Building Capacity in Greenland’s Educational Reform



Title: Building Educational Capacity in Greenland

Authors:

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

Inerisaavik: Institute for Arctic Education

Abstract

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

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

Building Educational Capacity in Greenland

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

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

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

Greenland’s Educational Reform

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

The CREDE Standards for Effective Pedagogy

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

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

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

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

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

Building Capacity for Reform

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

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

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

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

The Purpose of This Study

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

Methods

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

Data Collection

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

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

Data Analysis

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

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

Results

The Evolution of Inerisaavik’s Approach to Professional Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, Kattie made many other changes in response to teacher needs. As part of the coaching cycle, one day was reserved for a meeting on how to build collegial relationships and work together as a supportive team. Kattie explained the importance of this work,

JPA (Joint Productive Activity) is the very basic [tool] for teachers, too. If they don’t make joint productive activity with each other, they cannot do it with their students. Also, because the teachers need to develop language and literacy within their own team on an academic level….If the teacher teams don’t use the Standards, they cannot implement it themselves for their own class (Interview with Kattie, November 4, 2008).

Other changes included principals required participation in courses on Effective Pedagogy along with their teachers. Additionally, principals took a leadership role in planning and scheduling of coaching sessions. In this way, they were given a place in the implementation of Effective Pedagogy at their individual sites. An earlier report on Greenland’s reform commented that this group was not included enough in early reform efforts, affecting the degree to which they initiate change at their schools (Hindby, 2005). By giving school leaders a modicum of responsibility in the implementation process, they were given an opportunity to participate and build on reform activities.

By adding peer coaching as part of Inerisaavik’s professional development package, Kattie needed to build a cadre of experts in coaching and instructing on Effective Pedagogy. According to the second author, at this early point in the reform there were very few Greenlandic experts capable of assisting in this capacity. In response to this limited resource, Kattie instituted the trainer of trainer’s model in which experts in both CREDE’s Effective Pedagogy and coaching were recruited from the U.S. to assist in reform development. These American “CREDE-coaches” served as models for Greenlandic teachers who were in the process of being educated as life-coaches. They were selected because they were attempting to implement Effective Pedagogy in their classrooms. According to Kattie, these ten teachers had the right combination of skills to work as CREDE-coaches and instructors for Greenland.

Five of the ten chose to be “shadow-instructors” and taught courses on Effective Pedagogy alongside more knowledgeable reform leaders. They were given small sections of the curriculum to teach, but only if they were comfortable in this capacity. Most of these teachers were already using the pedagogy in their own classrooms and had some experience they could pass on during the instruction.

The other five teachers were used as “shadow coaches” and initially functioned as translators for the American CREDE-coaches who only spoke English. In the first year of their training, shadow-coaches were encouraged to observe questioning techniques used by the experts. They were encouraged to understand how the coaching conversation can be used to develop and deepen teacher understanding of Effective Pedagogy. In the second year, the shadow-coaches were encouraged to glean the experts’ skills by asking direct questions about CREDE-coaching and participate in the planning of coaching conversations. This resulted in a collaborative relationship between experts and novices who worked together to build capacity in Greenland.

Kattie suggested that these ten teachers have been important to the larger goals of Atuarfitsilak. Many of them have initiated development within their local communities by facilitating whole-town discussions on the importance of indigenous values and culture and their relationship to education. Others have offered their services in coaching at their own schools to further strengthen the implementation of Effective Pedagogy. According to Kattie, they are bridging policy and practice in educational reform because “they give a connection between school and society.”

How Inerisaavik Included the Larger Community in the Implementation Process

Reform leaders have been working collaboratively with schools and the community since the beginning of the reform. For example, to prepare for a new educational legislation, reform leaders held consensus-building discussions in order to articulate what a Greenlandic school should look like. In 2000, a colloquium was held that was a major event in the development of Atuarfitsialak. This colloquium provided a venue for diverse perspectives on education to be considered and discussed. Leading experts on Native education presented their views on how to change school systems to accommodate Native populations. Reform leaders also invited members of the community including, teachers, parents, school leaders, board members, union representatives, and government officials.

Every strata of society was included in these discussions because reform leaders believed that all perspectives from the community needed to be included to ensure consensus and support for the reform (Hindby, 2005). Even student perspectives were taken into consideration. For example, the reform project group sent a letter to all schools requesting that students write about “my dream school.” Students were asked to consider their desire for teacher qualities and instructional techniques to be used in the new school system. The results of these discussions with community members and Native educational experts from foreign lands provided valuable input to ministry officials. These suggestions were included in the design of the School Act of 2002 which eventually gave rise to the school reform, Atuafitsialak.

Inerisaavik has continued to include the larger community in Atuarfitsialak’s development by using Greenland’s national television and radio stations. These mediums are well-suited for the Greenlandic context, in which there is a unified educational system spread over a large geographical area. The country of Greenland is nearly three times the size of Texas, but there is no roads connecting towns. People travel with helicopters and small propeller airplanes, but with only one airline, travel is terribly costly. Inerisaavik has capitalized on this situation and created a series of 15-minute television and radio programs describing important aspects of Atuarfitsialak. The videos are described briefly below:

Video 1. The first video outlines the process of moving from a public school system that uses traditional teaching methods to one that uses effective teaching strategies. It outlines the new legislation guiding educational change and the initial developments of the reform.

Video 2. The second video describes the Standards for Effective Pedagogy through video clips of high-implementing classrooms in Greenland and explains why the new methods promote learning.

Video 3. The third video details the changes in the curriculum to include the newly developed learning goals for grades 1-3, 4-6, and 7-10.

Video 4. The fourth video describes the new assessments administered in grades 3 and 7 tracking students’ developments in various subject areas. The video explains the value of on-going assessment in connection to higher education.

Video 5. The fifth video provides an overview of Inerisaavik’s plan to educate all of Greenland’s teachers at a post-baccalaureate, Master’s or PhD level, depending on their current level of education. This goal is to be realized by 2028.

According to Kattie, the Head of the reform implementation, these videos were a way to involve parents into the reform process. She expressed that “it is very important for Inerisaavik to participate in giving information for the communities for what the goal [of Atuarfitsialak] is.” In her opinion, this kind of work was much needed because after initial reform efforts, most of the developmental work has been at the level of the schools. Changes that have occurred at the classroom level have not necessarily been communicated to the wider community because reform work is still in its initial stages.

This has caused some problems in that some parents have questioned the legitimacy of the reform saying that “Atuarfitsialak” is not Atuarfitsialak. Meaning, the schools in Greenland are not good schools. Kattie explained the videos are assisting parents to see reform as a process that cannot produces immediate results, “The goal is Atuarfitsialak and that is something we are trying to reach. Not today, but that we need to get tools to reach the “‘good school’”. She feels that the videos have helped the parents shift their perspective on educational reform to that of a process and not to expect immediate results.

Longitudinal Database as a Vehicle for Reform

In the initial stages of the school reform process, reform leaders realized that teachers lacked tools for measuring students’ academic achievement. This resulted in the creation of an evaluation department to create these tools. The former leader of Inerisaavik’s Evaluation Department, George, described this early work.

This department started in 2002 … as a result of the Artuarfitsialak school reform. We found out during the process that both internal evaluation and external evaluation [was lacking]…. The instruction on a daily basis was very traditional with no evaluation with students’ achievements. They did not have a goal for the students and the instruction was based on textbooks and there were no goals for individual students or for classes. So what we found out was that we needed to strengthen the teachers’ understanding of … formative evaluation (interview with Kaali, March 3, 2006).

To assist teachers in the assessment of individual students, Inerisaavik created assessments based on the learning goals outlined in the revised national curriculum. Previously, students were examined once in 10th grade, the final year of Greenland’s public education. Enormous pressure was placed on students who had to pass comprehensive exams that served as gatekeepers for post-secondary institutions. So much was at stake in passing these exams that many teachers across the country used the final year of high school to prepare their students.

These new “step-tests,” administered in grades 3 and 7, have taken a different approach to assessment and evaluation by capturing individuals’ progress through school. He explained that “In the old days, the reporting to parents were only marks and no further information on how well the student is doing, why he got that mark, and where he is the learning process.” Teachers were not responsive to individuals’ learning because they didn’t have the training, tools, or understanding of how to do this. In fact, they passed the buck and placed the responsibility in the hands of time. Kaali details the general attitude teachers had at this time:

What we found out during the process of school reform was even though the teachers found out that students [were having] problems with learning, they don’t (sic) initiate special arrangements for the students. If he is not following the standards in Greenlandic and writing, they just say, “Oh, they will learn some time” (Interview with Kaali, March 3, 2006).

Inerisaavik’s created a longitudinal database that housed students’ exam scores. The database was developed so that everyone in Greenland is able to access it. Moreover, the interactive website allows schools to locate and track improvement by school, teacher, and individual students to see if there is growth throughout the years. The database will be used to improve Greenlandic education by following “every individual student.” Kaali expressed satisfaction with his department’s contribution to the reform, and commented “We will have the opportunity to follow the development of the whole country.”

Discussion

This purpose of this study was to describe Inerisaavik’s responsiveness to the needs Greenland’s schools and community by examining reform activities. Although Inerisaavik is not an intermediary organization by definition because it is technically a governmental agency (McLaughlin, 2006), their collaborative work is similar to these types of organizations. In Greenland, the power of the state is immense and educational policy and practice is controlled by the Ministry of Education. In spite of this, Inerisaavik played an active role in addressing the disconnection that typically exists in most reform work (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000). Reform leaders took a dynamic role in the “hand-over” process by approaching implementation using principles of sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978).

Reform is not a straightforward sequence of program adoption and institutionalization that follows a linear path (Datnow, 2000). Reforms are dynamic and changing because they are shaped by the structural and cultural features of school and society. This complexity has made it difficult for researchers to capture how reforms change over time. As such, little is known about how reform leaders adjust reform work based on their new knowledge acquired through experience (McLaughlin, 2006). This study contributes to the literature on how experience was used to adjust a model’s implementation to a new context.

Inerisaavik’s approach to educational reform is important in light of Greenland’s colonial history. Like most formerly colonized places in the world, a dominant economic and political system has oppressed and exploited the indigenous people (Dirlik, 2002). Historically, the Greenlanders have accepted the educational mandates given to them from a foreign government without having much opportunity to negotiate their appropriateness in Greenlandic society. Inerisaavik’s collaboration with Greenland’s schools and community is breaking this historical pattern. They have taken a strong step away from the long-established patterns of one-sided implementation towards one of mutual co-construction.

References

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, L. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Cohen, D. K., Marion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th Edition). London: Routledge.

Datnow, A. (2000). Implementing an externally developed school restructuring design: Enablers, constraints, and tensions. Teaching and Change, 7(2), 147-172.

Datnow, A., Lasky, S. G., Stringfield, S. C., & Teddlie, C. (2005). Systemic integration for educational reform in racially and linguistically diverse contexts: A summary of the evidence. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 445-453.

Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. C. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1/2), 183-204.

Demmert, W. G., & Towner, J. C. (2003). A review of the research literature on the influence of culturally based education on the academic performance of Native American students. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Dirlik, A. (2002). Rethinking colonialism: Globalization, postcolonialism, and the nation. Interventions, 4(3), 428-448.

Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform [Electronic Version]. Kappan, 81, 581-584. Retrieved January 22, 2007, from .

Garet, M. S., Porter, L. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-946.

Hall, P. M., & McGinty, P. J. W. (1997). Policy as the transformation of intentions: Producing program from statues. The Sociological Quarterly, 38, 439-467.

Hindby, L. (2005). Atuarfitsialak-from concept to reality?: An insider's account of the Greenlandic public school reform (pp. 1-82): Institute for Learning, Aalborg University.

Honig, M. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in educaitonal policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-87.

McLaughlin, M. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions, and new opportunities. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. New York: State University of New York Press.

Olsen, K. K. (2005). Educating teachers from a Vygotskian point of view: The Greenlandic school reform and what it implies for classroom practices and further education (professional development) for teachers, . Seville, Spain: International Society for Cultural and Activity Research.

Rivera, H., & Tharp, R. G. (2006). A Native American community's involvement and empowerment to guide their children's development in the school setting. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(4), 435-451.

Seago, N. (2004). Using video as an object of inquiry for mathematics teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education: Advances in research on teaching, Volume 10 (pp. 259-286). Orlando, Fl.: Elsevier, LTD.

Showers, B. (1982). Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Showers, B. (1984). Peer Coaching: A Strategy for Facilitating Transfer of Training. A CEPM R&D Report. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-16.

Tharp, R. G., & Dalton, S. S. (2007). Orthodoxy, cultural compatibility, and universals in education. Comparative Education, 43(1), 53-70.

Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching Transformed: Achieving Excellence, Fairness, Inclusion, and Harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download