A Publication & Podcast by ETFO and OISE

This publication and podcast is a joint project of ETFO and OISE, summarizing current research findings relevant to teaching in elementary schools. Each issue, written by university researchers, will focus on a body of research within a particular domain.

Note: new podcasts will be added as they become available.

No. 4 - Prediction
Ben Levin - Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto
April 2011, 00:04:37

MP3 file (4.4 mb) | OGG file (5.4 mb)

No. 6 - Prevent Bullying by Promoting Healthy Relationships
Debra Pepler - York University and the Hospital for Sick Children
December 2011, 00:07:11

MP3 file (7 mb) | OGG file (6.1 mb)

No. 7 - How Teachers Can Use Research
Ben Levin - Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto
January 2012, 00:07:31

MP3 file (7.2 mb) | OGG file (8.5 mb)

Expand titles below to view individual Research for Teachers issues. Downloadable PDF versions are listed under Related Documents.

• No. 1 - Parent Engagement - September 2010

  Parent Engagement

  Debbie Pushor
  University of Saskatchewan

  A wealth of research concludes that students are more likely to be successful when their parents are engaged in their education.  When parents are truly engaged, children:
  

  • attend school more regularly;
  • are better behaved; 
  • have better academic outcomes;
  • have a greater sense of how to be successful in school; and 
  • are more likely to graduate and go on to postsecondary education.

  In light of this evidence, meaningful relationships that enhance parents’ opportunities to make important contributions to student learning are vital to the work of teachers.

  Recently, researchers have analyzed these findings to determine what parents do that makes this difference in students’ education.  It seems it is not particular parent actions, such as attending school functions, establishing household rules, or checking student homework, that make the difference.  Instead, it is more subtle aspects of parent engagement that prove to be the most important - such as creating an atmosphere in the home in which education is valued, and in which high expectations and levels of support are established.  When parent engagement is linked to teaching and learning it contributes to enhanced student results.  The benefits are greater when the parent is not expected to act as another teacher.  These findings have important implications for teachers in how they build relationships with parents.

  Three critical implications for teachers emerge.

  1. Adopt a definition of parent engagement that embodies the role parents play in their children’s learning both in and out of school.  Move away from promoting tasks for parents to perform such as reading with their children, helping with homework, or volunteering in the classroom. 

  Encourage parents to be engaged in their children’s learning on their own terms and in ways that fit their place in their children’s lives - playing games, cooking together, enrolling their children in language, cultural, or extra-curricular activities, or family outings. 

  2. Pay attention to the knowledge parents and families hold, the ways they instill a sense of educational standards and support, promote learning, engage with their children in varied experiences, and so on.  Learn from parents and families about their lives out of school.  For example:

  • invite parents to lead a school staff orientation or community walk in which they introduce the school community to the staff as residents in that community; 
  • re-conceptualize “Meet the Teacher” night as a “Meet the Parents/Families” night; 
  • plan the first curricular unit of the school year around “family stories”; and
  • use the first 15 minutes of every staff meeting for every staff member to make relationship-building calls with parents.

  3. Use the knowledge gained from parents and families to engage with parents, at home and at school, in ways that contribute to school improvement and student learning and benefit children, parents, families, and educators.  Create opportunities for parents to contribute in meaningful ways to decision-making, For example:
  

  • hold a meeting to co-determine with parents the homework policy and practices for the class – the amount, type, expectations, roles everyone will play – based on the context of their lives; 
  • work with parents to analyze together student achievement results and jointly establish school priorities and growth plans.

  With parent engagement, what both parents and teachers know and desire is central to teaching and learning. 

  Further Reading

  Henderson, A.T., Mapp, K.L., Johnson, V.R. & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The
  essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York: The New Press.

  Henderson, A.T. & Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (National Centre for Family & Community Connections with Schools). Retrieved on November 4, 2005, from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/introduction.pdf.

  Hill, N.E., Tyson, D.F. & Bromell, L. (2009). Developmentally appropriate strategies across ethnicity and socioeconomic status. In N.E. Hill & R.K. Chao (Eds.), Families, schools and the adolescent: Connecting research, policy, and practice (pp. 53-72). New York: Teachers College Press.

  Jeynes, W.H. (2010, March). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Record, 112 (3), pp. 747-774.

  Lopez, G.R. & Stoelting. (2010). Disarticulating parent involvement in Latino-impacted schools in the Midwest. In M. Miller Marsh & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds), (Mis)understanding families: Learning from real families in our schools. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 19-36. 

  Pushor, D. (2010). Are school doing enough to learn about families? In M. Miller Marsh & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds), (Mis)understanding families: Learning from real families in our schools. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 4-16.
  

• No. 2 - Formative Assessment to Support Student Learning - November 2010

  Formative Assessment to Support Student Learning

  Christine Suurtamm
  University of Ottawa

  We now have compelling research indicating that formative assessment may be the most significant single factor in raising the academic achievement of all students and especially that of lower-achieving students. Every teacher needs to consider how the principles of formative assessment can be applied in her or his work.
  
  Formative assessment provides teachers with evidence of the progress of student learning. Rather than taking place after classroom activities to see what has been learned, formative assessment helps to guide students to make improvements during the course of learning. It also informs teachers as to how to support individual students or to alter classroom instruction.
  
  Formative assessment can take many forms. It should focus on what students know and can do and provide them with suggestions for improving their learning rather than focusing only on what they are unable to do. Thus, pupils can begin to see themselves as successful or potentially successful. Research suggests that formative assessment that prompts students towards improvement helps to create a classroom culture of success.
  
  But what does formative assessment look like? My data from 500 Ontario teachers of grade 7 and 8 mathematics show that teachers use a wider range of assessment strategies to get a sense of students’ understanding than they do for a report card mark. Case studies of grade 7 and 8 teachers and research with Professional Learning Communities of teachers of grades 4 to 8 show that such things as quizzes, conferencing, portfolios, observation and focused questioning, listening, and responding are being used in many Ontario classrooms to help to give teachers a sense of students’ understanding and suggest next steps to teachers and students. For instance, a teacher may use short quizzes to provide formative feedback. Rather than give students marks, she writes comments on the quizzes about what areas they understand and the areas they still need to work on. This helps her to see where to go in her teaching as well.

  Another example would be using conferencing with students and asking them to discuss their work, sometimes individually or with a group. The teacher asks questions such as “Tell me about your work, what were you thinking when you did this?” Another teacher states that before a unit he puts students into groups and gives them an exploration activity “so that they can pull from all of their prior knowledge and they do it on chart paper and we put it up and we just discuss what strategies they’re already using before we get into the unit. It helps me see what they already know.” He also recognizes that this is an opportunity for peer assessment as “their peers are giving them feedback on what they did and could they have started in a different place or done it an easier or faster way.”
  
  In summary, formative assessment plays a significant role in improving student learning. In all grades and subjects there are ways in which teachers can help students see where they need to improve outside the framework of grades and marks, with very positive effects on student achievement.
  
  

  Further Reading

  Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2), 139-148.
  
  Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

  Cooper, D. (2006). Talk about assessment: Strategies and tools to improve learning. Toronto: Nelson Education.
  
  Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning : Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin.
  
  Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  
  Gardner, J. (Ed.) (2006). Assessment and Learning. London : Sage Publications.
  
  McMillan, J. H. (Ed.) (2007). Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice. NY: Teachers College Press.
  
  Reeves, D. (Ed.) (2007). Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
  
  Shepherd, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher. 29, 7, 4 – 14.
  
  Small, M. (2009). Good questions: Great ways to differentiate math instruction. Reston, VA: NCTM.

• No. 3 - School-Based Family Literacy Intervention Programs - February 2011

  School-Based Family Literacy Intervention Programs

  Janette Pelletier
  Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

  It has long been known that what parents do in the home regarding language stimulation and literacy related activities can boost children’s language abilities and school literacy. Recent evidence has shown the power of intervention programs to help parents support their children’s developing literacy.  The U.S. National Early Literacy Panel (2008) reports that literacy interventions with parents have medium to large effects on children’s oral comprehension and cognitive abilities. Sénéchal’s (2005) meta-review shows that family involvement, particularly parents helping their kindergarten to grade 3 children learn to read, has a moderate to large effect on children’s reading performance.

  Family literacy interventions come in a variety of forms ranging from home visiting to school-based programs that run over a course of weeks (Phillips, Hayden & Norris, 2006). Our own research shows that effective family literacy programs in the kindergarten years can be delivered in a variety of ways (Pelletier, Hipfner-Boucher & Doyle, 2010).  One example of an effective strategy brings parents and children to school at lunchtime, after school, or in the evening for joint parent-child literacy learning, facilitated by primary teachers or early childhood educators. 

  This intergenerational literacy focus is effective in producing both adult and child literacy benefits (Wasik, Dobbins & Herrmann, 2001).  We employ the format of parent-only and child-only breakout groups in which one facilitator provides information about an aspect of children’s early literacy development to parents while another facilitator engages children in literacy learning on the same topic.  This is preceded and followed by shared family literacy time.  The program has been tailored to families in the Chinese communities (Zhang, 2010). Another model brings family literacy programs to apartment buildings where families tend not to come into the school (Press, 2008). 

  Across all these models there is an emphasis on supporting parents’ in both oral and text-based activities.  Oral language involves conversation in the home (Snow, 1993), paying attention to rare words and enhancing vocabulary (Biemiller, 2003; Neuman & Dickinson, 2001), talking about things not in the here and now, that is, using decontextualized language (Curenton, Craig & Flanagan, 2008) and letter-sound knowledge (Dickinson et al; 2003).  Text-based language involves shared book reading and enjoyment, concepts of print (Rvachew & Savage, 2006), understanding story characters’ motivations and intentions for higher-level reading comprehension (e.g., Pelletier & Astington, 2004), attention to environmental print (Evans & Saint-Aubin, 2005), and making letter-sound connections in naturalistic ways (Purcell-Gates, 1996).

  Although the effects of a single teacher or school working with parents on one or a few of these dimensions has received little attention in the research literature, partnering with parents to enrich literacy practice on any of these dimensions will be productive and will meet the needs of all parents to support the language and literacy development of their children.  Mobilizing knowledge by sharing it with parents is more effective than just giving them activities to do at home.

  Recommended Sources

  1) Family literacy program guide: Pelletier, Hipfner-Boucher Doyle (2010). See References.

  2) Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development: http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/index.php?fa=home.show.

  Further Reading

  Biemiller, A. (2003). Vocabulary: Needed if more children are to read well. Reading Psychology, 24(3), 323-335.
  
  Curenton, S., Craig, M., & Flanigan, N. (2008).  Use of decontextualized talk across story contexts: How oral storytelling and emergent reading can scaffold children’s development.  Early Education & Development, 19(1), 161-187.
  
  Evans, M.A., & Saint-Aubin, J. (2005). What children are looking at during shared storybook reading: Evidence from eye movement monitoring.  Psychological Science, 16(11), 913-920.
  
  National Early Literacy Panel (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
  
  Neuman, S., & Dickinson, D. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of early literacy research.  New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  
  Pelletier, J.,  & Astington, J. W.  (2004).  Action, consciousness and theory of mind: Children’s ability to coordinate story characters’ actions and thoughts. Early Education and Development, 15 (1), 5-22.
  
  Pelletier, J., Hipfner-Boucher, K., & Doyle, A. (2010). Family literacy in action: A guide for literacy program facilitators.  Toronto, ON: Scholastic Education.
  
  Phillips, L., Hayden, R., & Norris, S. (2006). Family literacy matters: A longitudinal parent-child literacy intervention study.  Calgary, AB: Temeron.
  
  Press, A. (2008). Developing a home-based family literacy program and evaluating the effects on the social ecology of learning.  PhD Thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Toronto, ON.
  
  Purcell-Gates, V. (1996).  Stories, coupons and the TV Guide: Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge.  Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406-428.
  
  Rvachew, S., & Savage, R. (2006).  Preschool foundations of early reading acquisition.  Paediatric Child Health, 11, 589-593.
  
  Sénéchal, M. (2005). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to Grade 3. Portsmouth, NH: National Center for Family Literacy.
  
  Snow, C. (1993). Families as social contexts for literacy development. In C. Daiute (Ed.), The development of literacy through social interaction (pp. 11-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  
  Wasik, B., Dobbins, D., & Herrmann, S. (2001).  Intergenerational family literacy: Concepts, research and practice.  In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 444-458).  New York, NY: Guilford.
  
  Zhang, J. (2009). Implementation and evaluation of a Chinese language family literacy program: impact on young children’s literacy development in English and Chinese. PhD Thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Toronto, ON.

• No. 4 - Prediction - April 2011

  Prediction

  Ben Levin
  Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

  Teachers often feel that they can predict students’ futures; that we can tell by, say, age 6 or 8 students’ academic destinies.  This view is strengthened by studies that show a strong relationship between various characteristics of students, such as their socio-economic status or their school readiness, and their later achievement. 

  In fact, predictions of this kind are fraught with problems.  Quite a bit of evidence shows that predictions about students’ futures are wrong often enough that one should be very, very cautious in making any assumptions about what will happen in the future based on current performance.  It turns out that while we can predict population outcomes, such as the percentage of students that will go on to post-secondary education, that does not mean at all that we can predict individual outcomes – such as which students will go on. 

  Let’s consider some examples.  In the early 1980s, as part of special education legislation, Ontario mandated an early identification program for all students entering elementary schools.  A number of studies compared the predictions of these various tools with students’ subsequent school performance and found quite low relationships – “only slight better than chance” concluded one study (Stone, Gridley &Treolar, 1992).  Manitoba research from the Centre for Health Policy (Brownell et al., 2004) showed strong relationships between socio-economic status and school outcomes, but also significant numbers of students whose performance did not match the expectation based on background.  In a study of 5000 children (Morgan et al., 2009), only 65 percent of those with serious mathematics difficulties in kindergarten still exhibited those difficulties in fifth grade.  Another study (Badian, 1988) of 400 students over nine years found that kindergarten reading performance predicted only 75 percent of those who were poor readers eight years later.  While 60 or 75 percent may seem a high rate, it actually means that a very large number of students will be judged wrongly.  Canadian data (OECD, 2010) show that more than 40 percent of students scoring at the bottom reading level at age 15 were in post-secondary education at age 21.  In a review of research on high school graduation, Gleason and Dynarski (2002) concluded that even a whole set of variables taken together resulted in too low a degree of accuracy to have much predictive values.  Many other studies have come to similar conclusions; our predictions turn out to be wrong much more often than most of us think.

  How can this be?  There are both mathematical and substantive reasons for the gap between a belief in prediction and the actual evidence.  Mathematically, a correlation between two variables, such as school readiness and grade 4 reading, of, say, 0.8 is very high.  Yet it is far from perfect and means that for quite a few students – 20 percent or so – the predicted relationship will not hold.  A significant number of students who start poorly will later recover, and another significant number who start well will later decline.  That is what the studies cited above show.  The more years over which a prediction extends, the less accurate it will generally be. 

  Substantively, the key thing to remember is that people can and do change.  History is not destiny.  We know that with the right supports, most people can achieve far more than anyone thought they could.  In an important way, part of the job of schools is to make those negative predictions less likely to be true – for example by reducing the relationship between family background and student outcomes.

  What does all this mean for teachers?  Two implications are important.  First, we should be very cautious in assuming that we know the future for any student, since the evidence is so clear that we may be wrong.  Second, we should do as much as we can to ensure that students are able to be successful in future, whatever they may have done in past.  Possible indicators of a poor future should be a call for action in the present.

  
  Further Reading

  Badian, N.  (1988).  The Prediction of Good and Poor Reading Before Kindergarten Entry
  A Nine-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Learning Disabilities 21(2) 98-103

  Brownell M., Roos, N., Fransoo, R., Guevrèmont, A., MacWilliam, L., Derksen, S., Dik, N., Bogdanovic, B., & Sirski, M. (2004). How do educational outcomes vary with socioeconomic status? Key findings from the Manitoba Child Health Atlas 2004. Winnipeg, MB. Manitoba Centre for Health Policy.

  Bowers, A. (2007).  Grades and Graduation: Using K-12 Longitudinal Cohort Data to Predict On-Time Graduation.  Paper presented to the American Educational research Association, Chicago

  Gleason, P., and Dynarski, M. (2002).  Do we know whom to serve?  Issues in using risk factors to identify dropouts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. 7(1), 25-41.

  Morgan, P., Farkas, G. and Wu, Q. (2009).  Five-Year Growth Trajectories of Kindergarten Children with Learning Difficulties in Mathematics.  Journal of Learning Disabilities 2009 42: 306

  OECD (2010).  Pathways to success: How knowledge and skills at age 15 shape future lives in Canada.  Paris: OECD.

• No. 5 - Why The Arts Matter - May 2011

  Why The Arts Matter

  Dr. Rena Upitis
  Queen’s University

  Experiences in the arts spark creativity and nurture the imagination.  Imagination and creativity are hallmarks of great thinkers; many prominent scientists are also active in the arts.  When a young student writes a poem, choreographs a dance, takes part in theatre, or composes a piece of music, the student, too, has a chance to create, to wonder, and to learn.

  Many teachers are aware that the arts can be key in reaching students who do not respond well to traditional forms of learning.  The arts also help students analyze complex issues from multiple perspectives.  There is mounting evidence that the arts develop critical thinking skills, contribute to self-confidence, encourage risk-taking, and bolster achievement in other subjects.  In a study involving over 600,000 students in Georgia (USA), it was found that when school districts made the arts a priority, students had higher test scores and were more likely to graduate from college. A longitudinal Pan-Canadian study offered complementary results: after three years of arts-based programming, Grade 6 students performed better than their peers in non-arts schools on math computation tests.  Studies like these tell us that one art form isn’t better than any other: what matters is that teachers engage their students in arts activities in regular and sustained ways.

  We often hear that the Canadian workforce requires employees to think creatively, to communicate well, to adapt to change, and to learn throughout their careers.  An education rich in the arts lays the groundwork for those skills to emerge.  Regions with thriving arts programs benefit by job creation, the development of community networks, increased responsiveness of public service organizations, and better quality of life for people in poor health.  In these indirect ways, too, the arts are a vital part of our culture.

  Much excitement has also been generated by research on brain development.  For example, the brain contains specialized neurons that respond to musical stimuli, leading scientists to conclude children’s earliest experiences should include music.  But even though we learn more easily in the early years, people learn at all ages.  When we become lifelong learners in the arts, we have opportunities to develop to our full potential.  Elementary teachers can provide such opportunities by setting up permanent arts centres (for listening, sketching and drawing, puppetry), incorporating arts into routines (e.g., music for transitions, inviting parent-artist guests on a monthly basis), and creating larger works (e.g., class quilts, choreographed dance movement routines for daily physical activity, and school-wide annual productions).  The importance of the arts is also clearly evident to children in classrooms filled with visually arresting images, beautiful sounds, and a sense of playfulness and activity.  Teachers who create the feeling of an art studio or a workshop give their students the sense new things can be discovered and created in the classroom.

  Bertrand Russell was one of the greatest mathematicians and philosophers of the 20th century.  In his last essay, written at the age of 95, Russell reflected that the time had come to ask whether his life’s work had taught men and women not to hate people other than their own.  The final lines of his final essay state: “There is an artist imprisoned in each one of us. Let [the artist] loose to spread joy everywhere.”  Why did Russell attach such importance to the arts? Perhaps it was the simple fact that the arts enrich our lives.  Or perhaps he had come to realize that the arts have formed a fundamental component of culture since the beginning of time - and that everything we think, feel, or know cannot be described by words alone.

  Further Reading

  Bruer, J. (1999). The myth of the first three years: A new understanding of early brain development and lifelong learning. New York: Free Press.
  
  Deasy, R. J. (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.aep-arts.org.
  
  Eisner, E. W. (2002). The state of the arts and the improvement of education, Art Education Journal, 1(1), 2–6.
  
  Fowler, C. (1996). Strong arts, strong schools: The promising potential and shortsighted disregard of the arts in American schooling. New York: Oxford University Press.
  
  Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. New York: Teachers College Press.
  
  Music in World Cultures (1996). The Georgia project: A Status report on Arts Education in the State of Georgia. St. Boniface, MN: Author.
  
  Richards, T. L., & Berninger, V. W. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  
  Russell, B. (1967). Last Essay. http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~russell/bressay.htm.
  
  Smithrim, K., & Upitis, R. (2005). Learning through the arts: Lessons of engagement. Canadian Journal of Education, 289(1 & 2), 109–127.
  
  Solusa, D. (2006). How the arts develop the young brain. School Administrator, 63(11)26–31.
  
  Weber, E. W., Spychiger, M., & Patry, J. (1993). Music makes the school. Schlussbericht zu Bessere Bildung mit mehr Musik. Padagogisches Institut der Universitat, Freiburg/C.H.

• No. 6 - Prevent Bullying by Promoting Healthy Relationships - December 2011

  Prevent Bullying by Promoting Healthy Relationships

  Debra Pepler
  York University and the Hospital for Sick Children

  Teachers are critical in socializing children and shaping their relationships through moment-to-moment interactions with their students. Through 20 years of research, we have come to understand bullying as a relationship problem in which an individual uses power and aggression to control and distress another. Our work in the Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence Network (PREVNet) is based on this research. (Please visit www.prevnet.ca for resources for teachers, parents and students.)
  

  If bullying is a relationship problem, then it requires relationship solutions. Family, peer, and school relationships affect all aspects of children’s development – intellectual, social, emotional, physical, behavioural, and moral. When relationships are positive, children develop positive social skills, understanding, and confidence. When these relationships are destructive, as in bullying, children’s social-emotional development is compromised (Vaillancourt et al., 2011). Children’s healthy development depends on healthy relationships. 

  We can expect that children who have developed unhealthy relationship patterns, such as bullying, have experienced relationships that may have failed to support them in developing the essential skills, understanding, and behaviours for positive relationships. Some children who bully lack emotional and behavioural regulation and are generally aggressive (Pepler et al., 2008a), whereas others are quite socially skilled and popular, but have learned that bullying is a way to gain status in the peer group (Feris & Felmlee, 2011). Both types of children need to learn how and why to relate to others prosocially, rather than aggressively. In other words, we should think about bullying primarily as an educational challenge rather than as a matter of crime and punishment.
  

  Relationship solutions for teachers in relation to students who bully include:
   
  1. Establishing consequences that teach how others feel when bullied and how to act differently next time (educational or formative consequences).  Students can be engaged in discussing together ways to reduce negative behaviour;
  
  2. Providing opportunities to experience positive leadership in which they are helping others, so they recognize the value and reinforcement that comes from helping, not hurting;
  
  3. Strengthening their strategies to resist peer pressure. These youth are the most susceptible to pressure from peers to engage in deviant behaviours (Pepler et al., 2008a); and
  
  4. Helping them find their moral compass. Youth who bully are often morally disengaged and don’t care or recognize the harm they do to others. 
  

  Relationship solutions for teachers in relation to students who are victimized include:
  

  1. Making sure that students know they can and should report being bullied to adults, who will take steps to protect them;
  
  2. Protecting them from further peer abuse by careful structuring of classroom groups and activities;
  
  3. Providing opportunities for positive peer relationships by setting them up with prosocial peers for group assignments, sports, and lunch/recess times;
  
  4. Supporting them in developing social skills and assertiveness if they struggle in these areas; and
  
  5. Helping them find strengths and domains of competence so that they can be recognized for these by peers and adults at home and school (Pepler et al., 2008b).

  Everyone involved in children’s lives plays an important role in promoting healthy development (Pepler et al., 2009). We believe that four strategies are essential to prevent bullying problems. These include:

  1. Self-awareness on the part of adults involved in the lives of children, which is essential to ensure they are modeling and interacting in ways that promote children’s healthy behaviours and relationships. Children must know that we will take active measures to prevent or respond to bullying, but equally we cannot bully children into stopping their own bullying. Similarly, we must be mindful of our relationship style with other adults to ensure there is no element of bullying;
  
  2. Scaffolding or coaching – children need constant coaching and support from adults in learning the skills needed in a socially complex world. Explicit teaching of different social skills may be needed to help students change their behaviour;
  
  3. Social architecture – adults need to play an active role in organizing children’s groupings to promote positive interactions and discourage negative interactions; and
  
  4. Systems change – children do not change unless the environments in which they are growing up change; therefore, it is necessary to sustain improvements in the quality of relationships within all the places where children live, learn, and play. 

  Preventing and addressing bullying problems is up to all of us! When we address this challenge in our moment-to-moment interactions and programming, we can help to create safe, secure, and equitable schools, families, and communities that activity foster healthy relationships and eliminate violence.

  Further Reading

  Champagne, F. A., Weaver, I. C. G., Diorio, J., Dymov, S., Szyf, M., & Meaney, M. J. (2006). Maternal care associated with methylation of the estrogen receptor-1b promoter and estrogen receptor-expression in the medial preoptic area of female offspring. Endocrinology, 147, 2909-2915.

  Feris, R. & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles: Network centrality and gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76, 48-73.

  National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2004). Young children develop in an environment of relationships. Working Paper No. 1. Retrieved from www.developingchild.net.

  Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J.  (2008a). Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79, 325-338.

  Pepler, D., Craig, W., Jiang, D., & Connolly, J. (2008b). The development of bullying and considerations for intervention. International Journal of Adolescent Mental Health,  20, 3-9.

  Pepler, D., Cummings, J., & Craig, W. (2009). Steps to respect for everyone by everyone. In W. Craig, D. Pepler, & J. Cummings (Eds.) (2009). Rise Up for Respectful Relationships: Prevent Bullying.  PREVNet Series, Volume 2, 199-206. Kingston, Canada:  PREVNet Inc.

  Vaillancourt, T., Duku, E., Becker, S., Schmidt, L., Nicol, J., Muir, C., & MacMillian, H. (2011). Peer victimization, depressive symptoms, and high salivary cortisol predict poor memory in children. Brain and Cognition. 77, 191-199. 

• No. 7 - How Teachers Can Use Research - January 2012

  How Teachers Can Use Research

  Ben Levin
  OISE

  Education research has an important contribution to make to practice, but teachers face two big challenges in getting the most value from research evidence. First, how can teachers learn about the findings and implications of high quality research?  Second, how do teachers turn the rather general findings of research into practices that work in very different schools and classrooms?

  The good news is that there is a growing base of reliable evidence on many aspects of education practice. For example, John Hattie’s (2009) careful analysis of a very large number of studies on student learning found that among the most powerful influences were how teachers engage with students to focus on specific learning and how teachers and student seek and provide feedback to each other so that students become active participants in the learning. These practices showed very powerful effects on student learning across dozens if not hundreds of studies. The research reviewed by Hattie also supports practices such as students’ self reporting of their own achievement. There are many other areas in which a solid base of research can guide practice – including but not limited to those in this series produced by ETFO.

  On the other hand, some education ideas that are popular are not supported by evidence – for example, retaining students in grade (Hattie, 2009; Jimerson, 2009), or separating students by gender (Mael et al., 2005). And in other areas, there simply is not enough evidence to know, or the research is equivocal, with different studies producing conflicting findings, leaving teachers uncertain as to which practices they should consider adopting.

  So how are educators to form judgments about recommendations that are 'based on research'?  First, one should not come to conclusions based on one or two studies, and even less should anyone rush into full scale adoption of particular practices just because they have worked in a school somewhere else. Promising results should not be ignored; those practices should be given further trials with careful evaluation to see if the same benefits also occur in other settings. But single studies or instances are not strong enough to be the basis for wholesale adoption of a new practice. In other words, education needs a more rigorous process of testing new ideas, and then adopting those that do show consistent benefit.

  Second, one has to be skeptical of studies that are done by the promoters of an idea or product.  Often in education the studies supporting a program or approach are done by those advocating that program.  Yet we have much evidence that studies done or sponsored by promoters are much more likely to produce positive evidence – as is the case for studies of drugs sponsored by drug companies compared with independent studies of the same drugs (Lexchin, Bero, Djulbegovic, & Clark, 2003). Reliable evidence exists when many studies find similar results even when done by different people and using different methods.

  It is not reasonable to think, though, that individual educators will have the time or expertise to read all these original studies in order to form an opinion.  Fortunately there is no need to do so. There are already many careful syntheses of research on various topics available, such as the one you are reading now. Many other summaries of research are readily available online; searches using terms such as 'meta-analysis' or 'research synthesis' or 'research review' plus a specific topic will turn these up.

  Many groups and organizations work to bring research findings to the attention of teachers in various forms, from videos to toolkits, to handbooks to tip sheets. Work done by the Research Supporting Practice in Education (RSPE) research team at OISE is finding literally hundreds of such resources available on the internet, all claiming to be 'research-based'. Some of these organizations are Canadian, including the Ministry of Education, Ontario College of Teachers, teacher federations, principal organizations, and external groups such as the Canadian Education Association. Universities and individual academics also do this kind of 'knowledge mobilization' work. Organizations in other parts of the world also produce summaries and syntheses with relevance to Ontario educators.

  Here, again, educators are faced with the challenge of judging which work is credible. A first consideration is whether the sponsoring agency has a particular interest in reaching certain conclusions. Work done by independent sources that do not have a stake in the results is most likely to be reliable in summarizing a body of research. If that is not the case, one has to look more deeply into the evidence behind the conclusions – for example by seeing how consistent it is with other resources from other organizations. Again, consistency of findings from multiple sources is an important indicator of credibility.

  To what extent do the findings of research transfer across settings? There are two aspects to this question. First, findings on many aspects of education will transfer well from one setting to another – for example the effects of feedback on work to and by students are highly likely to apply across countries, subjects, and grade levels. Findings around motivation, engagement, student understandings of subject matter, and so on are all likely to have high validity across settings because these basic human and educational processes do not vary much from place to place.

  On the other hand, a research conclusion is, for teachers, only the start of the matter. Research findings are by their nature general while teaching is always a matter of specifics – these students doing this task at this particular time. Knowing that formative feedback is a powerful way to improve student learning does not tell teachers just how to use this finding in their own work. Teachers have to find ways to apply this knowledge to their own subjects and students, and to their own approaches to teaching and learning. Understanding that formative assessment is a practice well grounded in evidence does not dictate a specific approach to using formative assessment.

  This means that the application of research is always a matter of professional skill and judgment. Just as in other professions, in teaching research evidence helps to direct the work but rarely prescribes it in any detail.

  Finally, because teaching is a collegial activity, teachers will get the greatest benefit from research if they engage with colleagues. One of the clearest findings about the use of research evidence is that reading about a finding does not, by itself, lead to much change in practice (Nutley, Walter, & Davies, 2007). When discussion of research implications becomes a group activity, it is more likely to lead to changes in teaching practice as teachers support each other in thinking through how new knowledge can be applied to their settings (Levin, 2011).

  For more information on many of these issues, see www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe, which also has links to a variety of other related sites and to an annotated bibliography.

  Further Reading

  Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge.

  Jimerson, S.R. (2009). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 420-437.

  Levin, B. (2011). Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Review of Education, 9(1), 15-26.

  Lexchin, J., Bero, L., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review.  British Medical Journal, 326, 1167-1170.

  Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

  Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007).  Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Great Britain: The Policy Press.

• No. 8 - Managing Teacher-Student Relationships: A Minimalist Approach - February 2012

  Managing Teacher-Student Relationships: A Minimalist Approach

  Christine Richmond*

  Teachers can have two types of conversations with students in class. In the ideal situation the most potent conversation is focused on learning, with minor support from the managing conversation.  However, when teachers experience lessons where conversation about managing dominates, the learning agenda can disappear and poor outcomes are much more likely (Richmond, 2007).
  
  Literature concerning how best to manage for learning is huge and complex. It ranges from traditional, authoritarian styles articulated by Canter and Canter’s (1976) Assertive Discipline, through the sophisticated version of behaviourism exemplified by Alberto and Troutman’s (1995) Applied Behaviour Analysis for Teachers, to the democratic approach of Rogers (1993) and the more constructivist style of Glasser (1990). It includes material developed to support disenfranchised students such as the Restorative Justice movement (Macfarlane, Glynn, Cavanagh, & Bateman, 2007) and systems of school-wide support (Lewis and Sugai, 1999).
  
  These multiple models are confusing to teachers. A Balance Model (Richmond, 2007) provides a more generic approach (see Figure 1) that avoids having to choose between a wide range of student management approaches while retaining the core message within each. Despite their individual styles, when teachers are effective they typically do three things within the management component of their work. These teachers clearly establish expectations with students, generously acknowledge pro-social and on-task behaviour, and discretely correct anti-social and disruptive behaviour.

  
  Figure 1: The Balance Model

  Problematic imbalances easily occur in teachers' managing talk. Imbalances almost inevitably lead to an escalation in these managing conversations resulting in less time for learning and more frustration for everyone. The imbalance modelled in Figure 2 shows a teacher assuming that students know what to do and failing to be explicit about his or her expectations. Feedback is heavily weighted towards correction, while acknowledgement is parsimonious, particularly for those students who may deserve it least but need it most. This type of imbalance in management talk develops when teachers see the managing task as maintaining order through quashing disruption rather than as facilitating learning by communicating clearly with students.

  
  Figure 2: A problematic imbalance

  In this scenario, students who have difficulty connecting with the curriculum tend to become increasingly despondent, and less engaged with learning over time as they attract more and more correction. Teachers who articulate this imbalance are at risk of sliding into a pattern of over-correcting as frustration escalates and relationships with fragile students deteriorate.
  
  A way out of such a self-perpetuating, counter-productive communication cycle is for the teacher to resist the temptation of over-correcting the student who persistently challenges. To re-balance the management-focussed conversation, the teacher should explicitly teach a small number of achievable expectations and generously acknowledge even the slightest improvement in pro-social and on-task behaviour.
  
  The Balance Model can be used by teachers to reflect on the efficacy of their own management-focused interactions with students no matter what specific approach is used in the school. Teachers who achieve such a balance, maximising their opportunities to engage students in learning:

  1. are organised and project an energetic, enthusiastic, professional demeanour (Wong & Wong, 2005);
  
  2. directly instruct students in how to behave in class (Lewis & Sugai, 1999);
  
  3. acknowledge students when they are on-task by saying the student’s name, making eye-contact, smiling and moving into proximity. They frequently give positive verbal feedback and use concrete reinforcement strategies when appropriate (Alberto & Troutman, 1995);
  
  4. discretely correct students by using hand and face signals, giving re-directions and rule-reminders, asking questions and gently applying consequences.  They appreciate the metaphor of correction as salt … more is not better (Richmond, 2007); and
  
  5. follow through persistently evoking the principle of certainty not severity (Rogers, 1993).
  
  *Dr Richmond has spent her career studying behaviour management in schools, including experience as a special, mainstream and tertiary educator. She has worked as a Senior Guidance Officer, family therapist and academic, and is an experienced teacher of students with severe behaviour challenges in clinical and school settings. She held academic positions at the University of New England and then Bond University before moving into private practice.

  Further Reading

  Alberto, P.A. & Troutman, A.C. (1995). Applied Behaviour Analysis for Teachers (5th Editio.). Merrill, Columbus, Ohio.
  
  Canter, L. & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive Discipline: A Take Charge Approach for Today’s Educator. Lee Canter & Associates: Santa Monica, California.
  
  Glasser, W. (1990). The Quality School. New York: Harper Collins.
  
  Lewis, T. & Sugai, G. (1999). 'Effective behaviour support: a systems approach to proactive schoolwide management', Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1–24.
  
  Richmond, C. (2007). Teach More, Manage Less: A Minimalist Approach to Behaviour Management. Australia: Scholastic.
  
  Rogers, W. A. (1993). The Language of Discipline: A practical approach to effective classroom discipline. Plymouth, England: Northcoat House.
  
  Wong, H.K. & Wong, R.T. (2005). How to Be an Effective Teacher: The First Days of School. Harry K. Wong Publications, Inc. Mountain View, CA.

• No. 9 - Teaching English Language Learners - April 2012

  Teaching English Language Learners

  Jim Cummins
  Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

  English language learners are a highly diverse group whose defining characteristic is that their first language is other than English or a variety of English significantly different from that used in schools. Many of these students were born in Canada; those born outside of Canada may have arrived at any stage in their school careers. Some arrive with their families as voluntary immigrants; others are refugees fleeing disasters in their home countries. Those who arrive as voluntary immigrants after the age of six are likely to have received formal education in their home countries and may enter Canadian schools with strong academic skills in their first languages. Refugee students may have missed out on formal schooling for several years and some may have experienced physical or emotional trauma.

  This diversity is reflected in patterns of academic achievement. Research across Canada over 30 years shows that when given sufficient time to catch up academically, English language learners, as a group, perform at least as well as students whose home language is English. However, this pattern masks significant variation across different groups. In general, students from refugee backgrounds experience more academic difficulties than students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds whose families were voluntary immigrants. Students whose home language literacy skills are well-developed also tend to develop stronger English literacy skills, reflecting cross-linguistic transfer of concepts and learning skills.

  An important question for educators supporting English language learners is the length of time required to learn the language. The acquisition trajectories vary along three dimensions:

  • Students typically acquire fluency in everyday conversational language with one or two years of exposure to English. This rapid acquisition reflects the fact that there are many clues to meaning in face-to-face conversation - eye contact, gestures, facial expressions, intonation, etc. Thus, students don’t need to know as much of the language to understand or make themselves understood.
  • In the primary grades, students typically make grade-appropriate progress in acquiring rule-governed aspects of the language such as phonological awareness, decoding, and spelling skills. The rules and patterns underlying these discrete language skills are typically taught with reference to high frequency words, with the result that English language learners are not disadvantaged as a result of gaps that may exist in their overall knowledge of English vocabulary. 
  • In contrast, students typically require at least five years to catch up to native speakers in academic language proficiency. This extended trajectory is a result of: (a) the complexity of academic language, and (b) the fact that English language learners are attempting to catch up to a moving target, namely, native-speakers of English whose academic language and literacy skills are increasing significantly from one grade level to the next. The complexity of academic language reflects (a) the vocabulary in texts that include many low frequency and technical words (typically of Latin and Greek origin) that we almost never use in everyday conversation (e.g., predict, photosynthesis, sequence, revolution, etc.), and (b) increasingly sophisticated grammatical constructions (e.g., passive voice) that again are almost never used in everyday conversation.

  The fact that many students require instructional support across the curriculum for several years after they have become reasonably fluent in conversational English gives rise to several implications for classroom instruction and the development of school-based language policies.

  School-based policies are developed collaboratively by educators in a school or district to articulate shared principles underlying effective classroom instruction. Policies that address the academic paths and learning realities of English language learners will start from the fact that language is infused in all academic content (e.g., science, math, social studies, etc.) Thus, effective classroom instruction will enable English language learners to gain access to grade-appropriate curriculum content and support students in expanding their knowledge of academic English as they learn curriculum content. Based on this understanding of effective instruction, a school policy might include provisions for teachers to articulate language objectives in addition to content objectives in the teaching of all content subjects. Such policies might also address strategies for:

  • making content comprehensible for English language learners,
  • implementing accommodations in assessment,
  • viewing students' home languages as important resources for learning, and
  • fostering home-school partnerships to promote student success.

  Within the classroom, research points to a set of instructional strategies that all teachers can implement to expand students’ grasp of academic English:

  • Maximize literacy engagement. A significant body of research points to literacy engagement as a central determinant of literacy development. Instruction that motivates English language learners to read extensively and discuss what they are reading is crucial to enable them to catch up academically. 
  • Scaffold instruction. Teachers “scaffold” instruction for English language learners through the use of graphic organizers, visuals, demonstrations, and other strategies that make academic content more comprehensible to students. 
  • Connect to students' lives. Learning can be defined as the integration of new knowledge or skills with the knowledge or skills we already possess. Effective instruction for English language learners will activate prior knowledge and build background knowledge as needed.
  • Affirm students' identities. Students who feel their culture and identity validated in the classroom are much more likely to engage academically than those who feel ignored or devalued. The publication of student writing and creative project work (e.g., on a school web site and ideally in both English and students’ home languages) is highly effective in reinforcing students’ academic and cultural identities. 
  • Expand language knowledge and awareness across the curriculum. Not surprisingly, students’ knowledge of academic language will expand when teachers across the curriculum explain how language works and stimulate students’ curiosity about language.

  Further Reading

  Coelho, E. (2004). Adding English: A guide to teaching in multilingual classrooms. Toronto: Pippin Publishing.

  Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 132-149.

  Cummins, J. & Early, M. (Eds). (2011). Identity texts: The collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools. Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham Books.

  Geva, E. (2006). Learning to read in a second language: Research, implications, and recommendations for services. In: R. E. Tremblay, R.G. Barr, R. DeV Peters, (Eds.) Encyclopedia on early childhood development [online] (pp. 1-12). Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Retrieved October 8, 2007.

  Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), 1-30.

  McAndrew, M., Anisef, P., Garnett, B., Ledent, J., Sweet, R. (2009). Educational pathways and academic performance of youth of immigrant origin: Comparing Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Learning. Retrieved December 10, 2010 from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/OtherReports/CIC-CCL-Final12aout2009EN.pdf.

  OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn – Student engagement, strategies, and practices (Volume III). Paris: OECD. Retrieved December 15, 2010 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/17/48852630.pdf.

  Roessingh, H. & Elgie, S. (2009). Early language and literacy development among young ELL: Preliminary insights from a longitudinal study. TESL Canada Journal 26(2), 24-45.