|
Canadian Restructured School Plan (CRSP) Le Projet D'une École Canadienne Restructurée
Canadian
Vocational Association © CVA/ACFP 1998 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
documents/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CANADIAN
RESTRUCTURED PLAN: FRAMEWORK FOR LEARNER GUIDE PROJECT
IMPORTANCE OF CRSP FOR THE CANADIAN VOCATIONAL ASSOCIATION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
The Learner Guide Project constitutes the first phase of the implementation of the Canadian Restructured School Plan (CRSP). CRSP, developed by the Canadian Vocational Association with a grant from Human Resources Development Canada through the Innovations Programme, is a comprehensive proposal for reorganizing secondary schools and improving their performance. Essentially, CRSP is based on the principles of adult education - independent learning, individualized instruction, flexible structures, competency-based approach to programming, recognition of prior learning, and flexible entry and exit.
documents/Purpose and Objectives of Learner Guide Project
The purpose of the Learner Guide Project, also funded by Human Resource Development Canada (HRDC) and managed by the Canadian Vocational Association, was to initiate a CRSP implementation structure and, in so doing, gauge the applicability of the CRSP model in public secondary schools. Specifically, the primary objective of the Learner Guide Project was to identify learning outcomes and to develop learner guides, within a CRSP framework, for different subject areas in the upper sector of secondary schools. The secondary objective was to familiarize educators about outcomes approaches and the development of guides.
Learning outcomes are results expected at the successful completion by the student of a learning programme or part of a programme. Learner guides, reflecting learning outcomes, are materials prepared directly for the learner, which materials the student can use to ascertain the objectives of a course or unit, the outcomes expected, the structure and assumptions of the content to be learned, suggested learning activities, the resources available, and the methods of assessing achievement, and how the guide fits into the larger learning programme.
The Canadian Vocational Association (CVA) Board of Directors created a Steering Committee, composed of representatives of the Board and publicly accountable education communities - schools, school districts, Education ministries - to ensure the integrity of the Project. The Steering Committee’s main tasks were: direction on the identification of learning outcomes in the different Provinces; selection of sites for the development of learner guides; and assistance to CVA on establishing a network of institutions and people interested in secondary school restructuring. In the second half of the Project, a Learner Guide Working Group, composed of Steering Committee members, was created to provide ongoing feedback to learner guide writing teams. The CVA Board hired, on a part-time basis, a small staff to implement the direction set by the Steering Committee.
documents/Process
Through direct contact with the different Education Ministries and Departments to ascertain the status of learning outcomes, it transpired that the majority of Provinces had already, either individually or regionally, developed graduation and general curriculum outcomes. An examination of the different Provinces’ learning outcomes indicated that there is a high level of similarity in both graduation and general curriculum outcomes across Provincial boundaries. Consequently, the Steering Committee, instead of creating a structure to identify learning outcomes and develop learner guides as originally intended, decided to build on existing outcomes and to select sites in different regions of the country to develop learner guides that reflect existing outcomes. To that end, the Steering Committee developed criteria for site selection: one of the criteria was a demonstrated commitment by each potential site to the CRSP model. The Steering Committee selected four sites comprising a total of 16 secondary schools representative of large and small, urban and rural, homogeneous and pluralistic schools in western, central, and eastern Canadian regions. Approximately half of the total project monies was allocated to sites to cover the cost of releasing teachers to develop the guides: each site selected its own writing teams. Approximately 60 educators participated in the Project.
With regard to the Project’s secondary objective, the CVA created a data bank of institutions and educators interested in secondary school restructuring in line with the CRSP model, and early in l996, commenced the dissemination of Project materials through the Association’s Web site. In late l997, the Association arranged to provide, on request, hard copies of Project documents to interested educators. Through the provision of professional development activities and their participation in the Project, site educators form a CVA cadre of educators familiar with outcomes approaches.
documents/Products
A set of 14 exemplar learner guides in different subject areas was produced. The guides cover the following disciplines: Art and Music, Career Preparation, English, History, Physical Education, Science, and Vocational Education and Technology (desktop publishing, house design, robotics). In addition, the guides on advertising, electronic research, and teamwork are cross-curricular; the History guide infuses thinking skills which are transferable to other subjects. Furthermore, a range of guides developed through the Project to meet individual site requirements was also produced but the guides are not disseminated as products of the Project. These guides are mostly site-specific and not readily transferable to other jurisdictions.
To provide added assistance to schools interested in implementing a CRSP model, HRDC provided resources in l997 for the preparation of a manual for the development of learner guides that reflect the CRSP model. This "Start-Up-Kit" covers the development, implementation, and evaluation of learner guides in a school or school district.
Three papers, written for the Project, contribute to CRSP implementation. The first is a writer’s handbook on preparing learner guides; the second outlines the context of Canadian curriculum development and implications for CRSP; and the third outlines a theoretical framework for CRSP. Given that the Learner Guide Project was, in essence, an applied research project, the Project Report could also be considered a product.
The LGP’s products including the "Start-Up-Kit" can be used independently of CRSP by schools interested in introducing a more flexible school organization where students are given increased responsibility for their own learning and a flexible time frame within which to achieve programme and course outcomes.
documents/Problems Encountered and Lessons Learned
documents/Problems Encountered
Two kinds of problems were encountered: operational and conceptual.
The principal operational ones centered around lack of time and resources to meet Project requirements and deadlines, and a lack of curriculum development expertise on the part of teachers. With regard to the lack of resources, the Steering Committee found the Project to be more complex than initially anticipated: consequently, the Committee had insufficient time and resources to provide the desired level of assistance to sites. The lack of resources also affected sites. In recent years, demands on teacher time have increased and the availability of public funding to education has decreased: as a consequence, teachers have little time to devote to innovation. The level of release time afforded by the Project was insufficient to develop the quality of guides that both the teacher writers and Project personnel had aimed for. The quality was also affected by insufficient access to computers in three of the four sites, essential to communication within and among sites, and in the case of two sites, by the lack of computer expertise among participants.
The low level of curriculum development expertise on the part of teachers had not been anticipated by either the CVA or the Steering Committee. Both the Steering Committee’s Learner Guide Working Group and Project personnel were also hampered by pressures of insufficient time and resources in providing the appropriate level of professional support needed to develop the kind of learner guides that were both cross-curricular and fully reflective of CRSP. While participating teachers gradually acquired a considerable level of expertise, many were frustrated by the combined pressures of having "to learn on the job" and meet tight deadlines.
The conceptual problems revolved around a lack of commitment to CRSP which surfaced in the second half of the Project. In more than one site, learner guide writers gave precedence to developing guides that met local programme or school realities rather than to the Project’s CRSP focus. While all sites had been able to demonstrate school or school district priorities that complement CRSP in the individual proposals to participate in the Project, implementing the CRSP model had not been fully explored by the different sites. In the course of the Project, school leaders and guide writers realized that the implementation of a CRSP school and/or the infusion of CRSP into the existing school structure would be a difficult task since CRSP calls for a "sea change" in teaching philosophy and class and school management.
documents/Lessons Learned
The main activity of the Project was the development of learner guides. The concept of student-centered learner guides and the process of developing them were new to many writers. Overall, learner guide writers had three main difficulties: moving from a traditional teaching approach to a learning and student-centered one; infusing cross-curricular links and higher-order learning in individual subject areas; and determining how student achievement of outcomes is assessed.
The writing of guides proved easiest in the skills-related subjects: the range of exemplar guides in Arts, Physical Education, and Technology reflects this. In contrast, there are no exemplars in English Literature, Mathematics or the Physical Sciences.
The Project demonstrated that the following are key to developing good learner guides: the support of the site’s academic leaders, in particular the Principal, as well as support from teacher colleagues for guide writers; the selection of an effective team leader and writing team members from teacher applicants by the Principal, or group of Principals if a number of schools is participating; sufficient time and resources to develop concepts, do research, and produce some cross-curricular guides; ongoing professional development during the writing period; a level of computer technology to facilitate the collaborative development of guides; and the testing of guides by students and their review by external professionals to determine guide transferability to other school jurisdictions.
documents/The Next Step
The Learner Guide Project was the first phase of CRSP implementation, and was successful. Learning outcomes were identified, learner guides developed, a manual or "Start-Up-Kit" on developing CRSP learner guides produced based on the process used and experiences gained in the Project, and a network of educators interested in school change and the CRSP model created by the Canadian Vocational Association.
The CVA has given priority to creating, developing, and promoting CRSP over a number of years and, at its annual general meeting in October 1997, the Association decided that CRSP remains a priority, and further implementation phases would be pursued.
Two principal directions flow from the work of the Project. It is suggested that CVA support the implementation of the guides and research their effectiveness as learning resources in the Project’s participating schools. Since its membership spans all education and training levels both in the public and private sectors, the Association does not concentrate on any one level. The CVA would need to increase the strength of its secondary level representation to achieve those two goals. To that end, the CVA might want to form partnerships with one or more educational agencies whose focus is secondary education.
CANADIAN RESTRUCTURED SCHOOL PLAN (CRSP)
documents/LEARNER GUIDE PROJECT REPORT
This Report starts with an outline of the main elements of the Canadian Restructured School Plan which constitutes the conceptual framework of the Learner Guide Project, and then describes what the Project set out to do, the process that was used, the products that were developed, the problems that were encountered and lessons learned, suggestions on further CRSP initiatives outlined for the consideration of the Canadian Vocational Association, and the importance of CRSP for the Association.
Canadian Restructured School Plan: Framework for Learner Guide Project
The Canadian Restructured School Plan (CRSP) is a proposal to explore a different way to organize learning in secondary school, based on clearly defined, measurable outcomes. CRSP was initiated by the Canadian Vocational Association (CVA); prepared on its behalf by Glendenning Educational Resources, Charlottetown, PEI; and reflects considerable experience in career preparation and academic courses offered in some community colleges and adult education centres, as well as outcome- based learning in some secondary schools (Canadian Vocational Association, l993). In April 1994, some 40 educators and government representatives from across Canada came together for a consultation on the Plan and they recommended that pilot projects be developed to test the implications and value of CRSP for secondary schools (Canadian Vocational Association, l994). The CVA, to facilitate the implementation of CRSP, initiated this, the Learner Guide Project, to prepare and make available required learning materials, and identify a network of educators interested or involved in CRSP approaches to learning. All three phases were funded by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC).
The purpose of the Learner Guide Project was to identify learning outcomes and develop learner guides, within the CRSP framework, for a selected number of curriculum areas at the senior secondary school level. Identified learning outcomes and developed learner guides together provide the main components of the pedagogical foundation for implementing a CRSP model school. The Learner Guide Project’s materials, however, can also be used independently of CRSP by schools interested in introducing a more flexible school organization where students are given increased responsibility for their own learning and a flexible time frame within which to achieve programme and course outcomes or results. In l997, HRDC gave further support for the preparation of a manual for the development by a school district of learner guides that reflect the CRSP model: the manual or "Start-Up-Kit" is based on the best practices identified during the Project for developing guides.
The Learner Guide Project was initially known as the Learning Outcomes Project but was changed to the Learner Guide Project in the second year, the reason being that the development of learner guides became the main focus of the work. For the purpose of clarity, the Project is referred to solely as the Learner Guide Project (LGP).
documents/CRSP: Vision and Assumptions, Essential Elements, and Theoretical Framework
documents/Vision and Assumptions
The vision for CRSP stems from two intersecting perspectives: adult education and vocational education. The adult education perspective, especially as it has developed in postsecondary community college career programmes, stresses responsibility of the learner, clear outcomes, curriculum restructuring, flexible access and exit points, continuous progress, a variety of instructional strategies, and alternative forms of evaluation including recognition of former learning and challenging for credit. Vocational education stresses relevance of learning to life and work, emphasis on generic skills, competency/mastery approaches to learning, and the use of technology to manage and enhance learning.
CRSP is based on a series of assumptions. Secondary schools today are facing many new challenges - and new opportunities. Policy makers and the public are asking for more effective learning, for a more diverse student population, and in more efficient learning institutions. Higher quality, greater equity, and clearer accountability for results are three overriding goals of education reform.
Most Provinces have or are developing sets of outcomes that all students must meet. Many new developments in learning theory and practice are providing guidelines for change in schools in the direction of greater focus on learning and the learner, more flexible structures, more imaginative curriculum, stress on individual and cooperative methods, more precise assessment of achievement, and creative use of information technologies. The Learner Guide Project is a step in that direction.
documents/Essential Elements
The Canadian Restructured School Plan comprises the following essential elements (Canadian Vocational Association, l993):
These elements are interdependent and the full implementation of a CRSP model school would involve all of these elements. Essentially, the fourth, fifth, and sixth elements - individualized learning, competency-based learning, and challenge for credit - are the focus of the Learner Guide Project.
documents/Theoretical Framework
Ryan (1996b), in a background paper prepared for the Project, outlines the theoretical framework for the CRSP model. She states that the theory of learning that corresponds most closely to CRSP is Mastery Learning (ML) which she couples with Outcome-Based Education (OBE), the latter created to allow ML to be expanded from the classroom to the total school system. She indicates further that, for the CRSP school, ML and OBE can be designed from an individualized model of curriculum and instruction, rather than the more usual whole class model of mastery learning implementation. All the other elements of the CRSP model (e.g. personalized education, computer-assisted learning) "flow from the theory of mastery learning and facilitate the implementation of an individualized version of it." (page 1)
The following definitions and descriptions of the key concepts of ML, OBE and Competency-Based Education are taken mostly from Ryan’s work (l994, l996b) done in relation to CRSP.
documents/Mastery Learning
Mastery Learning (ML) is based on the premise that all students can learn a set of reasonable objectives with appropriate instruction and sufficient time to learn. The prescribed curriculum is divided into units or learning blocks of two to four weeks in length, ten to fifteen units per year. The instructional model has five components: regular instruction, formative test, corrective/enrichment, instruction, second formative test. Achievement is assessed in a summative test at the end of the course. Students must be aware of academic expectations and have an opportunity to demonstrate that they are meeting them, if possible through work activities or products. Instruments must be specific and standards clear. Curriculum, instruction, and tests are aligned. Teaching approaches commonly involve direct instruction, mastery teaching, cooperative learning, and holistic approaches (Ryan, l994).
Ryan points out that ML is not a teaching model: rather, ML concentrates on the organization and structuring of blocks of learning time and the assessment and achievement of students. It does not recommend teaching techniques which are left to the teachers to determine: a variety of teaching approaches can be used.
documents/Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and Competency-Based Education (CBE)
Mastery Learning was developed to improve classroom learning. To expand masterly learning programmes to the school board or district level, it became necessary to state the capabilities of graduating students. Ryan states that the term Outcome-Based Education (OBE) was coined to establish what is essential for graduating students to know, be able to do, and be like in order to be successful in life. OBE relates to higher order learnings such as critical thinking and problem solving, effective communication, teamwork, and computer literacy: these learnings cut across curricular subjects and are known by terms such as higher order learning, graduation outcomes, and common essential learnings. These higher order learnings drive the curriculum and find expression in curriculum outcomes which can be broken down into specific course outcomes.
Ryan (l996b, p. 8) gives Spady’s (Spady and Marshall, l991) definition of an outcome as "a successful demonstration of learning that occurs at the culminating point of a set of learning experiences. The term culminating refers to the completion point of a segment of curriculum - what students are ultimately able to do at the end, once all formal instruction is over and can be synthesized and applied successfully." The ultimate or graduation outcomes serve as the starting point for curriculum and instruction design. Ryan points out that educators determine curriculum and course outcomes from the ultimate or graduation outcomes.
Ryan (l996b) states that OBE stems from ML and Competency-Based Education (CBE). Ryan defines CBE as "a general term applied to instructional and assessment efforts aimed at defining and evaluating student performance: it is essentially an administratively imposed system of certifying that students have demonstrated attainment of a set of defined competencies." (page 9). The Canadian Vocational Association (l994), in the report on the national consultation on the CRSP model, equates OBE and CBE. Ryan argues that they are not identical. CBE makes no claim about the proportion of students who can accomplish all the competencies in a curriculum area. Like ML, CBE can be used in the traditional school system. OBE, in contrast, is broader in that it addresses success for all students. OBE, therefore, is in line with the CRSP model which is dedicated to the successful attainment of stated learning outcomes by all students.
documents/Operational Implications of Outcome-Based Education
With regard to the Learner Guide Project, Bailey & Henchey (l995) stress two operational elements of OBE. Instructional practice must be designed around clearly defined outcomes that all students can demonstrate, and schools must provide all students with the opportunity to fulfil the outcomes successfully. Ryan (l996) states that such schools must have flexible organizational structures regarding the use of time, the grouping of students, teaching methods used by educators, and provision of learning materials.
Ryan lists Spady’s (l985) five operational components of OBE:
The operational components come from the OBE philosophy that all students can learn and succeed, that success breeds success, and that schools control the conditions of success. Three approaches to OBE can be used: traditional, which means learning existing curriculum for mastery, which approach, as noted already, may not be useful for all students; transitional, which implies some restructuring of the curriculum and thereby providing a greater level of flexibility than the traditional approach to learning; and transformational, which results in the complete restructuring of the curriculum, the CRSP approach. CRSP calls for an OBE model that is personalized and computer-based, with flexible structures for entry and exit, and with site-based management in place.
documents/Relationship of CRSP to Learner Guide Project (LGP)
The Learner Guide Project (LGP) constitutes a first stage in trying out the overall Canadian Restructured School Plan, and is composed of two complementing parts, one developmental and one applied research. Briefly, the developmental part involves the identification of learning outcomes, and the preparation of learner guides. The applied research component comprises both the identification of the best process for developing learner guides including lessons learned, and recommendations for future implementation phases of the CRSP model.
While OBE and ML provide the conceptual background for the LGP, a further distinction needs to be made between outcomes at different levels of the school system. Ryan refers to a hierarchy of outcomes: graduation outcomes, general curriculum outcomes, specific outcomes, and learner guide/performance objectives. Graduation outcomes are cross-curricular in that they outline ultimate goals such as problem solving, critical thinking, effective communication, technological literacy, and citizenship. The other three sets of outcomes relate to particular curriculum areas and courses. General curriculum outcomes are course exit outcomes; specific or enabling outcomes are components of the general course exit outcomes. Performance objectives identify the particular skills and competencies that together comprise the general and specific curriculum outcomes. The Learner Guide Project is principally concerned with general and specific outcomes, and with performance objectives. This hierarchy of outcomes became the foundation for linking provincial and regionally developed outcomes with specific and performance outcomes which form the basis for learner guide development.
documents/
Objectives and Definitions, Implications, Guiding Principles, and Inception of LGP
documents/
Objectives and Definitions
The Learner Guide Project was designed principally to:
Outcomes are results expected at the successful completion of a learning programme or part of a programme. The LGP deals with specific curriculum outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and are defined clearly enough for teachers and learners to know what is expected, the level of performance required, and the method of assessing outcome achievement. These outcomes stress the application of learning more than its acquisition. Outcomes may be developed through a process called DACUM (Developing a Curriculum).
DACUM is a process to develop participation and lead to decision making concerning outcomes and programmes. It is widely used in education and industry. The end result is a brief visual display of conclusions or outcomes.
Learner guides are materials prepared directly for the learner and the teacher, which materials the student can use to find out the objectives of a course or unit, how it fits into a larger learning programme, the outcomes expected, the structure and assumptions of the content to be learned, suggested learning activities, the resources available, and the methods of assessing achievement. Normally, students can use learner guides to proceed through a programme at their own pace, with guidance from a teacher who acts as mentor, and often in collaboration with other learners.
documents/Implications and Guiding Principles
The following were prepared to guide the work of the Project.
documents/Implications
The objectives imply:
documents/
Guiding Principles
Based on the elements of ML, OBE and CBE, linked with the purpose of the Learner Guide Project, the following Project operating principles were identified.
Inception of Learner Guide Project
The HRDC/CVA Agreement was signed in early l995: the work was spread over a period of two-and-a-half years, April 1, l995 - August 31, l997: the time period for completion was later extended to October 31, l997. This section gives details of the Project’s organizational structure and budget assumptions as outlined in the CVA funding proposal to HRDC, and indicates the limitations of the Project.
documents/Organizational Structure
In early summer l995, the CVA Board of Directors created a Steering Committee to ensure the integrity of the Project and provide advice to the CVA Board. The Board secured the assistance of Dr. Donald Glendenning, President of Glendenning Educational Resources, the firm that had managed the first two phases of CRSP on CVA’s behalf, to help select and subsequently chair the Steering Committee. In operational terms, the Steering Committee’s mandate was to: approve the plan of action; identify potential educators to form a CRSP network; select sites to develop learner guides; provide feedback to CVA on Project progress and make recommendations for improvement; indicate research and development plans for future phases of CRSP; and provide advice on any other matters which came to the Committee’s attention or were referred to it by the CVA Board. The CVA Board of Directors also created an Executive Committee of the Steering Committee consisting of the CVA President and First Vice-President, the Chair of the Steering Committee, and the HRDC representative. The Executive met several times in 1995 and the first half of l996 to ensure that CVA, HRDC, and the Steering Committee were in harmony regarding the Project’s theoretical framework; Project timeframe and budget; the selection of sites; and communication with provincial Education ministries.
The membership of the Steering Committee, given in Appendix A, included representatives from the CVA, provincial Ministries of Education, university Faculties of Education, school districts and schools, and the funder, HRDC. This representative forum enabled the accountable public education communities - schools, school districts, and Education ministries - to participate directly in the Project.
On the Board’s behalf, starting in the Spring of l995, the CVA President hired the following Project personnel on a part-time basis: a Project Director, a Financial Manager, a Principal Educator subsequently called the Principal Researcher, and an Adviser to the Committee on curriculum issues. In the summer of l997, a Project Evaluator was hired to analyze the fulfilment of the Project’s objectives as outlined in the HRDC/CVA agreement: the Evaluator’s report was intended to assist the CVA Board’s decision making. Also in l997, further technical assistance was provided to learner guide writers: an external reader was contracted to analyze draft learner guides and provide substantive feedback; and an editor to standardize layout and reporting (See Appendix B for list of Personnel).
The allocation of Project funding reflected the budgetary assumptions outlined in the CVA Project proposal to HRDC. Specifically, approximately 40 percent of the budget was earmarked for the principal objective - the identification of outcomes and the development of learner guides: the Steering Committee, Project personnel and administration were also allocated 40 percent of the total. These were the two principal budgetary items. More detailed information on the Project’s budget is given at the end of the Process section of the Report.
To indicate the evolution of the Project, a chronology of the Steering Committee’s resolutions and the CVA Board’s actions is given in Appendix C.
documents/Limitations
The limitations of the Project are as follows:
documents/
Process Used to Achieve Project Objectives
The greater part of this section addresses the process used to achieve the principal objective, outcomes identification and learner guide development.
At its first meeting in Charlottetown in the summer of l995, the Steering Committee initiated communication with provincial Education Ministries to help with the identification of learning outcomes; and created two sub-groups - the Technical Design Team to advise on criteria for site selection for learner guide development, and the Communications Committee to prepare a communications strategy to facilitate the fulfilment of the objectives.
Also at the Charlottetown meeting, a difference of opinion surfaced principally on the use of DACUM as a means of identifying learning outcomes. Since this difference of opinion was subsequently not resolved, it is presented in the unit that follows because DACUM was not used as a means of identifying specific performance outcomes. The first two phases of CRSP emphasize DACUM as key to identifying curriculum and course outcomes.
This section discusses the following: Steering Committee differences about DACUM; identification of learning outcomes; development of learner guides including the selection of sites; enabling strategies for the accomplishment of objectives; and creation of CRSP-LGP Network; and the Project budget.
documents/Steering Committee’s Difficulties Over the Use of DACUM
The members of the Steering Committee were all supportive of CRSP and its potential benefits for learners: however, members differed about certain CRSP processes that related to the development of learner guides. The disagreement among Steering Committee members centred around the use of DACUM, the process used in CRSP to identify curriculum outcomes. The disagreement manifested itself at the first Steering Committee meeting and was never resolved with consequences for the Project’s operation.
DACUM is a method of job, occupational, or field analysis that uses experts from the job or occupation to identify the competencies required to perform the job (Canadian Vocational Association, l995). The disagreement surfaced principally between the postsecondary and the compulsory public sector representatives on the Steering Committee, and stems from the differences between the two education systems and their programmes.
Postsecondary education is focused on meeting the needs of the individual student who is preparing for entry into the larger society. The postsecondary system, primarily concerned with the graduates’ entry into the work place, has the required curriculum flexibility to ensure that transition. Thus, the system can set graduation and curriculum outcomes to match programmes of study with the needs of individual student and those of the employment sector. The DACUM process is commonly used to ensure this match: DACUM also facilitates effective communication between the postsecondary education institutions and their external communities.
The compulsory public education system prepares young people to be future citizens. Young people are provided with a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that reflect society’s values. Consequently, the public education system is regulated by each Province which establishes both graduation and curriculum outcomes and requirements. Most Provinces have identified such outcomes, and given the nature of the compulsory education system, do not delegate their development to outside bodies. The use of DACUM as a process to be used in the Project, therefore, was not considered relevant for the identification of graduation and curriculum outcomes.
With regard to the use of DACUM to determine specific course outcomes, the Steering Committee representatives from the compulsory school system also raised concerns. DACUM has been proved to be effective in identifying outcomes or competencies in the more applied courses. There was considerable doubt among the majority of Steering Committee members that DACUM would be effective in identifying outcomes in subjects such as English and History. It was agreed by the Steering Committee that DACUM could, however, be used at the local level to help schools to determine community needs and then include them as a supplement to the content of specific courses.
The originators of CRSP were principally adult educators in the postsecondary education system. Most of them had found DACUM a key means of determining the competencies required of graduates for entry into the latters’ chosen careers. The originators of CRSP were represented on the Steering Committee. Understandably, they viewed DACUM as essential to the Project. In contrast, the Steering Committee members, whose primary responsibility was the K-12 system, stated that DACUM has limited relevance to their schools.
Two further element relating to DACUM and learner guide development caused disagreement. With the DACUM process, the custom is to develop a learner guide for each competency: content is not included in the guide. Even if the DACUM process were used at the local school level to determine local needs to be integrated with existing courses, the majority of the Steering Committee members did not agree that a learner guide should be written for each competency. Nor did they even agree to a learner guide for clusters of competencies. Instead, they were more in favour of the Mastery Learning process which breaks a course into 12 - 15 units with a learner guide written for each unit. With regard to content, the members considered that it could not be excluded completely as the learner guides would outline a range of learning activities for students.
The differences in the modus operandi of the secondary and postsecondary education systems, which differences were never fully worked through in terms of the Project by the Steering Committee, resulted in a certain level of ambiguity about CRSP and its relationship to the Project. Some Steering Committee members viewed the Project as Phase 3 of CRSP with the assumption that Project participants would eventually implement CRSP. Other members saw the Project strictly as a "stand alone" CRSP component which would serve schools that wanted to introduce flexible learning structures for students. While the criteria for participation in the Project embodied both options, overall, the CRSP theoretical framework serves as the basis for the Project.
Obviously, the Steering Committee did not insist on the use of DACUM by the four sites. In fact, having outlined the CRSP theoretical framework to the sites and provided them with a template and handbook for the development of learner guides at the Fredericton meeting, the Steering Committee could be said to have given the four sites the "green light" to "get on with it" with guidance from Project personnel and Steering Committee members.
In working with the Project’s learner guide writers, the personnel had to find a method of fulfilling the Project’s objectives. This was done in the following way: Project personnel, while linking the identification of learning outcomes and the development of learner guides to CRSP at seminars and workshops, regarded the Learner Guide Project as a "stand alone" component of CRSP, rather than Phase 3 of CRSP.
As the Project took its course during the l996-7 school year, it became obvious that participating schools were not anticipating moving to a full CRSP model: it seems that few schools and school districts have the resources to introduce the full CRSP. Rather, they were developing learner guides to provide additional learning options for students, and to meet site-specific objectives. These schools are committed to promoting individualized and flexible learning approaches, compatible with the CRSP model.
documents/Identification of Learning Outcomes
As a first step in the identification of learning outcomes, the Project Director, with assistance from Steering Committee members, visited the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) and the majority of provincial Ministries of Education. Based on the curriculum documents provided by Provinces, the Steering Committee commissioned a paper on the context of curriculum development in relation to CRSP and this background paper constitutes one of the products of the Project.
documents/Graduation and General Curriculum Outcomes
The Project paper Context of Canadian curriculum development and implications for the Learning Outcomes Project (Ryan, l996a) indicates that, overall, most Provinces are involved in curriculum development and performance assessment and are collaborating with one another on these issues. To facilitate such collaboration, the Provinces have, individually and collectively, determined graduation outcomes and general curriculum outcomes. For example, two inter-provincial curriculum consortia have been created in recent years namely the Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation (APEF) and the Western Canadian Protocol for Collaborating in Basic Education , K-12. In the Report, the former is mostly referred to by its acronym APEF and the latter as the Western Canadian Protocol.
Ryan distinguishes between these two major kinds of outcome statements, and gives, as examples, the Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation’s (APEF) definitions which guide the Provinces’ work in developing common core curriculum.
documents/Graduation Outcomes.
Essential Graduation Learnings, as graduation outcomes are called in Atlantic Canada, are statements describing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected of all students who graduate from high school. These learnings describe expectations that are cross-curricular and confirm that students need to make connections and develop abilities across subject boundaries if they are to be prepared for the demands of life, work, and study today and in the future. These outcomes are stated in terms of what the graduate must have achieved, and are not intended to be measured directly. Ryan (l996a) states that "they are intended to "drive" the writing of more specific outcome statements relevant to curriculum and grade levels. The more specific outcomes are to be measured or observed directly; they serve as proxies for the achievement or acquisition of the graduation outcomes" (p.5). In the Western Canadian Protocol, graduation outcomes are generally referred to as common essential learnings.
The two largest Provinces, Ontario and Quebec, while collaborating with other Provinces under the umbrella of the CMEC, have not outlined graduation outcomes. Since Ontario has defined its outcomes only to the Grade 9 level, there is no mention of graduation outcomes as yet. In a report entitled Preparing our youth for the 21st century, Quebec (l994) proposes a learning profile for secondary schools: while learning graduation outcomes are not mentioned as such, the categories of student learning expectations resemble graduation outcomes.
The chart on the following page gives the content categories of the graduation outcomes or learning for New Brunswick, which are the same as those for APEF, and for three of the Western
Canadian Protocol Provinces - Alberta and Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The outcomes of the three Western Provinces are given to indicate the level of similarity between them. Ryan notes that the graduation outcomes are defined in quite general terms in provincial documents.
CONTENT CATEGORIES OF GRADUATION OUTCOMES OR ESSENTIAL LEARNINGS
IN ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN, MANITOBA AND NEW BRUNSWICK
| ALBERTA1 | SASKATCHEWAN2 | MANITOBA3 | NEW BRUNSWICK4 |
| Communication | Communication | Communication | Communication |
| Critical and Creative Thinking | Critical and Creative Thinking | Critical and Creative Thinking | Problem Solving (Highlights numeracy) |
| Interpersonal Skills and Citizenship | Personal and Social Values and Skills | Personal & Social Values and Citizenship | Citizenship |
| Knowledge and Skills for the Application of Technology | Technology Literacy | Technology Literacy | Technology Competence |
| Independent Learning | Aesthetic Expression | Personal Development | |
| Independent and Lifelong Learning | Aesthetic Expression |
1Common Essential Learnings
2Common Essential Learnings
3Graduation outcomes. These outcomes are a synthesis of the academic, social, and career outcomes; and life management outcomes given in Manitoba Education and Training (1995). Renewing Education: New directions, A foundation for excellence.
4Essential Graduation Learnings
General Curriculum Outcomes.
In both the APEF and Western Canadian Protocol, graduation outcomes are already serving as the basis for curriculum development and revision. The APEF developed, from its list of Essential Graduation Outcomes, curriculum outcomes in three subject areas - language arts, mathematics, and sciences. The Western Canadian Protocol has developed a common Mathematics curriculum. In both the Atlantic and Western Canadian bodies, the curriculum outcomes are organized around content strands or unifying concepts. These strands and concepts embody the breadth of the curriculum and also serve as longitudinal threads through the curriculum. The APEF defines curriculum outcomes as statements articulating what students are expected to know and be able to do in particular subject areas at particular key stages: the stages are at the end of Grades 3, 6. 9. and 12. The Western Canadian Protocol has listed both general curriculum outcomes and specific curriculum outcomes for Mathematics. Ryan defines general outcomes as statements that identify what students are expected to know and be able to do upon completion of a grade, and specific outcomes as statements identifying the component knowledge, skills and attitudes of a general outcome.
On a Pan-Canadian level through the Council of Ministers, Canada (CMEC), the Provinces have initiated efforts to develop common outcomes frameworks and assessment strategies in selected curriculum areas. This effort is undertaken through the Schools Achievement Indicators Projects (SAIP) and the joint CMEC and Statistics Canada Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Programme (PCEIP). This trend has continued as indicated by the development of learner guides for all areas of science taught in Grades 11 and 12 (Lewington, l997, October 20).
In most Canadian Provinces, Ryan (l996a) states that the curriculum is beginning to reflect an outcome-based or results-based philosophy. Provinces are adopting outcome statements and curriculum frameworks developed individually or cooperatively at inter-provincial or pan-Canadian levels. Ryan points out that "outcomes statements and curriculum guidelines and frameworks developed or endorsed at the provincial level are issued as expectations and/or requirements for implementation at the local school level" (p.4). She goes on to state that ... "the more general the provincial curriculum requirements and expectations are, the more flexibility local school jurisdictions have to produce local adaptations." Schools, participating in the Learner Guide Project, would be required to develop learner guides that indicate how the students will meet the graduation and curriculum expectations outlined by the Province. New Brunswick’s curriculum plans include: the introduction of an integrated curriculum by organizing the curriculum around four broad areas - the Humanities, Mathematics And Science, Fine Arts, And Practical Arts; and the reorganization of Grades 9 and 10 into one unit, called the Foundation Years, where students progress through the demonstration of achieved competencies. In addition to having identified Essential Graduation Learnings and general curriculum outcomes, New Brunswick has identified 112 specific course outcomes for the Foundation Years.
documents/Implications for Project
The identification of learning outcomes was fulfilled by Ryan’s study (l996a). It demonstrates that there is similarity in the graduation and general curriculum outcomes identified by Ministry bodies in the different regions. The similarity between the sets of both graduation and general curriculum outcomes identified in the different regions and Provinces may be due principally to the interprovincial protocols - Western, Atlantic, and Pan-Canadian through the Council of Ministers of Education - created to collaborate on curriculum issues. There is a commitment by the Provinces to those outcomes.
Other studies, however - in particular the study of exemplary schools (Gaskell, 1995) - while echoing some of Ryan’s conclusions, indicate an important finding with implication for the Project. Differences exist between curriculum outcomes and performance outcomes identified by different categories of schools. Specifically, there are differences between the performance outcomes developed by large secondary schools and small ones, between rural and urban schools, and between schools with homogeneous populations and schools with pluralist ones. The differences stem from the variation in the demographic, cultural, economic, and social characteristics existing in the different categories of schools.
As a consequence of Ryan’s study, the Steering Committee decided that learning outcomes had been identified and, therefore, would not need to be done. The development of learner guides became the main focus of the Project.
documents/Development of Learner Guides
The Technical Design Team made two main proposals that implied a change to the process outlined in the original CVA Project proposal to HRDC, and both were adopted by the Steering Committee.
Firstly, the Technical Design Team recommended that the process for developing learner guides be modified. It proposed that the Steering Committee select approximately four provincially-based sites that would capitalize on existing learning outcomes by identifying, where necessary, through the DACUM process, performance outcomes and competencies which respond specifically to local community needs but which complement stated provincial learning outcomes. Based on the identified performance outcomes and competencies, the sites would develop learner guides in the four main curriculum areas of language arts, mathematics/science, humanities, and applied arts. Sites were to reflect the diversity of Canadian schools. The original process outlined in the Project proposal presented by CVA to HRDC had recommended that curriculum outcomes be identified "from scratch" and learner guides be developed by Pan-Canadian teams of teachers. However, learning outcomes had been identified: most Provinces had already had approved graduation and curriculum outcomes which were similar from Province to Province, and were not subject to change by non-provincial bodies. The challenge was to identify learner guides that reflect the diversity of Canadian schools: learner guides developed in one type of school site would likely be generalizable to other schools of the same type, regardless of where they were in the country. For example, learner guides developed by a rural school or schools in New Brunswick could be transferrable, not only to other maritime Provinces but to other rural school districts in Canada.
Secondly, the Technical Design Team proposed a set of criteria for the selection of provincially-based sites rather than for Pan-Canadian sites, as originally recommended in the CVA Project Proposal to HRDC.
To be eligible, a site must, in its proposal to the CVA, indicate that it:
Given the funding allocated for the fulfilment of the principal objective of the Project as outlined in the unit on budget assumptions, the Steering Committee decided that:
Selection of Sites
At the Edmonton meeting of the Steering Committee, a number of informal proposals, which had been received prior to the meeting, were reviewed. One was accepted in principle as it met the set of criteria just established; this site proposal had been initiated by three rural school districts in New Brunswick and was presented by the New Brunswick representative on the Steering Committee. Following the meeting, the three school districts were invited to submit a formal proposal.
The selection process concentrated in finding sites that correspond to the broad spectrum of Canadian secondary schools - urban and rural, east-west, large and small schools, traditional and technologically advanced, schools interested in pursuing a CRSP model and those at an early stage of developing outcomes.
Immediately following the Edmonton meeting of the Steering Committee, the Project Director and Steering Committee members consulted widely in the K-12 community regarding possible sites that met the Steering Committee’s criteria. A number of recommended sites were explored by the Project Director and members of the Steering Committee. Few proposals were submitted, however, principally due to existing commitments. The potential Quebec site had a different problem. Since the Project did not have a translation budget, the interested Quebec school, while it would develop guides generalizable to urban Quebec schools, did not feel it could benefit sufficiently from the work done by other sites.
Three proposals that met the criteria for Project sites, two from Alberta and one from Manitoba, were received in early spring and were approved by the majority of the Steering Committee members prior to the Fredericton meeting in May l996. The three sites, combined with the New Brunswick one, reflect the diversity of Canadian secondary schools. Two of the sites were urban secondary schools and two represented a network of rural schools. In both rural sites, schools were small and, in one site, the schools were networked to offer the range of subjects that students require to enter the work world either immediately on graduation or after postsecondary studies. The sites also span a wide geographic area, from New Brunswick to northwestern Alberta. Altogether the four sites comprised 16 secondary schools and up to 80 educators.
The Steering Committee decided that all sites could determine the number of learner guides considered feasible, and select the learner guide teams and the method of operation that best suited their individual situations. While copyright remained with CVA, the Board gave the sites permission to use all developed materials in ways that enhanced learning in their respective sites. A Site Leader was named by each site.
The CVA had recommended that the Site Leader be a direct participant in the writing of learner guides.
At the Fredericton meeting, the representatives of each site presented their respective site’s proposal so that the Steering Committee could satisfy itself that the criteria for site selection were met. A workshop for the representatives was given on the last day by the Principal Researcher and the Advisor to the Steering Committee to Introduce a common format for learner guide preparation and to initiate intersite communication. New Brunswick’s subject team leaders, who had been named at the time of the meeting, also participated at the workshop.
documents/New Brunswick Site
Interest in the Learner Guide Project in New Brunswick resulted from the Ministry of Education’s new school organization for high schools. Grade 9 was moved into senior high school and merged with what had been Grade 10. The new structure is called the Foundation Years and the elimination of separate grades is intended to allow high school students to progress at their own rate through the Foundations Years curriculum. The Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation and the New Brunswick Department of Education had just previously developed graduation learnings and general curriculum outcomes. The Department of Education formulated over 100 specific curriculum outcomes for the Foundation Years and a student could take from 1.5 to 3 years to complete the programme.
The New Brunswick proposal was signed in March l996. The three school districts, to be known as the New Brunswick site, guaranteed to develop learner guides that correspond to the Province’s Essential Graduation Learnings and curriculum outcomes for all subjects in the Foundation Years. The three districts were of the opinion that the development of learner guides for the different subject areas would enable the specific course outcomes to be translated into learning units for students, and as a consequence, students could progress at own pace.
Specifically, the New Brunswick Site agreed to:
The characteristics of the New Brunswick site are as follows:
Participating schools: 11 of the district’s 16 secondary schools
Participating schools’ total enrolment : 3,500
Number of teachers in 12 schools: 193
No. of writing teams: 8
Total number of team members: 56
Through the New Brunswick Distance Education Project, the schools all have access to video conferencing, have computer networks, and the three districts have community access sites under the aegis of Industry Canada.
As a result of a reorganization of school districts in the summer of l996, the three school districts were grouped to form one single district under a superintendent. The new zone covers one-third of the Province and one-quarter of the population.
The list of participating schools and the composition of subject teams are given in Appendix D.
By May l996, the eight subject teams had been formed and were working under a Site Leader, appointed by the Superintendent. Teachers interested in writing learner guides were given a curriculum development workshop by Dr. David Pratt of Queen’s University. These teachers, representative of all district schools, were then named to the different subject-based writing teams. Other teachers were added later when vacancies occurred. The Principal Researcher took a leadership role in helping team leaders with initial team meetings and in determining and providing for their professional development needs. During the early stages of the learner guide development period, the Principal Researcher arranged two workshops, the first in curriculum development given by Dr. David Pratt for those who had not attended his earlier workshop, and the second given by Marg. Daniels, Education Consultant at the Scarborough Board of Education, on performance assessment.
With the support of the school district and the Education Department, the subject groups wished to develop as many guides as possible to reflect the Province’s specific curriculum outcomes. Thus, it was expected from the beginning of the writing period that New Brunswick learner guides would be primarily subject-based. Since the Department of Education had already developed 112 specific outcomes for the Foundation Years for all the Province’s schools, the teams did not see a need for DACUM.
documents/Hunting Hills High School Site, Red Deer, Alberta.
Hunting Hills High School, one of Alberta’s newest high schools with "state of the art" technology, was opened in l994. Interest in the Learner Guide Project stemmed from two aspects: firstly, the School’s focus on the ideas behind the constructivist view of learning and secondly, the School’s commitment to the development of learner guides based on guidelines established by Alberta Education.
Hunting Hills believed that participation in the Project would enhance the following: the development of learner guides; the identification, teaching, and application of cross-curricular generic skills; the development of more flexible structures to accommodate student needs; the creation of models for the use of technology in restructuring education; and the development of instruments and methods to assess the benefits of restructured education.
Hunting Hills’ timetable includes full year, semestered, and quarter-mestered courses, and provides opportunities for independent or self-directed learning. The school has the following features:
The main challenge for Hunting Hills High School is to meet the needs of the current students and provide them with a seamless articulation from high school to postsecondary studies and work: about 40 percent continue to postsecondary studies. The focus is on developing cross-curricular modules and increasing the use of the available technology.
Hunting Hills High School had been recommended as a potential site by an Assistant Deputy Minister of Alberta Education, a member of the Steering Committee. The main architect of the proposal, submitted in April l996, was the Principal.
The characteristics of the Hunting Hills Site are as follows:
Number of participating schools: 1
Total enrolment: 1,200
Number of teachers: 55
Number of writing teams: 1
Total number of team members: 10
The school has 400 computers with a wide array of technological applications, an Internet access lab, and a library with electronic search and information capabilities.
Hunting Hills’ contract specifies that, in line with Alberta’s graduation and curriculum outcomes, volunteer teachers would develop learner guides in the four areas of Science/Mathematics, Humanities, Career and Technical Studies, and Applied Arts at the senior high school level; and would develop "curriculum" to teach and apply generic skills. The Principal appointed the Vice-Principal and Team Leader for curriculum as Site Leader, and invited all interested teachers to become involved.
Work on the interdisciplinary learner guides got under way in September l996. The list of writers is given in Appendix D.
documents/Grande Yellowhead Site - Regional District 35, Alberta.
Grande Yellowhead Regional Division No. 35 is a recently regionalized rural school division incorporating the three former jurisdictions of Yellowhead School Division No. 12, Jasper School District, and Grande Cache School District. The Division is geographically very large - over 80,000 sq.km. - and has 22 schools of which six are high schools.
Following its creation, Grande Yellowhead developed a three-year strategic education plan, l996-7 to l998-9. As part of the exercise, the Division consulted widely both internally and in the external community on the future directions. A committee of 35 community members set five exit or graduation outcomes that complement those defined by Alberta Education (see Figure 1). To graduate, Grande Yellowhead students, in addition to meeting Alberta Education’s graduation requirements, must demonstrate that they are effective communicators, competent problem solvers, effective thinkers, team participants, and leaders. The Division also set a four-scale standard for assessing student achievement of the outcomes. Grande Yellowhead emphasizes community partnerships: in l996, there were 600 business/school partnerships and a structured articulation process in place with both the business community and postsecondary institutions.
Grande Yellowhead is committed to offering flexible programme delivery to students and supports CBE. The Division viewed participation in the Learner Guide Project as a means of both achieving the five exit or graduation outcomes and offering flexible timetabling and a variety of learning approaches to students. Specifically, the Division saw the development of learner guides as a foundation for individualized education and off campus partnerships based on the needs of the student and business, not tied to the traditional school schedule.
Grande Yellowhead had been recommended as a potential site by Alberta Education’s representative on the Steering Committee. The availability of substitute teachers in the Grande Yellowhead region is problematic. The Steering Committee gave clearance for learner guide teams to work for two weeks each summer during l996 and l997, and for the teachers to be paid the daily substitution rate for the four weeks. Three of the four networked schools in the Division participated.
At the time of the submission of Grande Yellowhead’s proposal, the Division had a number of structures that complement CRSP, such as:
The characteristics of the Grande Yellowhead Site are as follows:
No. of participating schools: 3 computer-networked high schools
Total enrolment in three schools: 684
No. of teachers in three schools: 41
No. of working teams: 3 (one per high school)
Total number of team members: 12
The Grande Yellowhead contract, signed in August l997, contained two main objectives: the review of existing exit outcomes and provincial curriculum objectives with the addition of local adaptations, using a DACUM model; and the development, in July of l996 and l997, of a number of Grade 10 level cross-curricular, multi-subject learner guides - Humanities, Career-and-Technology, Science-Mathematics - with teams based in individual schools.
Regrettably, the Site Leader, appointed by the Regional Office in May l996, did not activate the writing teams for July l996. Individual teachers started developing guides in their particular subject areas, but without the benefit of the Project handouts - information on CRSP, the template and learner guide handbook, and the learner guide binder - distributed to all sites at the Fredericton meeting of the Steering Committee.
Concern about the situation resulted in both the Project Director and the Principal Researcher travelling to Alberta in August l997. The latter gave the teachers a half-day workshop on writing guides. The teachers’ frustration at having had no guidance was communicated very clearly. Both the Researcher and the Project Director also met with district officers. A new Site Leader, a Principal of one of the participating schools, was appointed immediately by the Region, and agreement was reached that teachers would write guides during the l996-7 school year.
It was clear that teacher writers would need considerable support and, to that end, the Advisor to the Steering Committee provided help on learner guide issues and suggested that the Site consider developing learner guides around a theme. Since the Site was very interested in practical and technological subject areas, the Advisor suggested the theme Building a Home. A theme approach would facilitate both the development of cross-curricular, multi-subject learner guides and enable the teachers to work as a single team. The teachers agreed to the theme approach.
The list of participating teachers is given in Appendix D.
documents/Glenlawn Collegiate Institute Site, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Glenlawn Collegiate Institute is an urban high school established 75 years ago. The school’s student body includes sizeable First Nations and métis populations and a growing number of immigrant students from around the world. Glenlawn has a wide range of programmes to meet the diverse needs of the students. In recent years, one-third of the school was destroyed by fire and consideration was given to closing the school. The defence and restoration of the school consolidated a sense of community and involvement.
With the help of the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, the school is involved in a major school improvement project directed primarily to students not bound for university. This focus stemmed from a survey taken of parents, students, and staff. The lowest level students were satisfied because they were being trained for a job: and the top students were being well prepared for university and postsecondary education. But there was dissatisfaction among the middle 70 percent. As a result, the Glenlawn staff decided to make the school both more personal and more relevant, especially for the middle 70 percent. The school launched three major initiatives; a Graduation Outcomes System, a Student Advocate System, and a process for improving the transition from school to the "real world."
To establish the Graduation Outcomes System, the teachers outlined a set of 26 graduation learnings, generic knowledge, skills, and attitudes that were expected of every student but which were not course specific: the learnings were within the graduation and curriculum parameters set by Manitoba Education and Training. The teachers agreed on a set of generic essential outcomes and a demonstration or evaluation rubric. The problem remained of how to get students from the stated outcome to being able to demonstrate that they had achieved the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Interest in the Learner Guide Project stemmed from the belief that learner guides would provide the link between outcomes and demonstrations. The guides would enable the student to master the component skills.
Glenlawn had been recommended to CVA by a former Manitoba school district Superintendent. In its submission to CVA, Glenlawn proposed to develop four cross-curricular guides that would be generic but have a part that was subject-based. The four suggested guides, applicable to the major subject areas, were communication skills, teamwork skills, lifelong learning, and problem solving. Glenlawn envisaged a learner guide team consisting of one teacher from each of the English, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Departments under the leadership of the Chair of the Graduation Outcomes System. The guides would span the three-year curriculum of Grades 10, 11, and 12.
The characteristics of Glenlawn Collegiate Site are as follows:
Number of participating schools: 1
Total enrolment :1,100
Number of teachers: 60
Number of writing teams: 1
Total number of team members: 5
CVA accepted the Glenlawn proposal and, in August l996, the CVA-Glenlawn contract was signed. The Site agreed to develop the four cross-curricular guides as proposed in the submission and, in addition, to devise demonstration indicators. As was the case with the other three sites, the funding provided to Glenlawn was earmarked principally to cover the cost of teacher release.
Work started on the development of Glenlawn’s four cross-curricular guides for the three years, Grades 10 - 12 at the beginning of the l996-7 school year. Membership in the learner guide team was determined by the Principal who appointed teachers, representative of the four curriculum areas, from a list of teacher applicants. The Principal also named the Site Leader - the Chair of the Graduation Outcomes System - thus linking the Project with the Graduation and Student Advocacy Systems, Glenlawn’s ongoing school improvement initiative supported by the Gordon Foundation. Team members were released from their classes for the first period of the school day, 3 days per week, and worked in the Teachers’ Staff Room where, on a regular basis, other teachers contributed to group discussion. From the very beginning, this was an individual teacher, school, and district initiative. The list of participants is given in Appendix D.
documents/Goal Enabling Strategies
To support the achievement of the Project’s main objective, the Steering Committee undertook the following: clarification on the use of technology for CRSP, and the preparation and submission to Industry Canada of a technology funding request; a template for developing learner guides; and collaboration with CVA on the creation of a Learner Guide Working Group.
documents/Use of Technology
The Steering Committee members agreed that if the technology is to be used effectively, everyone in the Project and in the site schools must see the need for the technology and feel comfortable using it. Furthermore, if the results of the Project are to be used in the other schools across Canada, the technology base must be accessible to most schools; thus the basic material should use "lower-end" technology.
The ultimate goal is to make the technology accessible to the learners as a medium of communication (e.g. assignments and projects), as a resource (e.g. networks and learning software), and as a system of feedback (assessment). This service to the learner implies an organizational and administrative role for the technology to permit teachers and educational administrators to respond to student learning needs and to track student progress.
Technology supports the following CRSP and LGP components:
Site Technology Survey.
The Advisor to the Steering Committee conducted a survey on the level of technology and computer expertise available on the four sites. The survey, administered by each Site Leader, provided the following data.
While all schools have computers and can access the Internet, the actual amount of use and the type of use is unclear. The general impression is that technology is not well integrated into the culture of the schools, except in some schools in certain areas of the curriculum. The low teacher level of computer use in some schools was identified as a potential concern for the effective development of learner guides by teams and inter-site communication.
documents/Preparation and Submission of Funding Proposal to Industry Canada.
The Proposal, developed for the Steering Committee by Information House, Charlottetown, P.E.I., contained two main components. The first relates to the development of a network to facilitate the exchange of information among Steering Committee members and participants in the Project. On completion, this development network could be transferable to other national and non-government organizations that need to implement a computer network. The second component relates to the development of a technology platform to facilitate both the development and piloting of learner guides, and the identification of a number of test sites for the eventual implementation of CRSP.
Following discussion of the Proposal between SchoolNet officials and Steering Committee members, School/Net did not provide the requested funding, the reason being that CVA had already created its own electronic data and communications system that would help the accomplishment of the Project’s objectives. However, School/Net did provide suggestions to CVA on certain technical elements in the development, implementation, and dissemination of Project materials, and for the improvement of communications between the different groups involved in the Project.
documents/Template for Developing Learner Guides
In the earlier section on the Project’s objectives and definitions, learner guides were defined as course unit materials, prepared directly for the learner, outlining the objectives of the course or unit, how it fits into a larger learning programme, the outcomes expected, the structure and assumptions of the content to be learned, suggested learning activities, and method of assessment. Based on this definition, the Steering Committee, at the Fredericton meeting, established general principles on the preparation of learner guides, outlined their components, and raised assessment issues for the attention of learner guide writers.
documents/General Principles.
Learner Guide Components.
The guides have the following sections. Each section starts with a question written from the student’s perspective: in response, the learner guide writer provides the appropriate information.
TITLE:
Performance-based Assessment Issues.
The following questions were prepared to assist learner guide writers at each site with the development of the assessment component:
At the Fredericton meeting, it was anticipated that the learner guide template would be reviewed and probably modified by Project personnel with learner guide writers and site personnel during seminars and workshops at each site during the Project.
documents/Working Group on Learner Guide Feedback
In August l996, the CVA President established the Learner Guide Working Group for the purpose of assisting the Principal Research with giving consistent, coherent, and timely feedback on learner guide drafts submitted to the Principal Researcher for comment. In consultation with the Steering Committee Chair, the CVA President selected three Steering Committee members who were not connected with any of the sites but whose work requires a knowledge of the secondary school system. Even though all completed guides would not be included in the final Report, the Steering Committee expected that feedback would be given on all submitted drafts which could be high in number. It was obviously impossible for the Principal Researcher to cope with the workload and impossible also for the Steering Committee as a whole to assist. The creation of the Learner Guide Working Group was seen as the best way of ensuring appropriate feedback to learner guide writers.
The Working Group had its first meeting in September l996 to develop criteria and standards for learner guides; review guides already submitted; and advise on the selection of guides for the Project Report.
documents/Criteria and Standards.
The Working Group first reviewed the number, type, and kind of guides that were being developed. Given the nature of the four site contracts, the number and type of guides produced were determined by the following two factors: the needs and requirements of the school/district/Province; and the priorities of the Learner Guide Project. Obviously, the two should reinforce each other.
With regard to the kind of guides, two kinds were being produced: subject-centered guides that focus on skills and information within a school discipline - Physical Education, Social Studies, etc.; and cross-curricular guides that focus on skills and outcomes that arise from more general and generic types of learning - communication, thinking, problem solving, etc. The Working Group decided that the cross-curricular guides would be encouraged. Cross-curricular guides can be built in two related ways: either directly from the general graduation outcomes of the province/secondary school programme, or from strands that weave through subject-based guides.
The Working Group agreed that it would emphasize the development of high quality guides, that is, those that met the following criteria: quality and clarity of concept, design, and presentation; relevance to students, community, and needs; coherence and substance in relation to best practice in the field; clear statement of outcomes/expectations, standards, and assessment; inclusion of cross-curricular outcomes/expectations; clear links to broader graduation outcomes/expectations; appropriate use of technology in preparation of guides and learning activities; and clear focus on the perspective of the learner.
Given the complexity of the task, and the limited Project resources, the Working Group agreed to work on the following:
Review of Draft Guides.
The Group reviewed the draft guides that had been received to gauge what they illustrated about concepts of the subject and links with cross-curricular outcomes. The analysis showed that almost all guides were exclusively subject-based, and there were few links with cross-curricular outcomes.
Despite the shortcomings, the Working Group was satisfied that these guides represented a good starting point. It was acknowledged that the task was both complex and innovative, and therefore time consuming.
However, it was evident that learner guide writers, and probably site leaders, would need professional development activities in structuring and writing guides. It was agreed that the Advisor to the Steering Committee, a curriculum expert, accompanied by the Project Director would visit, give feedback, and conduct a seminar on learner guide development at three of the four sites - New Brunswick, Hunting Hills and Grande Yellowhead in October l996. Two of the three Steering Committee members agreed to provide a similar function at Glenlawn in November 1996 to be followed by a second meeting of the Working Group in Winnipeg immediately after the Glenlawn visit.
The learner guide seminar would help writing teams:
Site Seminars, New Brunswick October 7-8. Hunting Hills October 18-19, and Grande Yellowhead October 21-22, l996.
At the start of each visit, the CRSP model and its relationship to the Learner Guide Project was outlined. A review was made of the characteristics of learner guides and template for developing them, and how technology might be used in their preparation. An agreement was drawn up with each site as to the guides that would be developed for intended inclusion as exemplars in the Project Report, and a time frame for feedback and final submissions.
In New Brunswick, the writing team leaders, together with the Site Leader, agreed on the following:
At Hunting Hills High School site, the learner guide writers and the Site Leader agreed on the following:
At the Grande Yellowhead site, there was agreement that:
In a brainstorming session, a list of possible learner guide titles was generated, all connected with the overall theme "Building a Home." The list was reduced to include the following: overview (general); design (Construction Technology); communication (English); costing and finance (Social Sciences, Business Technology; Mathematics); art of the home (Painting, Photography); heat exchange and the environment (Science); lifestyle and the home (Interdisciplinary).
documents/Site Seminar, Glenlawn Collegiate, Winnipeg, November 9, l996.
Glenlawn has 26 graduation outcomes - originally developed by the Graduation Outcomes System with representatives of parents, students, and teachers and with funding provided by the Gordon Foundation - which every student is expected to demonstrate before graduation: some outcomes are academic and some personal. Students must demonstrate their achievement of the outcomes through negotiating with peers, teachers, and coaches for validation procedures. The rating form has three categories: Excellent, Very Good, and Not Yet. This is a ML system wherein the student must achieve Excellent or Very Good before the competency can be acknowledged. The record of outcome attainment becomes part of each student’s portfolio.
The Glenlawn team had a representative from each of the main subject areas and agreed to include representation from school guidance personnel, the psychologist, and librarian on a needs basis. The team members confirmed that the following four guides were being prepared: communicating effectively; working cooperatively; problem solving; lifelong learning.
documents/Additional Support to Sites.
The Learner Guide Working Group had its second meeting in Winnipeg in November, l996, for the purpose of analyzing the reports of site visits including the list of proposed learner guides and additional draft guides received, and planning further steps.
The Project had four different models of learner guides being developed: disciplinary guides in New Brunswick; high technology cross-disciplinary guides at Hunting Hills; a theme-centered set of guides at Grande Yellowhead; and guides build around selected graduation outcomes of personal and social skills at Glenlawn. All four models respond to their respective site’s goals and student learning structures, and this could pose a double pressure - from the site itself for guides that respond to its needs and from the Project for guides following a special format and CRSP-based criteria for production.
Glenlawn had reported a problem with integrating technology into the development of learner guides: Project personnel agreed to help. In New Brunswick, teams had been increased by two: Music and Art had become separate teams and Health had separated from Physical Education. Furthermore, little had been heard from the Mathematics team. In general, there was satisfaction with the progress of the second set of drafts received from sites.
A critical path was prepared for the submission of further drafts. The deadline for the submission of the penultimate draft was set for June 1, l997; and two drafts of each guide should have been reviewed by the Working Group before April 30.
Given the resignation of the Principal Researcher effective December l996, and the anticipated amount of work required to give feedback on potentially three drafts of each guide, two added resource people were added, an External Reader in January l997 and an Editor in June l997. The External Reader was contracted to analyze and provide written reviews on third drafts. The Editor would standardize the final editions for format and prepare them for inclusion in the Final Report: this work would be done during the summer of l997.
In mid-February l997, the Advisor to the Steering Committee gave a workshop to the New Brunswick subject team leaders on refining the developments of learner guides and to explain the role of the External Reader and the last phase of guide revisions.
In early April l997, the Project Director provided the External Reader’s written reviews on each site to the relevant Site Leader. Some 40 guides had been reviewed. Given the level of revision that was required before the final draft would be submitted, the Working Group decided to narrow the number of exemplars for inclusion in the Final Report to a maximum of 20. This reduction gave additional time to the four sites to concentrate on polishing a smaller number: the availability of time had become a problem for each site. Final drafts were to be submitted to the Project Director by the end of July l997, and would then be forwarded to the Editor for formatting.
To provide a cushion for the finalizing of the products, the CVA requested, and received authorization from HRDC, a two-month extension of the Project to October 31, 1977.
documents/Selection of the Learner Guides for Final Report.
The Learner Guide Working Group met for the third time early in September l997 in Montreal. Also present were the External Reader and the Project Evaluator who was preparing to start work on ascertaining how the Project’s objectives had been fulfilled. The Working Group finalized decisions on the learner guides to be included in the Report; discussed the manual or "Start-up-Kit" on developing learner guides with the author, the Advisor to the Steering Committee; answered the questions of the Evaluator; and outlined the structure and content of the Final Report.
A description of the exemplar learner guides and the "Start-Up-Kit" on the development and introduction of learner guides in schools is given in the section on the products of the Projects. The assessment of the guides is outlined in the final section on Project’s problems and lessons learned.
documents/Creation of CRSP-LGP Network and Project Dissemination
The secondary objective of the Learner Guide Project was the establishment of a network of people interested in secondary school restructuring, the availability and dissemination of the Project materials to schools wishing to implement CRSP structures.
The Communications Team was created after the first meeting of the Steering Committee in Charlottetown to recommend communication approaches and strategies for the fulfilment of the Project’s goals, in particular for the development of learner guides, but also for building the CRSP network, and the eventual dissemination of the Project’s products.
The Communications Team made its recommendations to the second meeting of the Steering Committee in Edmonton, and the recommendations were accepted and subsequently implemented. The main proposals were as follows:
Following the Edmonton meeting of the Steering Committee, the CVA, through its President, contacted all those who had been connected with the first phases of CRSP - the development of the CRSP in l993 and the consultation on the model in Calgary in l994 - and invited them to become part of the CVA-CRSP electronic network. The response was positive and the network was subsequently created and is maintained through the CVA national office in Ottawa.
The CVA World Wide Web home page is http://cva-acfp.ca. Major Project documents, such as the Principal Researcher’s two background papers and the Steering Committee Advisor’s "Story Line" and Handbook for the Development of Learner Guides following its revision after the Fredericton meeting were put on the Web. By May l996, the specific CRSP-LGP discussion group had been established, and accessible at listproc@camosun.bc.ca. The name of the group is cva-crsp. The CVA First Vice President (and, at the time of writing this Report, is the new CVA President) is the contact person and can be reached at dunbar@ ctt.bc.ca.
At the completion time of this Report, the following dissemination activities, recommended by the Communications Committee, had taken place:
Following its approval by HRDC, the Project Report would be put on the Web also, possibly in March 1998. At that time also, the Report, the sample guides, and the Start-Up-Kit would be mailed to all the site schools.
documents/Allocation of Project Funding
Since the Project was, in essence, the first implementation of CRSP and would indicate the feasibility of an outcome-based approach to learning, the principal cost factor was expected to be the identification of outcomes and the development of learner guides.
Under the contribution agreement, the HRDC contracted to provide a maximum of $500,000.00 to the CVA against receipts. The CVA funding proposal presented a budget itemizing the anticipated costs as shown in the column "initial". The Steering Committee, in directing the work of the Project, modified the original budget and the changes are indicated under the "revised" column.
The differences between the initial and revised budgets stem principally from the decision of the Steering Committee not to have learning outcomes identified because that task had already been carried out by the Provinces, but to concentrate on the development of learner guides. Instead of centralizing the development of the learner guides as outlined in the CVA funding proposal, the guides were developed in four different regions. This entailed considerable travel, in particular for the Project Director and Principal Researcher: travel had not been factored into the original budget for anybody other than the members of the Steering Committee.
To make all Project documents publicly available through Internet, and to assist teachers on the different sites with the development of the guides, two additional sections were added to the budget - Communications and the Learner Guide Working Group. The dissemination allocation also increased because, as a result of unanticipated requests for them, the Project’s products were to be distributed more widely than initially intended.
To ensure both adequate representation from the different education levels and the availability of professional support, the CVA doubled the size of the Steering Committee and provided curriculum expertise for the development of documentation to facilitate the fulfilment of the principal objective of the Project. The result was that the Steering Committee’s allocated funding was quickly exhausted. The result was that the Steering Committee did not meet as often as planned, but this was offset by the creation of the Learner Guide Working Group, composed of three members of the Steering Committee, with support from Project personnel. The Working Group met three times to manage and ensure coherent feedback to sites on draft guides.
The principal difference between the initial and revised budget is, in essence, the low expenditure on learning outcomes and the high cost of the learner guides. The reason for the learning outcomes situation has been given. The guides, for their part, took longer to develop than had been anticipated, due mostly to the lack of curriculum development expertise on the sites, and the heavy work load of educators. To the cost of the Learner Guides should be added the expense of the Working Group, much of the travel of both the Project Director and the Principal Researcher, and over half of the professional expertise charged under the Steering Committee section. These additions combined with the totals of the outcomes and guides sections mirror the initial budget lines allocated to outcomes and guide costs - approximately $200,000.00.
As will be noted in the next section, the Project proved to be complex and very time consuming for those involved in writing learner guides. In recent years, the teacher workload has increased at a time when public funding to schools has decreased. Teachers have less time to devote to innovation, and there is now limited curriculum expertise available locally in school boards or districts. On reflection, the funding was modest. A more ample budget would have provided the level of professional support that the fulfilment of the principal objective required, a situation that became apparent when the Project was well underway.
documents/
Products of the Project
The sites produce a considerable number of guides, to many to include in the Report. The Learner Guide Working Group selected a set of exemplar learner guides to be inserted in the Report. In addition a manual or "Start-Up-Kit" for the development, implementation, and evaluation of learner guides in a school or school district was produced. Since the Project itself was essentially an applied research activity, the process of fulfilling the principal objective - identification of learning outcomes and development of learner guides - outlined in the Report could be considered a product. Consequently, the Project Report is intended to be disseminated as a product with the exemplar learner guides and the learner guide manual.
documents/Exemplar Learner Guides Included with Project Report
The following exemplar guides represent the work of the four sites:
As part of the dissemination of the Project’s products, the CVA plans to make these guides and all the other completed guides that were submitted to the Learner Guide Working Group available to every participating school at the Project’s completion.
documents/Manual or "Start-Up-Kit" on the development of learner guides based on CRSP.
The purpose of the "start-up kit" is to help schools interested in moving to a learner guide approach to curriculum in whole as a CRPS school or in part. The kit describes CRSP and its theoretical foundations, the context for designing curriculum, the components of a learner guide, and the process for developing and implementing them, and the implications that need to be considered.
In the first section on CRSP, the manual looks at the reasons for restructuring schools and gives the CRSP background, approach, and theoretical foundations. In the second section on context, the dimensions of curriculum and the designing of curriculum units are presented. The third section outlines the following components of a learner guide: definition, elements, title, introduction, prerequisites, outcomes, resources, options, duration, evaluation, activities, next steps; and ends with a sample guide. In the last section, the process of writing guides is described and covers organizing and writing, networking and technology, research, implementation, and implications.
The Kit’s context is based on the lessons learner from the Project and on the literature on effective schools. It is organized for easy downloading by educators from the CVA Website.
In addition to the exemplar guides and the manual, the Steering Committee’s three background papers are also products. The three papers are: Context of Canadian curriculum development and implications for Learning Outcomes Project; Theoretical framework for the Canadian restructured school plan, and Handbook for preparing learner guides (Revised May 31, 1996)
documents/
Problems Encountered and Lessons Learned
A number of problems were encountered and a number of lessons were learned which could be useful to others wishing to embark on a similar project.
documents/Problems Encountered
Taking into consideration all four sites, the Project experienced some common operational and conceptual problems. Problems unique to one or two sites are identified.
documents/Operational Problems
Operational problems centred mostly around time, lack of site resources, role of the teacher, computer access and expertise, and site leadership.
documents/Insufficient Time and Its Consequences for the Project.
Three main issues reduced the amount of time devoted to the development of learner guides. Firstly, the protracted and unanticipated CRSP discussions among Steering Committee members delayed decision making on the structure of the learner guides on sites by several months. Secondly, there was a general lack of Steering Committee awareness of the increasingly heavy work load of teachers. The release time afforded by the Project did not permit concentrated periods of time for learner guide writing. Except for the Glenlawn site, teachers wrote guides intermittently, thus making themselves liable to forget topics covered at the seminars and essential components of learner guide development. The confusion felt by teachers regarding directions received from Project personnel may be attributable, at least in part, to time lapses between writing periods. The Glenlawn teachers, who met three times weekly at a designated time did not experience this problem. Thirdly, writing learner guides is an activity for which most teachers have received no training and in which they have had no experience. The task took longer, therefore, a situation that had also not been anticipated. Most writers indicated to Project personnel that they did not have enough time to produce the desired quality.
documents/Lack of Site Resources.
In recent years, public funding to school districts has decreased. This decrease has reduced the expertise available locally to teachers on curriculum and pedagogical matters. Some writers felt that they lacked adequate and speedy access to professional expertise. In New Brunswick, writing teams were school-district based. Thus, scarce resources were stretched even more thinly as travel costs cut into writing team budgets.
Teachers discovered that they were not knowledgeable about curriculum development and had little experience in writing learner guides: they would have welcomed more professional development than was received. They did indicate, however, that the Project gave them a considerable level of professional growth particularly in relation to approaching their teaching from the perspective of the student.
documents/Role of Teacher.
The Project focussed on the student as an independent learner. Teachers found this a daunting prospect, and given the purpose of learner guides, questioned whether the Project could weaken the role of the teacher. Some learner guide writers became apprehensive about the potential danger to jobs. While teachers acknowledged that the Project provided them with a unique opportunity for professional development in that they were able to look at their teaching for the first time from the perspective of the student, the fear of a changed or disappearing role never completely disappeared.
documents/Difficult Access to Computers and Technological Expertise.
With the exception of Hunting Hills and some individual teachers, the majority of writers reported having insufficient access to computers and computer assistance: they also lacked computer skills. Consequently, many teachers are not comfortable with using computers. The anticipated use of technology as a means of developing guides interactively within sites and between sites never materialized. The New Brunswick Assistant Deputy Minister of Education provided a "top-of-the-line" powerbook to each participating school for the sole use of the school’s writers but, while communication among writers improved, there was no significant increase in the use of technology to develop learner guides. Again with the exception of Hunting Hills, there was no evidence that students would be able to access learner guides through computer networking when the guides are implemented.
The longer-term problem of school funds being available for individual student learning is worrisome. The site schools stated their commitment to individualized learning, similar to that portrayed in the CRSP model: the question arises, however, as to whether there are sufficient resources available for such a restructuring.
documents/Site Leadership.
This problem surfaced at Grande Yellowhead and to some extent in New Brunswick.
Grande Yellowhead’s proposal to the CVA included plans to undertake the learner guide writing over the summers of l996 and l997. The site particularly asked for the teacher release monies to be available to purchase summer work at the teacher substitution rate rather than to pay for substitute teachers during the regular school year. This request was based on the difficulties involved in finding qualified teacher substitutes in the small rural areas involved. The summer l996 activity did not take place as planned: individually, five teachers from two of the schools wrote draft guides without any coordination or professional assistance. The school district’s academic director appointed a new site leader in August l996, and agreed that teachers would write guides on release time during the l996-7 school year to allow them to make up for lost time. However, the new leader took a leave of absence during l997 to run for public office, thereby leaving the teachers leaderless once again.
In New Brunswick, the site leader was a part-time appointment. Given that 11 schools spread over a third of the Province were involved and that over 50 teachers participated, there was insufficient time for the site leader to meet regularly with the different subject teams. In early l997, a full-time site leader was appointed and this brought needed support to the teacher writers.
documents/Conceptual Problems
In selecting sites for participation in the Learner Guide phase of CRSP, the Steering Committee selected schools that had some commitment to the CRSP model. It was recognized that some schools might use the learner guides in regular whole group instructional settings, but the intention was that there be at lease some commitment to trying out a more individualized approach to instruction in some of the schools. This kind of commitment requires not only the support of principals and their teaching staffs, but also the support of the school community.
Information available to the Steering Committee in approving the sites seemed to suggest that this kind of school-level commitment and school-community support was present in each site, or that it would be sought as part of the process. However, during the Project it became evident that priority was being given to meeting the learner guide needs of the sites rather than the needs of the Project: the respective needs did not always coincide.
In rural school districts, there is little discretionary funding and almost no reserve of expertise to designate to innovative activities. The question arises as to what support might be available for the implementation of the learner guides within the CRSP framework after the completion of the Project. It is anticipated that the two urban sites, Hunting Hills and Glenlawn, will have the resources to undertake a CRSP model implementation.
documents/School Commitment to CRSP.
In New Brunswick, writers from 12 schools participated in the Project. In some cases, school participation was minimal. It is difficult to assume that these schools are committed to introducing a reorganized structure and organization for their high school programmes. Rather, the schools seemed interested solely in preparing themselves for the introduction in l997 of the Foundation Years curriculum by the Education Department.
School commitment to structural and organizational change and to change in the way that students are to be involved in their own efforts to learn requires support from the school principal. All the literature on school reform supports that statement. There was no evidence that school principals were so committed in New Brunswick; and no clear evidence of support for individualized learning from Grande Yellowhead principals. Even though he was not readily available to Project personnel during the learner guide writing period, it is assumed that the Hunting Hills Principal is committed to individualized learning since he was the initiator of the Hunting Hills proposal to the CVA. There is clear evidence of support from Glenlawn where, in addition to the Principal, teachers, school board, parents, and the local community are committed to supporting the School’s graduation outcomes on which Glenlawn’s learner guides are based.
Without the support of the school’s personnel, it is likely that only those individual teachers who were involved in developing learner guides may use them. This would hardly be a desirable outcome from the CVA’s perspective. Any integrated system of instruction and learning based on OBE and an individualized approach to learning must be implemented at the school level. It is not enough for the system to be endorsed at the school district level or to be imposed from a Ministerial level. The change implementation literature indicates that teachers will find a way to "domesticate" the change so that what happens in their classrooms remains as always. For real change to occur, teachers must be committed and they must receive the kinds of day-to-day help that they need to learn how to implement change with their students. The implementation literature, again, states that the realization of this kind of teacher support and acquisition of relevant "know-how" starts with the full commitment and support of the school principal.
documents/Parental and Community Commitment to CRSP.
Because provincial graduation and curriculum outcomes had been developed in the site Provinces, no CVA-sponsored activities were held to involve parents and community members. The extent to which the larger community in each site was aware of the Project is not known. With the exception of Glenlawn again, there were no adequate information sessions about the theoretical foundations of CRSP and OBE/ML and what they mean for schools.
The remedy for this omission would not have been a DACUM process. As DACUM has been designed, it is a process for involving lay persons with relevant expertise in developing curriculum outcomes and breaking down the curriculum into smaller "outcomes," for each of which educators then are responsible for writing a learner guide. What is needed is an information-sharing, "professional development" activity for parents and community members that would secure their support for a secondary school reorganized and restructured to enhance the opportunity for students to learn at their own rates and to broaden their learning activity base. Parents and the local community need to know what OBE means in their school community, both from the standpoint of accountability and how such a system would effectively prepare students for the world of work and for postsecondary education.
Suffice it to say, unless some efforts are made to secure the principal’s commitment and inform parents and seek their support, the participating schools - or more accurately, individual teacher participants - will run into difficulties in trying out and using the Learner Guides. This is a problem for both Grande Yellowhead and New Brunswick. New Brunswick’s situation has been mentioned - limited teacher involvement, no support from principals, and a commitment to the Province’s Foundation Years rather than to the objectives of the Learner Guide Project. Grande Yellowhead is a new school region and, while parents have been involved in developing graduation outcomes, the region has not been consolidated.
documents/Lessons Learned
The lessons that were learned are presented under two headings: review of guides produced by sites; and key principles for developing learner guides in the CRSP mode.
documents/Review of Guides
The concept of a student-centered learner guide and the process of developing one are more complex than those in the Project and the developers of learner guides anticipated.
Overall, the learner guides that were produced were mostly subject-based; represented traditional breakdowns of subject areas; had few links with cross-curricular outcomes; often paid insufficient attention to performance standards and assessment; and were not always technology-friendly. Teachers had difficulty initially in addressing learner guides to students for the purpose of individualized learning. In general, the learning activities sections of guides were the strongest and often the most imaginative elements of the guides. A major weakness was the section on assessment; linking of outcomes, standards of performance, criteria of quality, procedural protocols, and reporting rubrics.
The content of the fourteen exemplar guides demonstrates that it is easier to use outcome-based learning and the learner guide approach in skill-oriented areas such as Technology, Physical Education, Art and Language. There are no sample guides in the mainstream curriculum areas of English literature, Mathematics, or Physical Science. From a CRSP perspective, this at least raises questions about the range of application of an outcome-based and learner guide approach across the curriculum, especially in areas with expectations related to concepts or values.
From a Project perspective, the writers learned to concentrate on the student, outline outcome statements, include cross-curricular elements and link general outcomes to specific learning outcomes. While some learner guides were more student-focussed than others, they were all written from the student’s perspective.
Whether or not the guides improve student learning and are generalizable across different kinds of schools - urban and large, rural and small - as was hypothesized in the Technical Design, are not issues that can be discussed here. They call for a follow-up study to test the guides.
documents/Key Principles for Developing Learner Guides
The following are key principles for the development of learner guide:
If a school intends to implement a system of learner guides, even in a limited way, it requires the leadership and active support of the principal and a substantial proportion of teachers.
Ongoing staff development is essential for the development and implementation of learner guides. Guide writers need special skills, especially those related to the following: writing for the student rather than about the student; writing performance objectives and linking them to specific curriculum outcomes; organizing units and conceptualizing the structure of curriculum content; doing content research and suggesting varied resources; and relating evaluation procedures to the outcomes of the unit.
documents/The Next Step
The Project was not involved in the implementation of the learner guides. From a CRSP perspective, it is logical to look towards researching the implementation of the guides in the sites where they were developed.
Since the learner guides developed in New Brunswick are viewed as being potentially useful for the Province as a whole, a follow-up study would be useful. The participating schools represent approximately one-quarter of all the New Brunswick schools. It is likely that the participating schools differ in terms of their commitment to introducing the use of learner guides as a means to facilitate individualized instruction and self-pacing. They will also likely differ in the extent to which each school as a whole tries out all the guides developed for the various subject areas in the Foundation Years, or whether only those teachers who actually participated in writing will try them out. There are many avenues for useful follow-up studies in the New Brunswick site schools.
It would also be useful to see how Glenlawn Collegiate makes use of learner guides written for generic, cross-curricular graduation outcomes. How do these guides affect the kind of instruction and learning activities in regular subject courses and classrooms? Are the graduation outcomes and related learner guides seen as additions to the regular school curriculum, or do they help to re-define that curriculum?
With regard to Grande Yellowhead, one might examine whether the experiences in the Project allow curriculum and learner guide development to cross school boundaries. Are the guides used for off-campus courses, or do they affect what happens in regular school programmes?
Hunting Hills High School offers a different set of follow-up opportunities. In contrast to most of the New Brunswick schools, Hunting Hills has all the technological infrastructure required to facilitate a basically individualized approach to learning, outside the classroom. Are Hunting Hills’ guides used in this way, or are they used within the structure of regular courses and classrooms?
Across all four sites, follow-up studies could help to identify individual schools that show the potential for a more comprehensive restructuring effort. Among these, the follow-up could also identify the schools in which both the principal and a large majority of teachers wish to restructure the school in ways compatible with an OBE/ML individualized study strategy. Such potential could be shown in the way that the teachers are using the learner guides developed under this Project.
Certainly, one should follow-up on efforts to improve the learner guides produced with Project funding. To what extent do teachers try out the guides with their students? What efforts are made to improve them, given the try-out experience?
It may be difficult for the Canadian Vocational Association to undertake these follow-up studies by itself. It needs good connections with the K-12 school system and, to that end, the Association might be well advised to seek applied research partnerships with such organizations as the Canadian Teachers Federation and its affiliates, the Canadian Education Association, and the Canadian Association of School Administrators.
documents/
Importance of CRSP for the Canadian Vocational Association
The Canadian Vocational Association (CVA) is composed of teachers, administrators, programme developers and policy makers in government, secondary schools, community colleges, universities, business and industry concerned with preparing young people and adults for the world of work.
Over the years, the CVA has been developing expertise in formulating and measuring competencies and providing leadership in individualized curriculum, flexible learning systems, and technology transfer. It has also been working to improve links between schooling and work, between secondary and postsecondary institutions, between adult learning and learning for the young, and between vocational programmes and academic areas of curriculum. The Project, in addition to achieving its specific goals, has benefited the CVA as well. It has proven to be capacity-building in the CVA’s expertise in the area of OBE has increased significantly over the duration of the Project. It has also increased the profile of the Association, through the impact it has had on the development - and responses to - the website, its quarterly journal, and other communication activities. It has also significantly broadened the network of the Association, particularly in respect to its provincial and secondary school ties.
At its annual general meeting held in October, 1997 at the annual conference, the CVA committed itself to maintaining CRSP as a priority. In promoting further phases of CRSP, the Association hopes to strengthen the links created during the Project, initiate implementation of learner guides, and to stimulate a discussion of alternative ways of approaching the secondary education of all students.
documents/Conclusion
The Learner Guide Project was the first step in implementing the CRSP model and it was successful. Learner guides were produced, and the process used serves as a useful guide for those interested in implementing a CRSP model environment. The manual or "Start-Up-Kit" on developing CRSP learner guides was based on the process used, and benefited from both the problems encountered and the lessons learned from the Project. The Project, therefore, should be viewed as a beginning for CRSP rather than as an end product. The next step should be the implementation, testing, and revision of the learner guides within the CRSP theoretical framework, a task that the Canadian Vocational Association might want to undertake in partnership with an educational agency primarily involved in secondary school education.
REFERENCES
Bailey, M. & Henchey, N. (1995). Plan of Action. Prepared for Steering Committee, Learner Guide Project. Ottawa: Canadian Vocational Association.
Canadian Vocational Association. (1993). Canadian restructured school plan: Final report. Prepared by Tom Hall, Glendenning Educational Resources, Charlottetown, PEI. Ottawa: Canadian Vocational Association.
Canadian Vocational Association. (1994). Canadian restructured school plan: Report on consultation. Calgary, AB. April 26-28. Ottawa: Canadian Vocational Association.
Canadian Vocational Association. (1995). DACUM: Facilitator Training Program. Unpublished.
Gaskall, J. (1995). Principal author. Secondary schools in Canada: The national report of the exemplary schools project. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.
Henchey, N. (1996). Handbook for preparing learner guides. First revision, May 31. Prepared for Learner Guide Project. Ottawa: Canadian Vocational Association. Unpublished.
Lewington, J. (1997, October 20). Relating theory to everyday life: New guidelines aim to update teaching of science at elementary, secondary level. Globe and Mail. A-6.
Manitoba, Manitoba Education and Training. (1995). Renewing education: New directions, A foundation for excellence. Winnipeg: Manitoba Education and Training.
Québec, Ministère de l’Éducation. (1984). Preparing our youth for the 21st century. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation.
Ryan, D. (1994). Implications of mastery learning and outcome-based education: A review and analysis of lessons learned. Ottawa, Government of Canada: Innovations Program.
Ryan, D. (1996a). Context of Canadian curriculum development and implications for the Learning Outcomes Project. Prepared for the Steering Committee, Learner Guide Project (originally called the Learning Outcomes Project). Ottawa: Canadian Vocational Association. Unpublished.
Ryan, D. (1996b). Theoretical framework for the Canadian restructured school plan. Prepared for the Steering Committee, Learner Guide Project. Ottawa: Canadian Vocational Association. Unpublished.
Spady, W.G. (1985). Essential operational components of outcome-based education. San Francisco: Far West Regional Educational Laboratories.
Spady, W.G., & Marshall, K.J. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education. Educational Leadership. 67-72.
documents/
