fostering global competencies and deeper learning … · the pelp model one method of evaluating...

FOSTERING GLOBAL COMPETENCIES AND DEEPER

LEARNING WITH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH SERIES

EDUCATIONAL COHERENCE: LEARNING FROM

SYSTEM-WIDE STEM IMPLEMENTATION

Research & Information Services

Toronto District School Board

August 2018

Report No. 17/18-28

Image from Thinkstockphotos.ca

2 EDUCATIONAL COHERENCE: LEARNING FROM SYSTEM-WIDE STEM IMPLEMENTATION

About this Project: This report is the result of a collaborative project supported by the Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE), Technology and Learning Fund, TDSB Teaching and Learning Department and TDSB Research and Information Services led by Research Coordinator Erhan Sinay. We would like to thank and acknowledge the support and contributions of Ashley Nahornick, OISE/UT for this study. TITLE: Fostering Global Competencies and Deeper Learning with Digital Technologies Research Series: Educational Coherence: Learning From System-Wide STEM Implementation

AUTHORS: Erhan Sinay, Thomas Ryan, and David Sauriol Copyright © Toronto District School Board (August 2018) Cite as: Sinay, E., Ryan, T., & Sauriol, D. (2018). Fostering global competencies and deeper learning with digital technologies research series: Educational coherence: Learning from system-wide STEM implementation (Research Report No. 17/18-28). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board. Reproduction of this document for use in the schools of the Toronto District School Board is encouraged. For any other purpose, permission must be requested and obtained in writing from: Research & Information Services Toronto District School Board 1 Civic Centre Court, Lower Level Etobicoke, ON M9C 2B3 Fax: 416-394-4946 Every reasonable precaution has been taken to trace the owners of copyrighted material and to make due acknowledgement. Any omission will gladly be rectified in future printings.

R02(STEM\2016-17\Deep Learning and GC Reports\Research Series 8\GC Research Series – Learning from System-wide STEM

Implementation)es.1485

EDUCATIONAL COHERENCE: LEARNING FROM SYSTEM-WIDE STEM IMPLEMENTATION 3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 9

The Importance of Coherence .................................................................................................................. 9

Studying Coherence through STEM .......................................................................................................... 9

Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 10

The PELP Model ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Developing Coherence ............................................................................................................................ 13

Achieving Coherence Next Steps ............................................................................................................ 13

Fullan and Quinn (2016b) Coherence Framework .................................................................................. 16

Case Study: The TDSB STEM Strategy and Coherence ................................................................................ 18

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 18

Administrators ........................................................................................................................................ 19

Personal Understanding of STEM ....................................................................................................... 19

Perceived Staff Understanding of STEM ............................................................................................. 20

Teachers .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Personal Understanding of STEM ....................................................................................................... 21

Perceived Colleagues Understanding of STEM ................................................................................... 22

STEM Leadership ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Central Leadership’s Definition of STEM ................................................................................................ 23

Uniform vs. Evolutionary Implementation of STEM ............................................................................... 24

Coherence in the STEM Initiative ................................................................................................................ 25

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 26

Connecting Fullan and Quinn’s (2016b) Theory of Coherence with STEM ............................................. 26

Learning from Coherence in STEM for Future Initiatives........................................................................ 27

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 28

Focusing Direction................................................................................................................................... 28

Cultivating Collaborative Cultures .......................................................................................................... 29

Deeper Learning ...................................................................................................................................... 29


Securing Accountability .......................................................................................................................... 30

References .................................................................................................................................................. 32

Table of Figures

Figure 1: STEM Coherence – Teacher, Administrator and Leadership ......................................................... 7

Figure 2: Recommendations for Improving Initiative Coherence ................................................................. 9

Figure 3: Coherence .................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4: PELP Coherence Model ................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 5: Alternative School Improvement Policy Strategies ..................................................................... 14

Figure 6: Elements of Coherence and School Governance ......................................................................... 16

Figure 7: Michael Fullan’s Coherence Framework ...................................................................................... 17

Figure 8: TDSB STEM Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 9: Overall Study Findings .................................................................................................................. 26


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank and acknowledge the support of TDSB Leadership Team: Antonio Santos, Central Coordinating Principal, Toronto District School Board Roula Anastasakos, Executive Superintendent, Research, Organizational Design and Information Service, Educational Partnerships Beth Butcher, Executive Superintendent, LC 1 Leadership-School Effectiveness Manon Gardner, Executive Superintendent, Teaching and Learning, Alternative, International Education We would like to thank and acknowledge the support and contributions of the following research team members in this study: Ashley Nahornick, Researcher Margaret Douglin, Researcher Dimitris Graikinis, Researcher


Executive Summary

While examining coherence this report uses the Toronto District School Board STEM (Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Math) strategy as its central reference point. In order to have maximized

effectiveness in an educational initiative, coherence is essential between stakeholders. Coherence is

based upon the alignment of views as they relate to an initiative. A failure to achieve coherence can lead

to deep individual silos, competition amongst stakeholders, duplicated work, and an overall failure of

initiative implementers to “get on the same page”.

In analyzing coherence, while implementing STEM at the TDSB, results were extracted from 24 face-to-

face interviews of STEM leadership and STEM/robotics administrators and teachers at 11 different

schools. Two interview questions were used to look at coherence perceptions within STEM. The

following questions were asked:

What is each interviewee’s individual understanding of STEM?

What is their perception of STEM understanding amongst their colleagues?

Results were as follows.

Figure 1: STEM Coherence – Teacher, Administrator and Leadership


Looking at Coherence and how STEM fits, or doesn’t fit into it, can be used as a valuable blue print for

other initiatives. A healthy and symbiotic relationship between developers of an initiative (central

leadership) and the implementers (administrators and teachers) is important as coherence between and

within the groups is paramount to any initiative’s success.

STEM highlighted that integral to spreading itself within a school was both top down and bottom up

processes. From a top up perspective, central leadership must provide the resources, professional

learning opportunities, specific goals, and directives of the initiative. While from a bottom up

perspective, initiatives require informal mechanisms to spread in schools based upon teachers and

administrators enthusiasm.

Fullan and Quinn’s (2016b) four point theory of coherence can be used to understand the

implementation of STEM and other initiatives at the TDSB. The first element is stakeholders focusing

upon a shared view of implementing an initiative. Secondly, creating collaborative cultures where the

school staff develops their knowledge of a specific initiative through collaboration. Thirdly, fostering

deep learning which means developing 21st century skills such as problem solving, creativity and

collaboration in both students and teachers. The fourth and final element is securing accountability,

which is further broken down to internal and external accountability. Internal accountability refers to

schools with teacher led mechanisms for oversite and initiative implementation. External accountability

refers to sources outside of a school, such as TDSB central leadership, providing accountability measures

for initiative implementation.

The multiple recommendations, using Fullan and Quinn’s (2016b) Theory of Coherence, for initiative

implementation can be applied to STEM as well as to other initiatives.


Figure 2: Recommendations for Improving Initiative Coherence

Background

The Importance of Coherence

Organizations need to have coherence, since fragmentation and disintegration do not allow for progress

to be made or targets to be met (Legros & Ryan, 2016). An organization that works together can achieve

much more than an organization that is fragmented and inconsistent (Kovacic, 2015). Successful

implementation of an educational initiative requires all stakeholders to have the same understanding of

the initiative they want to implement and how they will go about completing this implementation.

When everyone is “on the same page” there is coherence of mind and body (Legros & Ryan, 2016).

Studying Coherence through STEM

In order to examine the concept of coherence within the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), one can

consider the system-wide implementation of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)

strategy. Central to the success of the STEM initiative is coherence between varied stakeholder groups.

Two models are helpful when assessing the implementation of STEM as it relates to coherence. Michael

Fullan’s coherence framework is applied to examine specific dimensions of coherence and provides a

tool for extended analysis. Additionally, the Public Education Leadership Project Model (PELP) is

addressed as an alternative viewpoint in this literature review. The PELP model provides a broad


overview of the interrelated aspects of the education system, which must be aligned to enable

successful improvements in education.

This report examines current literature on coherence in education systems and initiatives and uses

examples from the data linked to the implementation of the TDSB’s STEM strategy, to illustrate the

importance of ensuring that stakeholders’ viewpoints are aligned. The review also provides suggestions

for ways that coherence can be achieved both for the STEM strategy specifically and for Board initiatives

in general.

Figure 3: Coherence

Literature Review

Coherence within an educational organization can be viewed as a process whereas theory and

educational objectives bind with day to day practice (Legros & Ryan, 2016). As Smeby and Heggen

(2014) suggest, “one way to study the complexity of interrelationships between theoretical knowledge

and practical skills is to focus on coherence” (p.73). This focus on coherence must begin with the

understanding that not all stakeholders perceive coherence in a uniform manner, hence “there are

many reasons to expect teachers’ perceptions of coherence to vary in ways that could either support or

impede adoption of practices” (Allen & Penuel, 2015, p. 137).

Differences of understanding, between actors within an organization present problems and opportunity

in terms of organizational stability and change (Legros & Ryan, 2016). Speaking to this dichotomy of

unity versus fragmented views within an organization, Kovacic (2015) cautions that deep silos can

develop within organizations that can result in work being done in isolation that is unnecessary or is

duplication. However, these varied positions can be altered, and need to be examined since alignments

(coherence) are essential elements to bring about the change in educational organizations (Witherow,

2015). Indeed, “it is important for system leaders to support schools to see how their work connects


with the broader board improvement plan and the provincial direction. Greater collaboration between

and among departments is key to ensuring this alignment” (Witherow, 2015, p.1). Concerns with

alignment bring to the forefront a need to study coherence within organizational structures; this need

has surfaced globally and has become an international concern (Childress, Elmore, Grossman, & Akinola,

2004). Coherence in the end is “… a shared depth of understanding about the purpose and nature of the

work in the minds and actions individually and especially collectively” (Witherow, 2015, p.1).

The PELP Model

One method of evaluating initiatives and coherence is the PELP (Public Education Leadership Project)

Model. PELP is an illustration of the complex interrelated viewpoints and activities of support that are at

play during the implementation of school improvement initiatives. It is based on the Congruence Model

developed by Professors David A. Nadler and Michael Tushman and expanded on by Professor Charles

O’Reilly. As of 2005, the PELP project began to “explore the potential power of outstanding

management in public education as a driver of high performance” (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman,

2005, p. 23). The PELP image, as depicted in Figure 4, was built upon several outcomes in public

education, such as the fact that school personnel may not increase student achievement if their efforts

are not coherent and aligned with Board administration (Gross & Goertz, 2005).

The developers of the PELP model (Johnson et al., 2015) studied five school districts, concluding that

academic programming, budgeting, and staffing were critical activities. However, they further concluded

that it was the working relationships that unfolded amongst leaders and principals that were

fundamental to creating and maintaining the learning culture and environment within a system. The

PELP structure is inclusive and binds all facets of the educational organization with an aim to improve

the achievement of schools, students, and the system as a whole (Childress et al., 2004; Childress et al.,

2006). It involves interconnected areas that when combined have an effect on student learning and

teaching. These areas include the environment, stakeholders, culture, structure, systems, resources,

strategy, theory of change, and most importantly the area that is to be affected in educational

initiatives: the instructional core. Each of the areas mentioned is interrelated and contributes to

deepening the capacity of the instructional core. The instructional core involves initiative, and outside

factors derived from alterations to teacher’s knowledge, student’s engagement in their learning, and

academically challenging content (Johnson et al., 2015). The PELP model was designed in order to

provide a thorough explanation of how successful initiatives are designed within a system where goals,

strategies and actions are aligned.


Figure 4: PELP Coherence Model

Source: Johnson et al. (2015). Retrieved from: http://pelp.fas.harvard.edu/book/coherence-framework

Though the PELP model is useful, it is two-dimensional and does not inform nor embrace the third

dimension of education located in human relationships built upon emotion, perception, and spirit. For

example, a recent doctoral study of school leaders completed by a principal captures the human side of

coherence challenges in this excerpt; as one principal stated: “we as principals are expected to achieve

district goals; however, we are not provided with a clear set of implementation outcomes for that

purpose . . . it forces principals to look to one another to seek clarification with implementation efforts”

(Amador-Valerio, 2016, p. 95). Amador-Valerio (2016) quoted another principal who suggested they

“would like to see a consistent campus walk-through schedule for on-going mentoring and coaching by

district leaders” (p. 95). Another participant explained: “I haven’t had anyone come out to my school

and say, ‘this was exactly what we want to see’ ” (p. 96). Although this is only one study, it does prompt

readers to reflect and ponder what could be done in all educational organizations to erase such

sentiments, and it may be that the best investment is human contact and attention. As one principal

suggested, “ . . . expanding on the mentoring and coaching system focused on continuous leadership

development for principals and grounded in trust may enrich the existing culture of district

organizations” (Amador-Valerio, 2016, p. 95). Another participant concluded: “Principals in the district

are scared to speak up and provide honest feedback about current realities within the organization” (p.

95). These quotes from participants are informative and provide insight into what needs to be done to


establish greater alignment between districts and schools. To this end, we look to research completed

by Maricle (2014) for the California School Boards Association who determined, “effective boards focus

on systemic alignment to ensure that all aspects of district operations are pursuing the same goals in a

coherent manner. This alignment has two fundamental components: resources and policies” (p. 17).

When misalignments occur, Amador-Valerio (2016) found “in situations where the predecessor [past

principal] experienced a lack of success, a number of factors were considered: fit, misalignment of

leadership style, and skillset. Each superintendent described a process to identify where the failure

occurred in the system, in order to improve the support of new principals” (p. 106).

Developing Coherence

The need to develop coherence using a central approach or entry strategy seems obvious and the PELP

model is but one example of a tool that can be used to align the different parts of an education system

(Childress, Elmore, Grossman & Johnson, 2007). The PELP model may be even more useful in the context

of Ontario, and specifically the TDSB, if it were contextualized within a Canadian milieu; and regionally

within a Southern Ontario landscape to inform and refine, not only the approach, but also link elements

to values and feelings. Vazquez-Recio (2014) explains:

The complexity and difficulty of school management does not explicitly lie in what has to be

done, but in what the person thinks, feels and values when facing what has to be done. In this

process of deliberation, choice and decision-making, the person, as an ethical agent, must

evaluate the circumstances, which inform the action, and the consequences, which may result.

(p. 551)

Achieving Coherence Next Steps

Achieving coherence throughout a system can be a difficult task even when specific targets have been

set. For this reason it is important to look to the literature for theory that can help to identify and

articulate next steps. Karen Louis Seashore a prominent researcher in educational reform explains “a

clear, long-range strategic approach should be developed” (1989, p. 154). Specifically, she contends

school improvement plans should focus on two fundamental questions:

1. Does the school improvement plan hope to create uniform results among schools?

2. What if any, uniform procedures/activities are being implemented as part of the plan? (Louis

Seashore, 1989).


Additionally, Louis Seashore (1989) explains there are four different approaches to achieving coherence

with school improvement:

1. using uniform procedures to achieve uniform results

2. using non-uniform procedures to achieve uniform results (such as creating objectives and

targets, but allowing the schools to create their own procedures to achieve them)

3. using uniform procedures to achieve non-uniform results (such as providing incentives and

program ideas, but allowing schools to work with them as they see fit)

4. using non-uniform procedures to achieve non-uniform results (such as allowing individual

schools to determine the best way to achieve to their self-defined results).

Figure 5: Alternative School Improvement Policy Strategies

An example of achieving coherence through school improvement, using the second approach (i.e., using

non-uniform procedures to achieve uniform results), is the STAR (Students and Teachers’ Achieving

Results) School Initiative in San Francisco. This initiative successfully targeted underperforming and low-

performing schools (Childress, Elmore, Grossman, & Johnson, 2007). Through the STAR initiative, district

wide coherence was reached to achieve “Excellence for All”. This was done through articulating their

five core beliefs guiding success, equitable distribution of resources, and accountability measures

(Childress et al., 2007b). In this model, non-uniform procedures were used to produce uniform results,

by providing objectives and targets with corresponding funding to school, and allowing the local schools

to make decisions on how to implement change (Childress et al., 2007b).

Researchers Allen and Penuel (2015) conclude: “Actors engage in sense-making to resolve ambiguity and

manage uncertainty within their environment and make retrospective, as well as prospective sense of

change” (p. 137). The PELP model provides a means to make sense of how to organize and align an

education system, as it can become the go-to image in the confusing process of moving forward and

then maintaining a new position or status (Childress et al., 2007).

Source: (Louis Seashore, 1989, p. 154)


Nonetheless, the image of PELP alone is not sufficient, as some stakeholders want clearer directives and

a checklist of items that are necessary to move towards improvement targets, achievement goals and

system coherence (alignment). Gemberling, Smith, and Villani (2000) suggest all board members should

voice a clear and coherent set of beliefs concerning the purpose of public education that underpins a

shared vision which guides a Board’s mission. Once established, this collective voice, mission, and set of

beliefs support governance efforts. Maricle (2014) lays out a comprehensive directive which illuminates

how effective boards establish governance commitments:

Embrace a common set of core beliefs about public education, the ability of students and staff to perform at high levels, and the elements of good school governance.

Build and sustain productive partnerships among board members and between the board and the superintendent.

Reach clear internal agreements regarding board values, norms and protocols to organize board operations. Effective boards adopt practices to increase their effectiveness.

Improving their capacity to govern by creating protected time and structure for their development as a board.

Understanding successful reform structures by practicing systems-thinking, continuous learning, and extending leadership for learning.

Using data to make decisions and monitor district performance. Effective boards focus on core governing decisions.

Set direction by making student achievement a high priority, prioritizing all district improvement efforts and clarifying the board’s expectations for performance.

Align all district resources and policies to ensure improvement efforts are supported.

Establish a comprehensive framework for accountability that includes board, superintendent and district performance and involves and is responsive to the needs and interests of parents and community members. Effective boards engage the community.

Create a sense of urgency for reform.

Involve stakeholders in vision and long-term planning.

Develop and maintain district partnerships.

Build civic capacity in the community to support district reform. (pp. 4-5)


Figure 6: Elements of Coherence and School Governance

Maricle (2014) also concludes that boards need to ensure that the “allocation of staff supports the

district’s operations and aligns with the district’s priorities. For example, if establishing district

partnerships with other organizations are a priority for the board as a long-term strategic effort, that

effort may require the dedicated time of key staff” (p. 17). Clear directives and procedures like those

above provide a pathway that many stakeholders can use in order to realize shared understanding,

especially as new initiatives and governance efforts are implemented (Legros & Ryan, 2016). These can

be adapted and moulded to suit regional context and also as a means to make sense of a challenge that

can be at times overwhelming and appear disjointed. Undeniably, “alignment is so difficult in public

education because of the way the public views education. Education is considered a social good and all

citizens have a claim on receiving a quality education” (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2005, p. 9). In

order to promote coherence and avoid exclusion, many different stakeholders with various abilities and

interests must contribute.

Fullan and Quinn (2016b) Coherence Framework

Successful coherence requires that groups of stakeholders involved with a project intermingle

seamlessly. Michael Fullan and Joanne Quinn (2016b) suggest effective coherence requires four

interconnected dimensions: (1) focused direction, (2) cultivation of collaborative cultures, (3) deepening

learning, and (4) securing accountability.


Figure 7: Fullan and Quinn’s (2016b) Coherence Framework

Focused Direction

Focusing is not only establishing a direction for the initiative, but also refining that direction through

continuous engagement with the people implementing it.

Cultivating Collaborative Cultures

Cultivating collaborative cultures involves setting an initiative-wide mindset where expertise is

cultivated so everyone is focused on a collective purpose. A central component of this is to “seek good

ideas externally, but don’t rely on outside ‘experts’” (Fullan & Quinn, 2016b, p. 52).

Deepening Learning

Developing deep learners involves educators altering traditional knowledge-building partnerships so

that students and teachers can enjoy less formalized distinctions and in many cases learn content

together as co-learners.

Securing Accountability

Securing accountability involves developing mechanisms that best generate internal accountability, or in

other words: developing interest in students and the teachers involved in implementing the project.

Source: Fullan and Quinn (2016b)


After internal accountability is established, it is then important to reinforce it with external

accountability to outside parties that maintain the overall standards of the initiative.

Case Study: The TDSB STEM Strategy and Coherence

It is clear from the literature review that coherence between the Board, schools, administration and

educators is important for initiatives to be successful. It is also important that the viewpoints and

actions of stakeholders involved in a project are aligned. The system-wide implementation of the TDSB

STEM strategy provides an interesting case study of coherence, as there have been both strengths and

weaknesses in creating alignment across the board. The following sections use qualitative data from

STEM interviews with teachers and administrators and offer suggestions about areas where

improvement in coherence could lead to a more successful implementation of STEM.

Methodology

As STEM is an overall concept and pedagogy that can and has been defined in multiple ways, the

concept of coherence is important to ensure that central staff, administrators, and teachers all share a

similar understanding. In order to assess the success of the implementation of the STEM strategy,

qualitative data was extracted from 24 semi structured interviews with STEM leadership and

STEM/robotics administrators at 11 different schools. Different interview questions were used in order

to analyze varied elements of coherence across stakeholders.

STEM conceptually assumes many shapes and unfolds in a manner that challenges coherence in

organizations, hence the need to explore, record, and interpret perceptions and understandings in a

structured and precise manner. Within our case study we investigate “a contemporary phenomenon in

depth and within its real-life context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context

are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2009, p. 18). This section details results from each question type.

Teachers, administrators, and TDSB central staff were asked to put their understanding of STEM into

their own words. The answers provided were compared to the official TDSB definition. This definition is

as follows, within the TDSB framework, STEM is a trans-disciplinary approach to inquiry and problem-

based learning that fosters collaboration, creativity, and innovation in all students (TDSB, 2015).

Different levels of understanding are discussed, along with examples, for each stakeholder group in

individual sections throughout the results section of this report.


Figure 8: TDSB STEM Strategy

The next question that we asked teachers and administrators was what their perception of their

colleagues’ understanding of STEM. The answers provided were categorized into groupings of low,

moderate, and high understanding. In order to provide context, both teachers and administrators

provided quotes as examples and descriptions of each level of understanding.

Aside from teachers and administrators, STEM central leadership were also asked two interview

questions that assessed their coherence in regards to STEM. The first question was similar to the other

groups in which they were asked to describe STEM in their own words. The central leadership were also

asked whether they preferred STEM to be implemented at the school level in a uniform fashion or

whether they wanted to allow implementation to be evolutionary and dependent on the specific

circumstances of each school. As there was only 2 STEM central staff interviewed their answers to these

questions were paraphrased through partial quotes in the results.

Administrators

Personal Understanding of STEM

When asked to describe STEM in their own words, administrators gave a variety of answers. Some

principals gave very brief definitions, stating: “well, I think it’s to bring about more integration of the

science, technology, and math and, well art is not in there, but it should be,” whereas several other

administrators connected their answers to many aspects of the TDSB STEM definition. For example, one

administrator suggested, “to me we should always have problem-based learning. We should be

exploring solutions; we should be analyzing those solutions and then trying again. I think it’s just good

teaching.”

Some administrators did not articulate an understanding of the purpose of STEM, which is to develop

21st century competencies and skills such as collaboration, innovation, and creativity. Some of their


answers also indicated confusion or disconnect in their schools with certain aspects of the TDSB

definition (a trans-disciplinary approach to inquiry and problem-based learning that fosters

collaboration, creativity, and innovation in all students.) For instance, one principal discussed how many

teachers had difficulty understanding the STEM trans-disciplinary approach:

Probably the majority of our staff do STEM but are not aware that they’re actually doing STEM

because they believe that STEM is science, technology, engineering and math and it stands alone

in a silo. And we don’t want it to stand alone in a silo.

These answers suggest that not all administrators or all schools had a clear understanding of all the

facets of the STEM strategy. If principals and other school administrators do not have a unified view of

what the STEM strategy is, implementing a cohesive initiative across the Board is problematic. This could

result in a wide variation in the success of the strategy across schools.

Perceived Staff Understanding of STEM

Administrators were asked whether they felt staff at their school understood the STEM strategy, which

is an indication of their perceptions regarding STEM coherence in their school. Similar to their answers

regarding their personal understanding of STEM, there was variance between administrators.

The answers provided were classified to portray high, moderate, and low perceived understanding of

STEM by administrators, teachers and support staff. Accompanying quotations provide direct examples

as a definition of each classification.

Low

Four of the eleven administrators felt there was a narrow understanding of STEM amongst their overall

staff and that the strategy was just emerging or developing. For example one administrator stated:

Not really… I wouldn’t say that they have a clear understanding. I would say they have an open

mind. We are still in the beginning stages.

Another administrator indicated that there were issues with teachers understanding how to implement

STEM in their daily classroom activities:

To be honest I don’t think so. I think that we still have some work to do as a whole group to kind

of create the idea of what STEM is. I think a lot of our teachers don’t understand how that can be

built into their day-to-day practices with their kids. They believe it’s a pure science, it’s a pure

math, it’s a pure technology piece, whereas it’s not.


Moderate

Most administrators (5 out of 11) felt that staff at their schools held a moderate understanding of STEM.

This represented the view that there were pockets of STEM knowledge in their school that still needed

to develop further in order to spread the STEM initiative across the entire school population. For

instance, one administrator described STEM at their school by concluding:

So the staff is aware of it but I would say very much at an emergent phase, for some. Others

have taken it to the next level and actually have implemented it.

Echoing this viewpoint, another administrator reflected:

I think it’s getting clearer, yeah. I think the more that we work with it and with the STEM coach

that we had and we’ve done a couple of PLCs… I think the more that we do that, I think that the

understanding will become clearer and clearer.

High

In a few cases (2 out of 11), administrators expressed a very high level of STEM understanding amongst

their staff. These principals felt that the initiative was solidly in place and expanding effectively in their

school. For example, an administrator explained STEM at their school as:

I think there is quite a bit more understanding and also excitement about it this year… This year

a lot of teachers jumped in right from the very beginning. A lot of teachers are more interested

and are willing to look at things that are outside of their comfort range…

Overall, administrators believed that staff at most schools had some knowledge of the STEM strategy

and ideas about how to implement it in their daily pedagogy. However, there was still a need for further

explanation and dissemination of information about STEM in order to expand the initiative to all staff

members. There were also instances of administrators who felt that STEM was not well understood by

their staff. This indicates discrepancies in the overall coherence of the STEM initiative that should be

addressed to strengthen its effectiveness.

Teachers

Personal Understanding of STEM

Interviews and a focus group with teachers about their understanding of TDSB STEM strategy revealed

that most had at least a moderate understanding. Similar to the administrator interviews, most teachers

touched on elements of the TDSB definition rather than highlighting each one. For example, one

teacher defined STEM via beliefs, suggesting: “I think it is inquiry-based, it is student directed with

teacher guidance and it is building, designing, engineering to support the curriculum.” Similarly, many


teachers did not discuss all three elements of the TDSB definition (trans-disciplinary, inquiry, problem-

based, building global competencies such as collaboration, creativity and innovation) within one

response. For instance saying STEM is “meant to bring aspects of technology into the classroom and

that’s the way that I was looking at it.”

Teachers’ answers were often based on their experience working directly with students and seeing both

the development of skills required to do STEM and the development of new skills by engaging in STEM.

This reflected an understanding of the intended outcome of STEM, which is to develop 21st century skills

like collaboration, creativity, and innovation. For example, a teacher connected STEM education to the

development of advanced learning skills suggesting:

What they want to do, is they want to get the kids working together, collaborating to solve

problems, to demonstrate their critical thinking, and to actually move forward with those

learning skills that they have in the higher grades, so they can transfer those to other areas.

These responses indicated that the majority of teachers had at least some understanding of STEM,

however, similar to administrators there was wide variance in answers and room for improvement in

terms of expressing a common, coherent understanding of the STEM strategy.

Perceived Colleagues Understanding of STEM

Teachers were also asked how they perceived their fellow teachers’ and their administrator’s

understanding of the TDSB STEM strategy. Their responses were categorized into high, moderate and

low perceived understanding of STEM. The accompanying quotations provide direct examples as a

definition of each classification.

Low

Some teachers (4 out of 11) perceived a low understanding of STEM amongst their fellow staff

members, indicating a lack of coherence in their school in terms of understanding and implementing the

initiative. For example, one teacher explained:

I don’t know if it is totally clear. Lately, I think it is just a word that people have been throwing

around. I didn’t even know when you said STEM, does that include the kits or if it is just

technology; I think there is that ambiguity amongst staff.

These teachers felt that their schools had a large number of staff who were either uninformed or

misinformed about the STEM strategy and how to use STEM in their teaching. Some believed that this

could in part be due to staff intimidation about the core subjects encompassed by STEM and suggested:


The problem with STEM is it’s- it’s science, technology, engineering and math, as soon as you say

that, you automatically, have some teachers who don’t feel comfortable in those, in those

specific areas.

Moderate

In the majority of cases (6 out of 11), teachers perceived at least a moderate understanding of STEM at

their school. Their answers suggested that there were groups of teachers within the school that

exhibited knowledge of and interest in STEM, while other teachers, often longer standing staff

members, were not as willing to engage with the initiative. For example, one teacher observed:

I think we’re still transitioning to be honest. I think that the challenge that people who are in

leadership positions with STEM or people who are excited about it, is trying to get teachers to

think of it not as an extra.

High

A high perceived understanding by fellow staff members was the least occurring outcome. Only one of

the eleven teachers believed there was a high level of understanding and this teacher concluded:

Yes, I really do. I really think we spent quite a bit of time talking about the importance of the

aspects of STEM.

STEM Leadership

Two individuals from central leadership were interviewed to get a sense of the coherence of STEM at

the system level. It is crucial for central leadership to embrace a consistent definition of STEM in order

to impart this understanding to implementers at the school level. Central leadership was also asked

whether their definition of the STEM strategy should be followed uniformly or whether it was

evolutionary and could be modified by individual schools.

Central Leadership’s Definition of STEM

Both members of central leadership gave definitions of STEM close to the official TDSB definition (a

trans-disciplinary approach to inquiry and problem-based learning that fosters collaboration, creativity,

and innovation in all students). For example, one of the central leadership members described STEM as:

…it’s meant to be an approach to teaching, so it is a pedagogy. It’s looking at the 21st century

skills, it’s looking at things such as creativity, collaboration, communication, critical problem

solving…I also like to include a couple of other Cs such as coding and computational thinking. So

part of that is how do we get students to look at real world problems and then use their


ingenuity to come up with possible solutions keeping in mind the contextualized nature of the

content that we want them to focus on implementing their science, their knowledge of math,

their knowledge of sequence and logic and everything else. Incorporating as well part of the arts,

history, economics, geography, social sciences, so all curricular areas…it is the trans-disciplinary

approach to inquiry and problem-based learning so what that means is we’re not trying to focus

on specific subject areas but we’re trying to look at the overall approach to dealing with specific

issues.

Both members of central leadership demonstrated clear and consistent knowledge of the STEM

initiative. One of the central leadership members also discussed the collaborative process used to devise

the TDSB definition reflecting upon past accomplishments:

So in our work with the STEM coaches, we have also worked with Model Schools and one of our

sessions together where the STEM coaches and Model Schools coaches came together, we

actually deconstructed the definition; our current definition in the TDSB around STEM to a

teacher friendly definition.

Engaging in a collaborative approach incorporating feedback and input from various stakeholders is a

good way to promote coherence because it provides an opportunity for everyone to develop a shared

understanding of what is being implemented and how to implement it.

Uniform vs. Evolutionary Implementation of STEM

The two members of central leadership believed that a uniform definition of STEM and an outline of the

goals of STEM were necessary, but allowed for the idea that schools would have to tailor the initiative at

least in terms of daily practices to make it work for their student population.

One of the members of central leadership emphasized that, “we all have to understand this definition,

not just a definition in terms of a definition per se. You have to know what that definition looks like at

the school level.” Additionally, the member added:

We need to be uniform as a Board in our definition. We need to be uniform in terms of what our

goals are, we need to be uniform in terms of what success looks like, but we need to be flexible in

terms of the day-to-day pieces because each classroom will have a different group of students.

The other leader echoed the idea that the initiative must be flexible enough to be adapted to individual

schools, but also highlighted that there is a cooperative relationship between schools and central


leadership where they guide schools with implementation, but also learn from the ways that schools

implement STEM. This Board member shared their beliefs by suggesting:

I think schools have the ability to tailor (…) So they have a little bit of flexibility and I think now

that we’re in there to support and to guide a little bit and to learn from what teachers are doing I

think it becomes a very symbiotic relationship where we’re all looking at best practices and

moving forward. So we’re coming in in a way as co-learners with teachers and in some cases

we’re there to provide a bit more support and in others we’re there to learn from them and to

gain from some of their expertise that is out there. (…) we’re in there to say here is sort of the

theme but if they’re doing something which is actually very innovative and is actually quite well

done we’re actually learning from them to implement elsewhere.

The interviews with the STEM central leadership indicated that they had a very coherent view of the

TDSB definition of STEM and the central goals of the initiative. They also explained that it was important

for stakeholders at the school level to be involved in the process of defining STEM from the onset, and in

the continuous process of refining the initiative after implementation. These ideas of co-learning and

collaboration are key ways to promote STEM coherence throughout the TDSB.

Coherence in the STEM Initiative

The differences in teachers’, administrators’, and central leadership’s answers about the understanding

of STEM show that while there were some instances of shared understanding of STEM and some schools

were further ahead in implementation, there is still room to increase the coherence of the STEM

strategy across the Board.

Understanding the definition of STEM and how to use STEM in daily practice is central to actually

implementing it. Differences between schools can lead to wide variations in how the initiative is

practiced if there is not shared understanding. Without coherence it is difficult to uniformly train

additional staff members and ensure the STEM initiative has similar effects across schools. The

structured (positivist) interview data previously mentioned indicates that coherence amongst

stakeholders at STEM and robotics schools was present, but there were also inconsistencies.

One of the members of the STEM leadership expressed an essential way to promote coherence and a

common vision of the STEM initiative, suggesting:

The major stakeholders are students, educators and parents. The wider community, they need to

feel involved, they need to be empowered, they have to see that this is benefitting what they are

doing and what they are learning and what their child is learning in school.


Figure 9: Overall Study Findings

Conclusion

Connecting Fullan and Quinn’s (2016b) Theory of Coherence with STEM

The idea that all stakeholders need to be involved in the STEM initiative connects to the four-part theory

of coherence created by Fullan and Quinn (2016b). It is useful to examine the implementation of the

STEM initiative using this framework. The first element in Fullan and Quinn’s (2016b) coherence theory

is focusing direction amongst stakeholders. The heterogeneous views of STEM held by teachers,

administrators, and central leadership and the differences between teachers’ and administrators’

perceptions of the knowledge that their colleagues held towards STEM show that there is room for

improvement. Improvement could come in terms of creating a clearer and more consistent

understanding of what STEM is and how it should be implemented in schools.

The second area of coherence is the cultivation of collaborative cultures within schools. There is clear

progress being made in this area. In schools that expressed a higher level of STEM integration there was

evidence of both informal, teacher originated, and formal, administrator originated learning

communities. In particular, schools with committed administrators who acted as lead learners explained

the value of creating STEM-related professional learning communities to help STEM spread within their

school, direct teacher focus, and advance individual teachers’ pedagogy.


The value of STEM-related professional learning communities also relates to the third area of coherence:

deepening learning. The STEM initiative is designed to advance skills and learning of not only students

but also teachers implementing the program. STEM is designed to foster 21st century skills such as

creativity and collaboration, which are inherently linked to deeper learning competencies. Similar to the

students they teach, teachers have more success with STEM when they connect deeper to the subject

matter themselves. The structured (positivist) interview data suggests that this occurs when teachers

connect to both formal and informal professional learning communities that provide increased

knowledge of how to teach STEM within their classrooms. Increased comfort with the idea of STEM and

how to teach helps them become a more enthusiastic teacher and create more opportunities to realize

deeper learning in classrooms.

The final element of Fullan and Quinn’s (2016b) coherence theory is securing accountability both

internally and externally. This is an area for improvement within the STEM initiative. The interview data

revealed large pockets of disconnection within, and across schools, which make it difficult to achieve

accountability. Schools with strong bottom up mechanisms for spreading STEM (i.e., enthusiastic

teachers willing to devote time to learning and developing STEM pedagogy) demonstrated internal

accountability and more coherence around the STEM initiative. However, data from most schools

revealed that all teachers have not yet implemented STEM across the curriculum and that many are still

unsettled and/or misinformed about what STEM is and how to practice it in their classrooms.

Fullan and Quinn (2016b) believe, “successful systems establish a strong degree of internal

accountability that serves them well in the external accountability arena” (p. 112). There was evidence

of internal accountability at the schools where interviews unfolded, but teachers in particular still need

to develop a strong coherent understanding of the STEM initiative to enable us to suggest that it has

successfully spread across and deeply within the TDSB. Administrators play a critical role in helping to

develop this coherence within their schools by providing learning opportunities for teachers. Enabling

the development of STEM-related professional learning communities and school-wide technology plans,

for example, are ways they can advance a shared understanding of STEM and provide directed focus for

teachers.

Learning from Coherence in STEM for Future Initiatives

The strengths and weaknesses surrounding the coherence of the STEM initiative provide valuable

feedback that can be applied to the implementation of other initiatives. The most important elements

relate to the symbiotic relationship between the developers of an initiative (central leadership) and the

implementers of an initiative (school teachers and administrators). Both play a central role and

coherence within and between these groups is critical to success.

While designing the content of an initiative is important, one must also consider how that initiative will

actually be implemented and spread within the school or organization it targets. Examining STEM


revealed that both top down and bottom up processes are important in developing alignment. From a

top-down perspective, central leadership must provide clear and coherent materials, websites, and

documents explaining the definition and goals of the initiative. These materials provide the initial

understanding of what an initiative is and provide the starting point for coherence amongst all

stakeholders in an initiative. Put in another way, central leadership generates the original view of an

initiative and can and should provide means for continued guidance and understanding of the initiative

through professional learning.

While coherence at the development of an initiative is important, the implementers of the initiative

must also develop learning communities and informal mechanisms to share and spread their

understanding of the initiative. It is teachers that must infer elements of an initiative, connect it to their

day-to-day practices and begin to share ideas and knowledge with their colleagues. This bottom up

approach allows teachers to make their own connections to, and develop enthusiasm for the initiative

on their own terms, rather than being told they have to do something.

Ultimately, it is the connections between central leadership, administrators, and teachers that allow an

initiative to develop. Success is possible only when all stakeholder groups are “on the same page” and

everyone shares a coherent understanding of what needs to be done and how to do it.

Recommendations

The following list of recommendations is intended to provide a framework for implementing initiatives,

such as STEM, within the school board. Beyond the more abstract descriptors provided in earlier

sections they will provide practical and specific methods for initiative implementation. Staying with

educational theory already discussed within this report the recommendations will be broken into

sections based upon the four elements of coherence detailed by Fullan and Quinn (2016b).

Focusing Direction

Clear Information: In order to focus direction between varied stakeholders, provision of clear

information in regards to the initiative is imperative. This information should contain clear goals

for the initiative, plans and different ideas of how to implement strategies for connecting the

initiative with teachers, information about future professional development related to the

initiative, and protocols for dealing with any foreseeable issues that may arise.

Regular Updates: Updated information needs to be provided to all stakeholders, in particular

front line implementers of an initiative, as quickly and comprehensively as possible. These

updates need to provide information in a clear and transparent way about any changes,

alterations, or corrections to the initiative.


Cultivating Collaborative Cultures

Formal Meet Ups: Administrators need to provide formal meeting times and spaces for teachers

to not only learn about the overall plan for the initiative, but also to discuss specifics that take

into account the unique elements of their school and student population.

Generate Enthusiasm amongst Staff: Enthusiasm can be infectious to other staff members and

it is important for school leadership to create an atmosphere where teachers feel encouraged to

become excited and enthusiastic about an initiative. Often this type of enthusiasm can later lead

to teachers spending their own time working on an initiative.

Promote Staff Risk Taking: A school culture where teachers feel motivated and safe to push

themselves out of their usual teaching practice and try new things is imperative. With initiatives,

such as STEM, that require alteration in teaching practices, it is important for teachers to know

they can take chances and that it is ok to fail in a lesson. An administrator provided this insight:

Know, for teachers, it’s okay to fail. We learn from… it’s okay to make mistakes, it’s okay for

that lesson to bomb. Just kind of having that sort of mantra as I walk the halls and walk

through classrooms, it’s okay to try new things, it’s okay if that lesson doesn’t work today.

Place a Premium on Informal Meetings/ Collaboration: Although this is not fully within the

control of administrators or central staff creating a school culture where informal collaboration

becomes a norm provides initiatives a much higher chance of succeeding. An administrator

described this effect:

We’ve personally provided release time. We’ve had opportunities where staff has spoken

with other staff in other buildings again through release time. But really it’s been through

the personal interest of some staff at our school and they’ve invested a lot of time

themselves into it.

Remove Barriers for Informal Collaboration: Administrators must endeavor to remove

restrictions, whether they are time or money oriented that prevent teachers from meeting

informally to discuss an initiative.

Deeper Learning

Promote Co-Learning: Having teachers and students learn about new topical areas at the same

time is a powerful tool to develop deep learning in both groups. In particular, in areas where an

initiative is being implemented this can strengthen both student and teacher connections to the

topical area. Schools should support this as much as is possible.


Promote Digital Fluency: An important element of deeper learning is imparting in students the

skills and initiative required to be able to seek out information online. In this way, learning in

subject areas such as STEM can continue outside of the classroom. Teachers themselves should

practice this as well.

Promote Metacognition: A good skill to develop in classrooms is metacognition, which is

students having the ability to discuss their thinking and their own experience of learning. Within

an initiative such as STEM this can lead to students being able to evaluate their own work, give

and accept valuable feedback to and from peers, and assert their own efficacy in regards to how

STEM projects will develop in their classroom.

Access to Professional Learning: Teachers implementing an initiative must have access to

relevant professional learning related to that initiative. Additionally, this professional learning

will allow teachers the opportunity to follow up on the new skills they have learned with

additional sessions.

Teacher Collaboration: Teachers must have as much opportunity to work together and learn

about an initiative in terms of its content and how best to teach that content. Collaboration not

only strengthens buy in about a topic, it provides a platform that teachers can broaden their

collective and individual knowledge of an initiative subject matter.

Securing Accountability

Administrators as Lead Learners: Administrators who also take the time to immerse themselves

into an initiative generate more support from their staff. It is important for administrators to

show real connection and interest in the initiatives that they are trying to generate buy in for.

An administrator offered this belief:

I think one of the ways that things sometimes fall apart, or don’t work, is when you say

to staff “I want you to do this, now go and do it”, if you don’t show that you’re willing to

invest time and energy. If you show staff you’re giving the time to do it, then once

they’ve had the taste, they’re going to be willing to give up their own time as well.

Connection with Initiative Central Leadership: In order to maintain external accountability,

schools need to have a strong relationship with the initiatives’ designers. This relationship will

allow the schools to see whether they are on track in terms of their implementation and central

leadership to learn from individual schools’ experience with the implementation and make any

necessary tweaks because of that.


Administrator Commitment: Central in generating both internal and external accountability is

the administrators’ overall commitment to making initiatives work at their schools. By making

the initiative a priority and removing as many barriers as possible with staff they help facilitate

this. An administrator describes the role played in this process.

If the administration is not supporting this it’s going nowhere. If the administration is not

putting an importance on it it’s going nowhere. If the administration is not saying you

know what we’re going to make this happen and my role is to remove the obstacles and

give you {teachers} opportunities to take risks and dabble in all this neat stuff.

Outside of Fullan and Quinn (2016b) the coherence framework is an essential element of initiative

implementation and scaling up is adopting a bottom up approach whereas it is the teachers choosing

themselves to integrate an initiative into their day to day routine. An administrator offered this

perspective:

If it’s top down, it’s another recipe for disaster. If you’re saying to staff you will or must do this,

you may have – it may work, but I can tell you that you will not sustain it because it will be short

term. The only reason staff will do this because you’re telling them, not because they want to do

it. If you want to sustain change and see long term benefit, then it has to be bottom up with

support from the top.


References

Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2015). Studying teachers’ sense making to investigate teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136-149. doi:10.1177/0022487114560646. Amador-Valerio, O. (2016). Principal succession: Lost in the shuffle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. San Diego State University. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from https://sdsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/165783/AmadorValerio_sdsu_0220D_11229.pdf?sequence=1 Childress, S., Elmore, R., Grossman, A., & Akinola, M. (2004). Note on the PELP coherence framework. (Case [Field] 9-PLE-010). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School. Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2005). Promoting a management revolution in public education. Working Papers - Harvard Business School Division of Research, 1-23. Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68. Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2007). Creating coherence in district administration. Harvard Education Letter, 23(6), 8-7. Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A., & Johnson, S. M. (2007b). Managing school districts for high performance: Cases in public education leadership. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016b). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016a). Coherence Making. School Administrator, 73(6), 30-34. Gemberling, K., Smith J., & Villani, S. (2000). The key work of school boards guidebook. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.

Gross, B., & Goertz, M. E. (Eds.). (2005). Holding high hopes: How high schools respond to state accountability policies. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Jensen, S., Madjar, I., & McKinley, E. (2010). Students and NCEA course choices and allocations. Set 2. Retrieved from http://ero.govt.nz/National-Reports/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum-Principles-Foundations-for-Curriculum-Decision-Making-July-2012/Findings/Successes-and-challenges-in-the-least-enacted-principles/Coherence Johnson, S.M., Marietta, G., Higgins, M.C., Mapp, K.L., & Grossman, A. (2015). Achieving coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship between the central office and schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group. Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Routledge. Kovacic, K. A. (2015). Organizing for improvement in an urban school district: Shifting from a culture of compliance to a culture of collective responsibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:16645028 Legros, I., & Ryan, T.G. (2016). Principal traits and school climate: Is the invitational education leadership model the right choice? Journal of Educational Leadership Policy & Practice, 31(1), 11-25. Louis Seashore, K. (1989). The role of the school district in school improvement. In Holes et al., Educational policy for effective schools (145-167). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: OISE Press. Maricle, C. (2014, August). Governing to achieve: A synthesis of research on school governance to support student achievement. California School Boards Association. Retrieved from file:///F:/Governing%20To%20Achieve.pdf

https://sdsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/165783/AmadorValerio_sdsu_0220D_11229.pdf?sequence=1




http://ero.govt.nz/National-Reports/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum-Principles-Foundations-for-Curriculum-Decision-Making-July-2012/Findings/Successes-and-challenges-in-the-least-enacted-principles/Coherence





http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:16645028

http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:16645028


Meeth, L.R. (1978). Interdisciplinary studies: Integration of knowledge and experience. Change, 10, 6-9. Nicolescu, B. (1999). Transdisciplinaritate - Manifest. Retrieved from http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/ro/visionro.htm Quigley, C.F., & Herro, D. (2016). Finding the joy in the unknown: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 1-17. Smeby, J., & Heggen, K. (2014). Coherence and the development of professional knowledge and skills. Journal of Education and Work, 27(1), 71-91. doi:10.1080/13639080.2012.718749. Todd, M.D. (2010). The perceived coherence level of support between the central office and district school boards. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gainesville, FL.: University of Florida.

Toronto District School Board (TDSB). (2014b). TDSB K-12 STEM strategy. One pager brochure. TDSB Teaching and Learning Department, STEM, Mathematics, Robotics and e-Learning Unit, TDSB, 2014. Toronto District School Board. (2015). K-12 STEM strategy. Retrieved from http://www.tdsb.on.ca/portals/0/highschool/docs/stem_strategy.pdf Vazquez-Recio, R. (2014). Reason and emotions: A critique of management competencies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17(4), 503-515. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2014.898796. Witherow, K. (2015). Alignment and coherence are key. Journal of Staff Development, 36(2), 39-40. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Designs and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/ro/visionro.htm

http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/ro/visionro.htm

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/portals/0/highschool/docs/stem_strategy.pdf

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/portals/0/highschool/docs/stem_strategy.pdf

fostering global competencies and deeper learning … · the pelp model one method of evaluating...

Documents