fact that they may have needed it. Knowing that adolescents today are immersed in digital technology and social media, I began to question whether this could be an avenue to support students who were not pursuing face-to-face counselling. After watching a webinar called The Quantified Self Movement and What it Means for Employee Wellness, I began to brainstorm different approaches to supporting student wellness. The Quantified Self is a movement that incorporates technology such as wearable devices to acquire data aspects of an individual’s life (2012, www.slideshare.net/ShapeUp/the-quantified-selfmovement-and-what-it-means-for-employee-wellness).

While my research has gone beyond solely focusing on the Quantified Self, the insight into this movement definitely acted as a springboard for the development of my questions/goals for this year’s Eureka! Teacher Inquiry.

why ADDRESS STUDEnT wEllnESS?

In my role as a guidance counsellor and as a life coach for youth, I am keenly aware of the challenges that adolescents face in their daily lives. Whether it is school and/or social-emotional stress,

there seems to be a growing number of students who are struggling to navigate through heightened periods of stress and/or anxiety. Combine this with the cognitive and physical changes that occur

in adolescence it is as if it is a perfect storm in their young lives. Specifically, UTS has a very rigorous academic program, which adds to the pressures that our students face on a daily basis. It became clear early on in my time at UTS that in order to best support our students, we needed to brainstorm alternative ways of supporting them. These students are highly involved

RESEARCh QUESTIOnS

• To what extent do digital wellness applications engage grade nine students?

• Do students have to be heavy users of technology in order to connect to the idea of using digital technologies to support wellness?

• Of all the digital techniques explored, will there be some that are more popular than others?

lITERATURE REvIEw

In the review of the literature, I have identified a number of relevant themes: stress, adolescent Internet usage, the quantified self-movement, and peer to peer support.

The Ontario Ministry of Education recently published Achieving Excellence: A Renewed Vision for Education in Ontario (2013). One of four key goals for supporting the health and wellness of every student is ‘Promoting Well-Being’. Here it is identified that students who have a better sense of self “are in a better position to reach their full potential…

in extracurricular activities and other academic pursuits. While some students opt out of face-to-face support due to being uncomfortable, others are simply unable to maintain regular contact with a counsellor due to their limited time. So, with more avenues of support, the more reach we may have in helping our students to increase their resiliency.

I believe this research is important because it helps to inform my guidance programming for the grade 9 student body in the coming years. Also, the findings could act as key drivers in the creation and implementation of a student-informed UTS wellness portal. This research may also be used to benefit the broader educational community as other educators and institutions could use these findings as a catalyst to their own research or to create a similar program of support for students.

their sense of well-being supports their learning because it makes them more resilient and better able to overcome challenges” (Ministry of Education, 2013, p. 14). The article “Teen Stress in our Schools” on the Canadian Education Association (CEA) website states that “the school is a great place to put programs in place to help promote adaptive coping strategies” (Heath & Shapiro, 2015, p.1). This, combined with the Ontario Ministry of Education document, encouraged me to look further into the scholarly work regarding the stress levels and wellbeing of adolescents.

Stress can be defined as:

a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her wellbeing (de Anda, et al, 2000, p 19).

The term ‘coping’ also came up in my scholarly search. Shannon Suldo, Elizabeth Shaunessy, and Robin Hardesty (2008) define coping as “constantly changing cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage specific external and or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person regardless of whether the outcomes of such efforts are positive or negative” (2008, p. 274).

Mary Ann Swiatek (2000) categorizes coping into two categories: “problem –focused”, which specifically is a route to change the stressful situation itself. The other category is “emotion-focused”, which is a technique where one tries to alleviate any negative emotional responses to the source of stress (Swiatek, et al. 2000, p. 21).

In “Stress, Stressors and Coping among High School Students” (de Anda et al, 2000), the authors suggest that the high rates of mental health concerns such as depression, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse have been classified as adaptive responses to stress in the lives of teenagers, as well as their low level coping skills. Beyond this, it is deemed that the workload and pressure within a school environment is the most frequent stressor noted by adolescents. Similarily, Suldo, Shaunessy and Hardesty (2008) suggest that youth who experience high levels of perceived stress are more

prone to negative outcomes, such as “depression, substance abuse, academic underachievement and diminished life satisfaction” (p. 274).

The CEA released an article regarding teen stress in schools and highlighted that while stress has increased for youth, the coping skills needed to combat this stress have not (Heath & Shapiro, 2014). Therefore, many teens are coping through maladaptive behaviours – taking risks, self-injury, video game use, etc. It is suggested that the biggest stressors come from academic difficulties (33.2%), followed by conflict with parents, between parents and with peers (p.2).

A survey done of 103,000 students by the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) in 2012 found that most students are concerned about their future, so much so that “kids are reporting high levels of being anxious, of being worried to the point where they’re feeling some distress, feeling like crying, having trouble sleeping” ( 2014, www.rci.net, p.1). Similar to the CEA article, it is mentioned that teens’ biggest concerns are focused on academic pressures, peer, and family relationships.

In “Young Minds: Stress, Anxiety

Plaguing Canadian Youth” (Chai & Vuchnich, 2013), a similar theme has been laid out: teenagers are suffering from increased levels of stress and the negative outcomes (anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation) that come from this stress. Approximately 20% of students have a mental health concern, with anxiety being the most prevalent. (p.1). Two articles spoke to the stress that comes with high-achieving students in rigorous academic programs. In “Teaching Gifted Learners to Manage

Stress in High School”, a recent study (Shaughnessy, 2008) indicates that “students with greater academic stressors than typical high school students are more likely to have anxiety than their peers in general education” (p.1). This, combined with the developmental changes that adolescents experience, can make the level of stress that much more difficult to handle. Suldo, Shaunessy and Hardesty (2008) concur with this when they suggest that of the 139 International Baccalaureate (IB) students who were surveyed, they have “significantly more stress than 168 of their peers in general education” and because of this, have different coping styles (p.286).

The second theme I focused on looked at internet use among adolescents today. I first started to read about technology and how today’s youth is connected to it in a very different way than previous generations. In Gasser’s Born Digital: Understanding the First Wave of Digital Natives (2008), it is noted that “the invention and adoption of digital technologies by more than a billion people worldwide has occurred over the span of a few decades” (p.3). When digital technologies came online after 1980, the world clearly shifted to a place where interpersonal relationship development started to take on a different form. For children born after this time, this has significantly altered their adolescent experience. With access to so many different avenues of digital technologies, teenagers today “study, work, write, and interact with each other in ways that are very different from those born before 1980” (Gasser, 2008, p.2).

In Gross’ “Adolescent Internet Use: What We Expect and What Teens Report”

(2004), a study of 261 7th and 8th graders in California was done regarding Internet use. It was noted that boys and girls go online the same length of time. Most of the time online was done in private places, focusing mainly on email, instant messaging, and downloading music. The scholars note that there is a dearth of research on the details of what teenagers are doing while online, as well as with whom they are spending time. However, the overall finding of this survey suggests that youth are spending a large portion of their time interacting with peers (Gross, 2004).

It is also important to note that the use of digital technologies amongst youth can have adverse effects on well-being. On the www.myblueprint. ca website, the article “Students Feel Squeezed by Stress” suggests the idea that the vast amount of digital devices, as well as social networking platforms can absolutely cause teens stress. A question that came up at the beginning of this research was whether or not digital technology use could be capitalized on to help promote the wellbeing of adolescents. Referring back to Gross (2004), the scholar clearly states that for adolescents “no associations were found between use and wellbeing” (p.633). However, in “The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of Kids’ Use of Social Media”, Taylor (2013) suggests the opposite:

First, technology provides children with more outlets through which to express their feelings of stress, thus allowing a cathartic effect. Second, social media can provide children with social support which can act as a buffer against stressors. Technology, including Facebook postings and instant messaging,

enables children to receive more, immediate, and diverse support from a wider range of people. Third, technology can allow children to find useful information that may help them to reduce their stress. Finally, technology may act as a distraction and a means of distancing children from the stressors, providing a respite from the stress and giving them the time and perspective to deal with the stress more effectively (p. 1).

Originally, what piqued my interest in my research question was insight into the Quantified Movement/Quantified Self, thus I explored this third theme for this literature review. After researching, it became clear that there was a lack of scholarly research regarding adolescents and the Quantified Self. Regardless, it was still important to understand this theme because it was going to help inform the first part of my research.

A working definition of the Quantified Self can be regarded as the following:

…the tracking and measuring of aspects of your life to find ways to make it better—new exercise tracking devices, heart rate monitors, photography-based nutrition apps, and wireless weight scales are providing consumers with more information about their personal health than they know what to do with. This type of tracking is used for self-improvement (2012,www. slideshare.net/ShapeUp/thequantified-self-movement-and-what-itmeans-for-employee-wellness, p.1).

In “Technology can Reduce Our Stress, Too”, by Enayati (2012), the scholar suggests that “quantifying is actionable”

(p.3), meaning that if people constantly feedback to themselves how they are feeling and performing, it makes them aware of stress/triggers that perhaps they wouldn’t have been aware of. This can lead to actionable change because they have data in front of them that can gauge where they are in terms of overall, individual wellbeing.

I was curious to see if this idea of quantifying one’s life could benefit teenagers as they navigate through the stress of their daily lives. Due to the lack of research in this area my literature review of this theme stopped short. Because of this, I was keen to include an aspect of the Quantified Movement into my methodology, in order to gain relevant feedback.

Finally, I spent time looking at the research regarding peer-to-peer support, both in person and online. In “Peer Counselling”, Turner (1995) suggests that peer counselling has been recognized as an avenue to help support the “psychological well-being of teenagers” (p.330). Turner also notes that when children move into adolescence, they spend less time looking for support from their parents and more time from their peers. Coates and Winston (1983) also speak to this point, suggesting that peers are “inclined to compare [their] emotional reactions with those of others – [they] want to know if [their] emotional responses are appropriate and normal” (p.170).

Turner (1995) further suggests that the teenager who is receiving the support from a peer is not the only one who benefits. Providing opportunities for peers to support other peers has great advantages. Specifically, it empowers “teenagers to play a constructive role

in their community through peer counseling or in other ways increases their self-esteem and self-efficacy and can counteract the feelings of worthlessness and powerlessness which many teenagers experience” (Turner, 1995, p.332).

Dubois and Hirsch (1992) also agree that within peer relationships, all players receive emotional sustenance, have their identity validated and can develop effective problem solving resources that may help with adaptation during times of challenge (p.334).

In regards to online peer to peer support, the literature was sparse. Although, in “Peer Counselling in an Online Chat Service: A Content Analysis of Social Support”, Fukkink (2011) writes that adolescents are continually looking for support from their peers online, specifically in the areas of sadness, depression, suicidal ideation, alcohol, drugs, eating disorders, smoking, illnesses, sex, abuse, problems in school,

METhODOlOGy

This year, I was responsible for planning the guidance curriculum for all grade nine classes. Therefore, it was an easy decision to place my research within the context of this grade level because I already had the classes scheduled. As well, our school runs from grade 7-12 and it seemed a relevant choice to select the grade that was in the middle. There are 120 students in this grade, and I planned to visit their classes five times over the course of the school year. I decided to concentrate my research within three of these classes and to expose them to different forms of digital technologies that focused on increasing well-being.

relationships, and all other problems falling under the broad category of adolescent challenges. Fukkink’s study followed a one-to-one chat service for young people ages 16-23. The results suggested that this form of peer support was as effective as face to face support (Fukkink, 2011, p. 247).

Rosopa, Scielzo, Smith-Jentsch and Yarbrough (2008) are scholars who studied 106 College freshmen who were paired up online with a senior student for peer to peer support. Their findings suggest that while some interpersonal warmth may be lost at first due to the lack of non-verbal cues, individuals adapt to this and in time, their relationships develop further. The scholars also found that because the interactions were online, peers had longer to edit their responses and react thoughtfully to the messages they were receiving. Overall, it was deemed that students “feel as comfortable in online spaces as they do in offline ones” (Rosopa et al, 2008, p. 193).

I ran the classes in the computer lab from October to December, 2014. The first one focused on exploring a website called Facingus.org. This is an interactive site for those suffering from mood disorders. While our students may not have had mood disorders per say, the site was good for students to explore the idea of tracking their moods (scaling), viewing tips on managing emotions, and creating goals as well as action plans to reduce stress. At the end of the first class, I asked students to write an anonymous question for an older peer. From these questions, grade 11 and grade

12 students (roughly 5) created a peerto-peer website, (http://peerwellness. weebly.com/) where answers to these questions were posted. The second research class allowed students to explore this peer-to-peer website. Themes covered in the questions and answers were: grade specific; mental health; sleep; social; stress; time management; university; other.

The third class was comprised of video, audio, and interactive online games. Students watched TedX videos related to wellness, explored guided meditations, played wellness games (i.e. on stress, depression, mindfulness) as well as mindless stress-relief games, and listened to calming music (tranquil landscapes/sounds).

Before these classes began students were given a short survey based on their current general wellness regarding their stress levels and adaptive coping abilities. At the end of each class, students filled out a survey, asking them questions about their online experience, thereby adding to the quantitative data collected.

I used Survey Monkey for these surveys and each one had roughly 4-6 questions. The surveys took about five minutes to complete. Not every class had 100% attendance, so my results varied in the amount of surveys that were completed. Overall, Survey One had 115 respondents; Survey Two had 101; Survey Three had 97; Survey Four had 90. Still, the results gave clear insights into which wellness digital technologies were most appealing to the grade 9 students. Survey One focused on the experience of being a student in grade nine and questions focused around current stress levels, specifically looking at individual

stress, how individual students would combat it, how often one visits their guidance counsellor and use of technology/using technology to combat stress. This was a great survey to start with as it gave strong insight into the mindset of the grade 9 students and their interest in using technology to help cope with stress. Surveys Two, Three and Four were given to students at the end of each class and related to the digital techniques that they had just finished exploring.

I prepared my surveys/interviews and analyzed data via a Grounded Theory systematic approach. My research began with a question and then moved towards the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. As I collected surveys and coded interviews, it became apparent to me what themes and concepts were coming to the forefront. This informed my work as I went, often helping to evolve my next set of survey and interview questions.

Examples of survey questions:

Survey One

• Which of the following best describes your stress level in general? Choices: very low; somewhat low; average; high; very high.

• When you feel stressed, what are some of the things you do to combat it? Choices: visit guidance; deep breathing; exercise; go online; talk to friends; get advice from older peer; listen to music; write in a journal

Survey Two

• Did you enjoy using a tracking program to help increase wellness? Choices: not

my thing; it wasn’t that bad; somewhat; a great deal; so much so that I am eager to do it again

• Please specify your enjoyment of the individual tracking applications on the website explored in class. Choices: online journal, tips, wellness plan, wellness tracker

• Could you see yourself using an online tracking program to help increase wellness? Choices: never; not so sure; maybe; often; on a daily basis

Survey Three

• Did you enjoy going online to learn from your peers about stress-related issues and how to deal with them? Choices: Choices: not my thing; it wasn’t that bad; somewhat; a great deal; so much so that I am eager to do it again

• Could you see yourself using online peer support as a tool for helping improve wellness? Choices: never; not so sure; maybe; often; So much so that I would go online regularly to get support from my peers

• For all the aspects of the peer to peer website, please rate your enjoyment of them. Choices: levels of interested regarding text responses; visual answers/resources; audio/video

Survey Four

• Four questions that asked whether or not students enjoyed watching informative videos (i.e. Ted Talks) that addressed social and emotional issues, using wellness games, listening to soothing music and exploring a guided visualization. Choices: Not my thing; it

wasn’t that bad; somewhat; a great deal; so much so that I’m eager to do it again

In January, I collected some qualitative feedback in the form of interviews. Six grade nine students (volunteers) were interviewed for approximately fifteen minutes, so I could glean more into their experience during the three classes. From this I was able to gain more insight into what digital technologies were popular and why, as well as insight into the overall grade experience. I also interviewed the grade 11 student who was namely responsible for creating the peer-to-peer website so that I could learn first-hand some of the details of her experience.

Some examples of the grade nine interview questions:

• How do you use technology in your everyday life?

• Do you sometimes feel stressed? At what times?

• What do you do to relieve stress? Have you used technology to help decrease stress?

• Specific enjoyment of each section explored in the classes– scaling the enjoyment level from 1-5 (5 very enjoyable)

• If these digital technologies were available to you on a UTS Wellness Portal, would you use it on a regular basis? (1-5, 5 = very enjoyable)

After the surveys were completed, I used Survey Monkey to graph the data into pie charts/percentages. After the transcriptions of the interviews were complete, I coded them into qualitative themes. I also gained quantitative data through the scaling questions that were asked during the interviews.

Once the data was collected and analyzed, it became clear that there were some key indications as to what wellness digital technologies had the most impact on students involved in the study.

Stress in grade nine

From the first survey, which focused on the general wellness of grade nines, what stood out was that a large number of students do not choose to come into Student Services for support. However, 83% are going online every day, and 17.6% of those use technology to combat stress on a daily basis, while 41% answered ‘somewhat’ and 30% reported ‘regularly’. With these results, it became clear that there was an opportunity to reach students through digital technologies in order to help reduce stress.

Tracking techniques to increase wellness

The results for the first class, which was focused on exploring the tracking site, ‘facingus.org’, were varied. Only 20% said it ‘wasn’t their thing’, 21% reported ‘it wasn’t that bad’, the highest score, ‘somewhat’ (enjoyed) was at 37%, and 22% said they would do this again most definitely. Of the four aspects of the website explored (online journal, wellness plan, tips and wellness tracker), the journal and the wellness tracker stood out as the most enjoyed/would use again. This follows the research that ‘tracking’ can be a useful and popular tool in helping increase overall wellbeing.

Peer-to-peer support

For the peer-to-peer website, the data indicates that it was popular amongst the students; 45.83% of students enjoyed the

site a great deal and 18.75 were eager to do it again. Only 8.33% of students were not keen on the peer-to-peer website. 5.21% indicated that they couldn’t wait to use it again, while 31.25% reported ‘often’ and 45.83 %, ‘maybe’. These numbers suggest that there would be enough interest if this form of support was available to students. 36.46% of students would turn to this site when looking for support. It appears this support could be used to help increase student resilience. Specifically, the text answers, infographics/comics and music links were the most popular among students.

Student comments from the peer to peer survey:

• “I really liked that she made it personal and talked about her own experiences and so did other people; it made all the advice seem more legitimate than just impersonal internet articles, etc.”

• “I really think that knowing that people (in older grades especially) are going through the same things makes dealing with situations a whole lot less scary.”

Student comments from the interviews:

• “And there’s always times when I think ‘Oh, I should ask somebody older’ because at UTS, like we are a very like unique group of people in the sense that we have different problems compared to other high school students, but at the same time we have similar problems, like about drugs and substance abuses.”

• “I really did because it gave me an opportunity to interact with older students whom I don’t usually interact

with…and I found it really helpful to get insight about the school from people who had gone through what I’m currently going through.”

Student comment from the creator of the wellness peer to peer website:

• “I felt this exercise helped to build community because people were talking to me when before they didn’t as much.”

• “I felt it had a sustainable impact and I have a desire is to build on this.”

• “It gave me a sense of validation.”

Audio/Video applications to support wellness

Our final survey also provided some clear insight into which wellness digital techniques students were most interested in. A total of 67.41 of students reported that they would use the Ted Talks videos. 13.48% said they would use them ‘all of the time’; 25.84% said they would use them ‘often’ and 28.9% said they would use them ‘sometimes’. The stress-relief games also stood out as popular, with 62.92% suggesting that they would use them to help with stress. 14.61% said they would use them ‘all of the time’; 22.47% said they would use them often ‘often’; and 25.84% said they would use them ‘sometimes’. The most popular tool to help with stress relief, as indicated on the survey, was the use of ‘soothing music’. 40% of students reported that they would turn to this tool ‘all of the time’; 20% of students said they would use this tool ‘often’; and 23.33% said they would use this tool ‘sometimes’. Overall, it is clear that the most popular applications were stress-relief games and calming music.

Student comments from the final survey:

• “The video about body image was really true, and it shows that body image is not everything. This is a video everyone should watch.”

• “I really loved the Ted Talks!”

• “It was a great way to learn ways to combat stress. I didn’t know that games actually helped do that before, this was a good experience.”

Insights gleaned from the above findings will be extremely helpful moving forward. The goal is not to create a wellness portal for our students that comes from a top down approach. If the creation of the portal is to happen, it is critical for our students to be the drive behind what is offered to them. I am a firm believer in students being in control of their learning. Whether it is through creating rubrics themselves, to participating in problembased learning tasks, students who are given the opportunity to have a say in their learning often feel empowered, leading to positive outcomes. Therefore, creating a portal that has a direct link to what worked for these grade nine students will not only engage our students, but will also demonstrate to them that their opinion in their own learning (whether social/emotional, or academic) matters. To take this further, I would like to see students themselves taking on the development of this portal, perhaps through an interdisciplinary approach – Student Services’/staff input, along with student programmers from our computer science classes creating the actual platform.

REFlECTIOn

Last year was my first year at UTS and I jumped at the opportunity to involve myself in this Eureka! Teacher Inquiry. From start to finish, my research evolved as time went on and being a part of a research group definitely helped to shape where I ended up. It was an invaluable experience, one which I would gladly take on again. I am keen to see where our department can go with this newfound insight into using digital technologies to promote student wellness. I hope to build on this research by collaborating with staff and students on the possible creation of a wellness portal for UTS, one that combines some of the most popular aspects of what the grade nines explored during our three classes.

Now that I have done this research, I will also use the findings to inform my guidance curriculum for the next year’s grade nines. I will continue to develop and implement the social and emotional programming for this grade, helping students to develop a toolkit of coping strategies that can be used when stress arises. I will expose next year’s grade nines to some of the more popular aspects of the digital applications that this year’s grade nines found most appealing/useful.

This was my first experience being a teacher-researcher and it proved very beneficial. Not only did it help to inform my pedagogy, it also increased my confidence in the area of teacher growth. I now feel that I have the ability to go beyond just delivering curriculum. I have developed a more investigative eye, one that will continuously look for ways to understand how to improve the experience for my students. Through observations and the constant questioning of what is going on in my guidance classes as well as in face to face sessions with students, I believe that I will, from now on, reflect on student engagement through a ‘Teacher Inquiry’ lens.

Special thanks go to my entire Eureka! Teacher Inquiry group. Without their support over the past year, I would not have found such clarity in my work. Thank you specifically to: Clare Kosnik, Shelley Murphy, Pooja Dharamshi, Elizabeth Rosales, Susan French, Clive Beck, Rosemary Evans, Heather Henricks, Amy Paradine, Garth Chalmers, Josh Fullan and Christopher Federico.

REFEREnCES

Journals

Band, E.B., Weisz, J.R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children’s perspectives on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 247-253.

Chan, D.W. (2005). Emotional intelligence, social coping, and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 163-178.

Coates, D. & Winston, T. (1983). Counteracting the deviance of depression: Peer support groups for victims. Journal of Social Sciences, 169-194.

De Anda., D., Baroni, S., Boskin, L., Gold, J.S., Morgan, J., Ow, J., Weiss, R. (2000). Children and Youth Services Review, 441-463.

DuBois, D.L., & Hirsch, B.J. (1992). The relation of peer social support and psychological symptomatology during the transition to junior high school: A two-year longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 333-347.

Fukkink, R. (2011). Peer counselling in an online chat service: A content analysis of social support. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 247-251.

Gross, E.F. (2004). Adolescent internet use: What we expect, what teens report. Applied Developmental Psychology, 633-649.

Hardesty, R., Shaunessy, E., Suldo, S.M. (2008). Relationships among stress, coping, and mental health in high-achieving high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 273-290.

Heath, N., Shapiro, A. (2014) Teen stress in our schools: A 45-minute program to improve coping skills. Canadian Education Association, Volume 54.

McManus, S.E., Russell, J.E.A. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 453-470.

Rosopa, P.J., Scielzo, S.A., Smith-Jentsch, K.A., Yarbrough, C.S. (2008). A comparison of face-to-face and electronic peer-mentoring: Interactions with mentor gender. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 193-206.

Swiatek, M.A. (2001). Social coping among gifted high school students and its relationship to self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19-39.

Turner, G.M. (1995). Peer counselling. Pediatric Annals, 330-333.

Books

Gasser, U., & Palfrey, J. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the first wave of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.

Website Articles

Achieving excellence: A renewed vision for education in Ontario. (2013). Retrieved January 19, 2015. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/excellent.html

Canadian teens stressed out. (February, 2, 2014). Retrieved March 3, 2015. http://www. rcinet.ca/english/daily/reports-2012/15-38_2013-02-14-canadian-teens-stressed-out/

Chai, C., Vuchnich, A. Young minds: Stress, anxiety plaguing Canadian youth. (May 8th, 2013). Retrieved February 21, 2015. http://globalnews.ca/news/530141/young-minds-stressanxiety-plaguing-canadian-youth/

Enayati, A. Technology can reduce our stress, too. (October, 5, 2012). Retrieved March 7, 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/health/enayati-technology-reduce-stress/

Shaunessy, E. Teaching gifted learners to manage stress in high school. (January, 2008). Retrieved February 21, 2015. https://sengifted.org/archives/articles/teaching-giftedlearners-to-manage-stress-in-high-school

Students feeling squeezed by stress. (2012). Retrieved, February 21, 2015. http://www. myblueprint.ca/student_stress_index_2012/

Taylor, J. The bad, the ugly, and the good of kids’ use of social media (2013). Retrieved April 7, 2015. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201305/the-bad-the-uglyand-the-good-kids-use-social-media Webinar

(2012, September 14). The quantified self-movement and what it means for employee wellness. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/ShapeUp/the-quantified-selfmovement-and-what-it-means-for-employee-wellness

Eureka! – Coming Together: A Synthesis of Findings

Heather Henricks Vice Principal, University of

Toronto Schools

When we embarked upon our initial Eureka! journey, I was filled with excitement and trepidation. As the Vice Principal with some responsibility for coordinating the teacher research group, I was anxious about the success of the group. All interested teachers were invited to participate as researchers and submitted applications, all of which would be accepted. Reading about their research interests in advance allowed me to work with our partners from OISE to prepare for the first meeting. Two things were making me nervous: our facilitators from OISE all had elementary school backgrounds and I wondered how they would fit in; also, the academic disciplines and research topics of the teachers in the group were so diverse, I wondered how interested people would be in working together as a community. The transition of OISE co-facilitators Clare Kosnik, Pooja Darmisha, and Shelley Murphy from “outsiders” to “insiders” was successful and is well-documented in their report (page 11 of this report). They proved to be very skilled at helping to create a community of inquiry. Teachers were very interested in hearing about and providing feedback to their colleagues about topics far outside their own disciplines. Though each topic was unique and distinct, one of the most amazing parts of this Eureka! process was the unanticipated similarities in findings.

Both Josh Fullan and Mike Farley’s studies had a social science focus: Geography and Urban Studies, and examined student response to curriculum focused on complex topics. In Mike’s study, when asked “ ‘what word, phrase, or image comes to mind when you hear the term ‘oil sands’?’” prior to their experience with the Fort McMoney simulation, student responses were “heavily dominated by words such as “Alberta”, “money”, “dirty”, “economy”, “pollution”, and “environment” (Farley, page 47). Whereas, the the post-survey responses indicate a greater awareness of and appreciation for some of the social impacts and Mike notes this as one of his most significant findings. One student responded in the postsurvey, “I didn’t realize the huge impact that the oil industry had on the cities and

towns near it -- not only economically, but socially. The homelessness, the glut of people applying for positions, and the addiction problems...were all completely new for me.”’ (Farley, page 48) This was reminiscent of student responses in Josh’s study, in which they expressed “an increased capacity of being able to imagine how other people live in cities” (Fullan, page 59). Josh further notes that there was “a strong current of empathy running through” the responses. While building civic empathy is a key goal of Josh’s Maximum City curriculum, Mike did not anticipate his students’ increased capacity to appreciate how individual lives are impacted.

More surprising than the overlap in Mike and Josh’s findings is the common

thread that runs through the remaining studies which were not discipline based. In Christopher Federico’s exploration of the outcomes associated with the use of Integrative Thinking from both student and teacher perspectives, teachers frequently identified seeking multiple pathways and wading into complexity as a benefit of the approach for students. They also noted students increased ability (or willingness?) to explore others’ thinking and build on the ideas of others (Federico, page 86). Catherine Wachter set out to explore ways that students who did not want to access the face-toface supports in the Student Services Department could use digital tools to support themselves. Of the digital tools provided, the one that provided students with an opportunity to connect with other students proved to be one of the most popular. Students liked that the peer-to-peer website made issues more personal, which “’made all the advice seem more legitimate than just impersonal internet articles’”. Another student explained, “’knowing that people (in older grades especially) are going through the same things makes dealing with situations a whole lot less scary” (Wachter, page 98).

In both Christopher’s and Catherine’s studies, students showed a willingness or a desire to explore the ideas or experiences of other students. Garth Chalmers’ study of admissions data revealed that the ability to work with

other students is a key indicator of success at UTS. Much of the admissions testing at UTS focuses on academic ability, yet Garth notes, “positive comments for intellect were almost equally high for both successful and unsuccessful students” (Chalmers, page 36). In report card comments for incoming students, “the least successful students presented the greatest number of negative comments in the category related to collaboration … Taking it one step further, positive comments about collaboration is one of the more frequent comments for the most successful students” (Chalmers, page 37).

In most cases, the studies did not set out to explore students’ ability, willingness, or desire to appreciate the challenges faced other people, empathize with their situations, explore their thinking, or collaborate with them. And yet, this is a common thread that runs through the five studies. UTS is a merit-based school, and in the Admissions process, “merit” is largely measured by academic ability. Once students have been admitted, we strive to support not only their academic growth, but also their social and emotional growth. The Eureka! findings suggest that the affective domain is not only vital to student success at UTS, but is a central component of the work teachers and students are doing. The Eureka! journey truly was a “coming together” – of both a community of inquirers, and ideas.