Teaching Philosophy
Education holds in its hands the potential to alter entire landscapes of thought and being. It is a social construct perpetually embroiled in change, guided through reformation by pedagogical theory and critiqued daily by media and politicians of every slant. It seems always there is promise of new hope: progressive paradigm shifts that will improve graduation rates, promote inclusivity, and ultimately produce citizens with preferred characteristics. Education seeks to construct a product, a young adult, who will promulgate the attributes of a developed society. Indeed, in British Columbia's newest curriculum, the Ministry of Education (2018) speaks of learning that will create “well-educated citizens who are able to think critically and creatively and adapt to change ... citizens who accept the tolerant and multifaceted nature of Canadian society and who are motivated to participate actively in our democratic institutions”. These are admirable intentions and from the wording of the associated competencies and content, it would seem this new curriculum might enable such achievements. Unfortunately though, this curriculum fails to recognize it is often challenged by traditional classroom practises that are coercive and contribute to students’ resistance and apathy towards learning.
The most obvious presentation of this struggle between the idealism of this new curriculum and the reality of the classroom is identified by the cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky. Focusing on the relations between students and teachers, and then between schools and the state, Chomsky sees these as “part of a formidable hierarchy that seeks to instill and reproduce amenable attitudes toward institutional authorities and deference toward authority as such” (as cited in Haworth, 2012, p. 17). In other words, despite the aspirations of perhaps the world’s most progressive curriculum, B.C. classrooms are still manacled to an old hegemony that inhibits absolute critical thought and freedom. The academic Abraham P. DeLeon (2012) further delineates this crisis:
“Education is at the “front lines” of the contemporary ideological war conducted by corporate media, official organs of the State, and influential economic institutions. Whether that emerges through corporate textbooks that omit subaltern experiences and worldviews, standardized testing that stress rote memorization, or a curriculum that reproduces Eurocentrism and Western ways of knowing, education is invested in reproducing dominant conceptions of the world” (p. 314).
In addressing this predicament, I see myself as a teacher whose pedagogy aims to empower learners, encouraging and guiding them towards the self-attainment of perspectives that illuminate these hidden societal traits. In considering an educational perspective most suited to the classroom I aspire to create, I find myself supportive of pedagogies that are non-coercive and student-centre with the idealized goal being that learners become able to think and act freely. Indeed, there is no one pedagogy that encompasses all the traits I believe are required in the classroom and so I intend to select parts from many educational artifices.
The most obvious presentation of this struggle between the idealism of this new curriculum and the reality of the classroom is identified by the cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky. Focusing on the relations between students and teachers, and then between schools and the state, Chomsky sees these as “part of a formidable hierarchy that seeks to instill and reproduce amenable attitudes toward institutional authorities and deference toward authority as such” (as cited in Haworth, 2012, p. 17). In other words, despite the aspirations of perhaps the world’s most progressive curriculum, B.C. classrooms are still manacled to an old hegemony that inhibits absolute critical thought and freedom. The academic Abraham P. DeLeon (2012) further delineates this crisis:
“Education is at the “front lines” of the contemporary ideological war conducted by corporate media, official organs of the State, and influential economic institutions. Whether that emerges through corporate textbooks that omit subaltern experiences and worldviews, standardized testing that stress rote memorization, or a curriculum that reproduces Eurocentrism and Western ways of knowing, education is invested in reproducing dominant conceptions of the world” (p. 314).
In addressing this predicament, I see myself as a teacher whose pedagogy aims to empower learners, encouraging and guiding them towards the self-attainment of perspectives that illuminate these hidden societal traits. In considering an educational perspective most suited to the classroom I aspire to create, I find myself supportive of pedagogies that are non-coercive and student-centre with the idealized goal being that learners become able to think and act freely. Indeed, there is no one pedagogy that encompasses all the traits I believe are required in the classroom and so I intend to select parts from many educational artifices.
Educational Theory and B.C. Curriculum
Libertarian pedagogy is described by Suissa (2010) as “all educational approaches which reject traditional models of teacher authority and hierarchical school structure, and which advocate maximum freedom for the individual child within the educational process” (p. 75). The emergence of so-called “free schools” across Canada have typified this approach and they exhibit some qualities I hope to include into my own practise within the public system. Common themes in many of these schools are the concepts of differentiation and self-direction. As the notable educator John Gatto (2001) has identified, one fault in modern schooling is the fact that work conducted in the classroom tends not to be significant and is unable to answer real questions relevant to students (p. 43). Instead, Gatto calls for learning that stresses “growth and mastery,” something that comes “only to those who vigorously self-direct; initiating, creating, doing, reflecting, freely associating, [and] enjoying privacy” (p. 43). There can be no self-direction when learners have limited input in their classroom schedule and the material they are demanded to study. Interestingly, many of these libertarian precepts match the curricular competencies set forth in the new B.C. curriculum. The Ministry of Education (2018) calls for “personalized learning [that] focuses on enhancing student engagement in learning and giving students choices — more of a say in what and how they learn — leading to lifelong, self-directed learning”. In my mind this falls neatly within the purview of a classroom displaying elements of libertarian pedagogy.
I believe that the inclusion of student voices through the creation of a democracy within the classroom is imperative for passion, joy, and intrinsic motivation to exist amongst the learners. An open and egalitarian relationship between myself and my learners will be a pillar of my practise; a form of academic constructivism similar to that posited by social psychologist Kenneth Gergen (2011) who states, “it is not the individual mind in which knowledge, reason, emotion and morality reside, but in relationships” (p. 109). The B.C. curriculum identifies a core competency that learners are able to collaborate with one another, in my mind this should be extended to the teacher-student paradigm. I believe only when the entire classroom is viewed by the learners as collaborative, will participation become normative. Furthermore, in continuing to address the proposed learning style of my future classroom, I will turn to Piaget’s explorations of child development. As paraphrased by Crain (2011), Piaget believed that “true learning is not something handed down by the teacher, but something that comes from the child … a process of spontaneous invention and discovery” (p.143). But there will be no invention or discovery if learner feels excluded from the process. I believe that in a truly educative classroom, where lifelong learners are forged, the voice of the teacher and student must be framed in equity.
To tackle the normative structures in traditional classrooms that have for so long circumscribed student achievement through coercion and inauthentic learning, I believe it is necessary to examine more rarified pedagogies. While contemplating anarchist pedagogy might be seen as unconventional, there are elements within it that should be considered. As detailed by political scientist Justin Mueller (2012), learning that is situated within anarchism makes “the hegemonic or the sacred questionable and open to dissection” (p. 23). Unlike libertarian approaches, Mueller sees anarchist educators as encouraging learners to “actively seek to engage with social and political questions, and to open for critique perceived repressive institutions and practices of wider society” (p. 22). In creating learners and finally young adults that are able to engage in Canadian democracy, I want my future students to question sanctified social structures through their learning, specifically by engaging in direct social action projects. As described by educator Penney Clark (2016), these are classroom activities where engagement is sought within the local community to solve social problems through direct action with the affected parties (p. 135). Ranging from tending local gardens, addressing environmental concerns, and becoming involved in municipal politics, the social action project enables learners to wrestle with relevant issues that have real world implications. But the anarchist approach extends student learning even further. As defined by Robert Haworth (2012), anarchism itself is a political perspective that promotes “opposition to all dominating and exploitative social, political, and economic power relationships, and any number of other manifestations of power disparity as harmful to human development” (p. 15-16). I believe these are values intrinsic to the creation of an active and engaged Canadian citizen and compliment the proposed outcomes of the B.C. curriculum.
I believe that the inclusion of student voices through the creation of a democracy within the classroom is imperative for passion, joy, and intrinsic motivation to exist amongst the learners. An open and egalitarian relationship between myself and my learners will be a pillar of my practise; a form of academic constructivism similar to that posited by social psychologist Kenneth Gergen (2011) who states, “it is not the individual mind in which knowledge, reason, emotion and morality reside, but in relationships” (p. 109). The B.C. curriculum identifies a core competency that learners are able to collaborate with one another, in my mind this should be extended to the teacher-student paradigm. I believe only when the entire classroom is viewed by the learners as collaborative, will participation become normative. Furthermore, in continuing to address the proposed learning style of my future classroom, I will turn to Piaget’s explorations of child development. As paraphrased by Crain (2011), Piaget believed that “true learning is not something handed down by the teacher, but something that comes from the child … a process of spontaneous invention and discovery” (p.143). But there will be no invention or discovery if learner feels excluded from the process. I believe that in a truly educative classroom, where lifelong learners are forged, the voice of the teacher and student must be framed in equity.
To tackle the normative structures in traditional classrooms that have for so long circumscribed student achievement through coercion and inauthentic learning, I believe it is necessary to examine more rarified pedagogies. While contemplating anarchist pedagogy might be seen as unconventional, there are elements within it that should be considered. As detailed by political scientist Justin Mueller (2012), learning that is situated within anarchism makes “the hegemonic or the sacred questionable and open to dissection” (p. 23). Unlike libertarian approaches, Mueller sees anarchist educators as encouraging learners to “actively seek to engage with social and political questions, and to open for critique perceived repressive institutions and practices of wider society” (p. 22). In creating learners and finally young adults that are able to engage in Canadian democracy, I want my future students to question sanctified social structures through their learning, specifically by engaging in direct social action projects. As described by educator Penney Clark (2016), these are classroom activities where engagement is sought within the local community to solve social problems through direct action with the affected parties (p. 135). Ranging from tending local gardens, addressing environmental concerns, and becoming involved in municipal politics, the social action project enables learners to wrestle with relevant issues that have real world implications. But the anarchist approach extends student learning even further. As defined by Robert Haworth (2012), anarchism itself is a political perspective that promotes “opposition to all dominating and exploitative social, political, and economic power relationships, and any number of other manifestations of power disparity as harmful to human development” (p. 15-16). I believe these are values intrinsic to the creation of an active and engaged Canadian citizen and compliment the proposed outcomes of the B.C. curriculum.
Indigenous Learning
For students who are grounded in critical thinking and are able to critique repressive state and societal institutions, there is no more relevant an outcome than their focus on indigeneity in Canada. The history and circumstances of indigenous peoples is a mainstay in the new BC Curriculum. As a one time professional archaeologist in northern Canada, my experience with pre-contact indigenous culture is extensive and I believe this will naturally extend to the learning that will occur in my future classroom. And yet, this learning will not be constricted to textbooks or other secondary sources. It is my intention to promote the fact that indigeneity is being lived all around us. I believe that approaching indigenous cultures through place-based learning is the most effective strategy to ensure learner participation. As Zandvliet (2016) states, “place-based education programs are designed to motivate learners at all levels of ability to interact with content and supports Dewey’s belief that learner’s direct experiences are key” (p. 20). To facilitate this, it is only necessary to look at the ground beneath our feet. Learners merely need to walk along the shoreline of Vancouver Island to quickly find evidence of the ten thousand year old presence of the indigenous peoples. Culturally modified trees, stumps from fish weirs, and the tell-tale white of shell middens all speak of the ancient story of the first peoples. I hope to not only take my students to these places for authentic learning experiences but also intend on finding voices from the indigenous communities themselves to add further value to the process. And through listening to these oral accounts, the learners will quickly gain cognizance of the vitality of these cultures and the importance of moving towards reconciliation. My lessons will not be about igloos and snowshoes but instead will promote learning that is transcendental and which leads towards an understanding that education need not always be textual or logical but can be oral and emotional too. As Zandvliet says, “defining learning as something that is simply to be quantified has resulted in a perceived lack of support on the part of many educators to explore other factors that might contribute to student learning and success” (p. 20). And so for teachers to succeed in fully incorporating the indigenous elements of the BC curriculum, it is essential that the material be presented as authentically as possible. This will lead learners to the vital necessity of reconciliation and hopefully a willingness to participate in this process.
Parent Teacher Communication
In addition to a focus on varying pedagogies I believe it is essential that there is a clear and open channel of communication between myself and the guardians of students in my classroom. It does not take much digging in the academic research to quickly appreciate the advantages of parental involvement. Schecter and Sherri (2009) have interrogated the importance of open relationships between teacher and parents, and have found that “parent involvement has a positive impact on children’s academic success” (p.61). However, to truly begin to foster this partnership I intend to advance a proactive approach that provides tools and avenues for familial integration into my classroom. Often there is a great wealth of knowledge in the homes of students with parents and caregivers employed in a spectrum of fields. Only through direct and equitable contact might this expertise be tapped and incorporated into my future classroom through parents acting as guest speakers or educational assistants in projects and field trips. Open and sustained communication with parents is the schema I intend on promoting. My intention is for these conversations to extend beyond the odd parent-teacher conference, report card, or phone call and instead focus on the creation of a classroom community. As Kelly (2014) found in her review of research on parental involvement, “parents have little formal guidance from schools on how to realistically involve themselves in their child’s education and educational stakeholders often have different ideas of what constitutes effective parental involvement” (p.23). In my classroom, I hope to provide parents with realistic and useful tools that they might use to not only better understand their own role in this community of learning but also realise their abilities to affect and improve the classroom as a whole. Ultimately, the teacher and school cannot operate in that old accepted vacuum. Jeynes is clear when he states that “schools must acknowledge that they cannot alone ensure a child’s success in school, but schools working with parents and communities can help students achieve success” (p. 40). This is a conversation I intend on sharing with the families of all my future students.
Classroom Management
It is interesting to now consider the pertinence of class management within a pedagogy influenced by elements of non-coercive and libertarian approaches. Essentially, it may be said that there might not be need for extensive classroom management in the self-directed classroom where students have fashioned their learning from equity, self-direction, and personalization. Indeed, educator Kerry Williams (2008) highlights how the demand for class management is faulty when she states that, “classroom management needs to be about fixing the classroom, not the students. We need to make sure the students get what they need. A classroom that allows them opportunities for autonomy, belonging, competency, and reflection is the place to launch everything else” (p. 23). In my mind, her description matches the core elements of my planned classroom. When considering the theoretical approach to my intended form of classroom structure and functioning, it most closely relates to what Levin (2009) describes as “student-led management” (p. 90). The purpose of such a model is to “prepare students for life in a democracy, which requires citizens to control their behavior, to care for others, and to make wise decisions”; a process that will heavily rely on concepts such as: “student ownership, student choice, community, and conflict resolution and problem solving” (p. 90). In considering the sometimes hectic day of classrooms where challenging behavior from students can be a daily occurrence, is it realistic that these behaviors will disappear with increased learner direction and involvement in how the classroom is run? The traditional models of using stickers and jewel jars are part of an approach that utilises extrinsic rewards to modulate student behavior and to coerce them towards involvement in class activities and adherence to classroom codes of conduct. However, as Hoffman et al (2009) posit, extrinsic reward “discourages rather than encourages a student’s academic risk taking and causes students to behave in certain ways solely for the purpose of obtaining whatever reward is offered” (p. 843). By awarding trinkets to the students, they will only continue to display acceptable behavior with the continuing disbursement of rewards. These learners will forget how to participate in activities while directed by their own volition and moral compass. In order to eschew the extrinsic model and facilitate intrinsic motivation, Deci et al indicate the need for teachers to “develop more interesting learning activities, to provide more choice, and to ensure that tasks are optimally challenging” (p. 15). But are there any real world examples where such an environment is possible? There might be one such place.
The Paideia or Escuale Libre is a school located in the southwest of Spain that has been running for some 40 years. It’s name is derived from the ancient Greek word for a form of education that Pichugina and Bezrogov (2017) consider an expression of “the conceptual idea about teaching an individual the attitude of responsibility towards educational self-development” (p. 275). The school was visited by the writers Isabelle Fremeaux and John Jordan (2009) who describe education at Paideia as “a lifelong process of character building in preparation for direct democracy … involv[ing] the absorption of knowledge and skills, but most importantly, it was about creating a living practice of participatory self-managed citizenship” (p. 107). In regard to my own practise, I look towards Paideia as an exemplar of the type of student-led management I hope to foment in my classroom that works to instill intrinsic motivation. The main organ of Paideia’s behavioral management system is the “general assamblea” which is attended by both children and adults, and is where every decision that affects the school is taken through voting that is entirely equitable” (p. 113). I see no reason why a classroom in the B.C. public school system could not function through a similar model where learners formulate the code of their own conduct and learning. Indeed, Fremeaux and Jordan offer a description of the detriments of the current system where students are “spending six hours a day for twelve years in a place where they have virtually no say in anything, where being governed is all they know, a profound passivity becomes normalized; the hopelessness of submission becomes fixed deep below the child’s skin” (p. 112). It is my hope then that the learners of my future classroom will become an embodiment of the mental and social advantages offered by management derived and directed by the students themselves.
The Paideia or Escuale Libre is a school located in the southwest of Spain that has been running for some 40 years. It’s name is derived from the ancient Greek word for a form of education that Pichugina and Bezrogov (2017) consider an expression of “the conceptual idea about teaching an individual the attitude of responsibility towards educational self-development” (p. 275). The school was visited by the writers Isabelle Fremeaux and John Jordan (2009) who describe education at Paideia as “a lifelong process of character building in preparation for direct democracy … involv[ing] the absorption of knowledge and skills, but most importantly, it was about creating a living practice of participatory self-managed citizenship” (p. 107). In regard to my own practise, I look towards Paideia as an exemplar of the type of student-led management I hope to foment in my classroom that works to instill intrinsic motivation. The main organ of Paideia’s behavioral management system is the “general assamblea” which is attended by both children and adults, and is where every decision that affects the school is taken through voting that is entirely equitable” (p. 113). I see no reason why a classroom in the B.C. public school system could not function through a similar model where learners formulate the code of their own conduct and learning. Indeed, Fremeaux and Jordan offer a description of the detriments of the current system where students are “spending six hours a day for twelve years in a place where they have virtually no say in anything, where being governed is all they know, a profound passivity becomes normalized; the hopelessness of submission becomes fixed deep below the child’s skin” (p. 112). It is my hope then that the learners of my future classroom will become an embodiment of the mental and social advantages offered by management derived and directed by the students themselves.
Student Assessment
One might then wonder what the position of assessment would be in a classroom directly influenced by the students themselves? In my personal opinion, teachers too often give greater precedence to the requirements of externalised forces rather than assessment that prioritises and focuses on the learners themselves. I tend to agree with Paratore and McCormack’s (2015) contention that a lot of assessment is merely “external assessment masquerading as classroom assessment” and that “most of these assessments are selected without consideration of the particular curriculum in the classroom or specific needs of individual children” (p. 5). In this context, I am committed to personalizing assessment and prioritising the formative kind. In considering formative assessment, I feel it fits well with the work of Easley and Zwoyer (1975) who believe assessment should not be used to judge what is right or wrong but instead be seen “as pieces of information which may reveal what the child is thinking” (p. 25). Thus, the assessment I tend to conduct will be developed and designed to compliment the distinct pace and development of individualized learners so that they might be gauged on their own progress rather than comparatively with generalized age groups. This assessment then will afford future teachers with a portfolio-styled glimpse into academic and social progression of the students. Additionally, I intend to encourage learners to develop the capacity for self-assessment. In this way, I will attempt to mirror Bailey and Heritage’s (2008) definition of good assessment that “help[s] students understand where they are in the learning and what their learning goals will be” (p. 29). Overall, I consider effective assessment to be learner prioritized rather than externalized, and directed by the sole intent of encouraging students towards their own, self-realized learning goals.
Play and Outdoor Learning
Of course, amongst this overabundance of academic pedagogy I must not forget to include my perspective on the importance of the physical manifestation of the learning I intend to facilitate. Play has become an increasingly considered and propagated style of learning in primary classrooms. As explained by the psychologist Peter Gray (2017), “play is how children learn to create their own activities, solve their own problems, take control of their own lives, get along with peers, overcome narcissism, and learn to deal with fear” (p.225). I consider play and its inevitable expression as outdoor learning, a vital pillar in my developing practise. Not only can play facilitate academic study through games, it is also an essential factor in the accomodation of the diversity of students in B.C. classrooms. From english language learners to students with designations, play provides everyone the ability to physically demonstrate learning through joyful and natural movement in the classroom and beyond. In regards to this beyond, I am hopeful that a considerable part of my classroom’s learning will occur outside and in nature. As Wasserman (1997) explains: “If we teachers can free ourselves from the need to keep students quiet and “on task” with pencil-and-paper worksheets, following correct procedures, learning all the names and places ... we may open our classrooms to the more messy, the more generative, the more original, the more delightful world of play as a means of learning about the world” (p. 18). It is also clear that green spaces have remarkable effect on academically challenged students, especially those designated with ADHD or autism spectrum disorders. Research by Faber, Taylor, and Kuo found that “when children with ADHD diagnoses were led on twenty-minute walks through a city park, a downtown district, and a residential neighborhood, their performance on tests of concentration improved only after the walk in the park, to a degree comparable to the effects of a widely used medication for ADHD” (as cited in Chawla, 2015, p. 443). Out in the open or under forest canopies, learning becomes accommodating for all students and I believe a more relevant form of learning occurs. As Ridgers, Knowles, and Sayers (2012) maintain, “play in the natural environment enables children to understand the world around them and to encounter and solve real problems” (p. 50). And in my opinion, this type of playful learning both inside and outside of the classroom should not be constrained to the primary grades but extended to all learners so that the relevancy of their studies becomes visible and not just embodied by worksheets.
Conclusion
In formulating these goals for a classroom that move away from the more traditional models present in the public system, I find myself cognizant of the challenges such aspirations might hold for a beginning teacher. To be candid, many of these goals are lofty but I hope not to be dissuaded from enacting them. However, I acknowledge that there must always be the possibility for accomodation to school and learner. Perhaps many of these concepts and models may not be suitable or arrive at that most important of all destinations: the creation of a joyful and lifelong learner. Also there is the additional danger that I might become labelled as “that activist” teacher, who designs a classroom where, as described by Leo Tolstoy, “education is the tendency of one man to make another just like himself” (p. 111). This is the antithesis of my goals and should I need to adjust or diminish the influence and directions provided by these alternative approaches, I would not hesitate. My practise is not driven by just one pedagogy, it is multivarious, dogma-free, and proceeded by a classroom that seeks to cultivate independent, confident, self-directed learners who will be able to engage critically and freely with the world.
References
Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2008). Formative Assessment for Literacy, Grades K-6 : Building Reading and Academic Language Skills Across the Curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
B.C. Ministry of Education, 2018. Curriculum Overview. Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/overview
Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 433-452. 10.1177/0885412215595441
Crain, W. C. (2011). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again: Comment/Reply. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1.
DeLeon, A.P. (2012). Against the grain of the status quo: Anarchism behind enemy lines. In R. Haworth (Ed.), Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education (p. 312-325). Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Easley and Zwoyer, (1975). In Crooks, T (1988). “The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students,” Review of Educational Research, 58 (4), p 469.
Fremeaux, I., & Jordan, J. (2012). Anarchist Pedagogy in Action: Paideia, Escuela Libre. In R. Haworth (Ed.), Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education (p. 107-123). Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Gatto, J. T. (2001). The underground history of american education: A schoolteacher's intimate investigation into the problem of modern schooling (Author's special pre-publication ed.). New York: Oxford Village Press.
Gray, P. (2017). What exactly is play, and why is it such a powerful vehicle for learning? Topics in Language Disorders, 37(3), 217.
Haworth, R. H. (2012). Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Hoffmann, K. F., Huff, J. D., Patterson, A. S., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Elementary teachers' use and perception of rewards in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 843-849. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.004
Jeynes, W. (2011). Help families by fostering parental involvement: Show an interest in your students' families before demanding that parents support your school. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 38.
Kelly, J. A. (2014). Fostering effective parental involvement: The case for developing school-sponsored programming to assist middle school parents (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2014. http://ezproxy.viu.ca/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1528550339?accountid=12246
Levin, J. (2009). Principles of classroom management: A professional decision-making model (2nd Canadian ed.). Toronto: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Mueller, J. (2012). Anarchism, the State, and the role of education. In R. Haworth (Ed.), Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education (p. 14-31). Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Paratore, J. R., & McCormack, R. L. (Eds.). (2014). Classroom literacy assessment : making sense of what students know and do. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Pichugina, V., & Bezrogov, V. (2017). 'fathers and sons' in xenophon's teaching of the man taking care of himself. History of Education, 46(3), 275-289. 10.1080/0046760X.2016.1271910
Ridgers, N. D., Knowles, Z. R., & Sayers, J. (2012). Encouraging play in the natural environment: A child-focused case study of forest school. Children's Geographies, 10(1), 49-65. 10.1080/14733285.2011.638176
Schecter, S. R., & Sherri, D. L. (2009;2008;). Value added?: Teachers' investments in and orientations toward parent involvement in education. Urban Education, 44(1), 59-87. 10.1177/0042085908317676
Suissa, J. (2010). Anarchism and Education : A Philosophical Perspective. Oakland, CA: Independent Publishers Group.
Tolstoy, L., graf. (1967). Tolstoy on education (1st Phoenix ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wassermann, S. (1992). Serious Play in the Classroom: How Messing around Can Win You the Nobel Prize. Childhood Education, 68(3), 133-139.
Williams, Kerry C. (2008) Elementary Classroom Management : A Student-Centered Approach to Leading and Learning. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.
Zandvliet, D. B. (2014). PLACES and SPACES: Case studies in the evaluation of post-secondary, place-based learning environments. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 18-28. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.011
B.C. Ministry of Education, 2018. Curriculum Overview. Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/overview
Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 433-452. 10.1177/0885412215595441
Crain, W. C. (2011). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again: Comment/Reply. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1.
DeLeon, A.P. (2012). Against the grain of the status quo: Anarchism behind enemy lines. In R. Haworth (Ed.), Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education (p. 312-325). Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Easley and Zwoyer, (1975). In Crooks, T (1988). “The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students,” Review of Educational Research, 58 (4), p 469.
Fremeaux, I., & Jordan, J. (2012). Anarchist Pedagogy in Action: Paideia, Escuela Libre. In R. Haworth (Ed.), Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education (p. 107-123). Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Gatto, J. T. (2001). The underground history of american education: A schoolteacher's intimate investigation into the problem of modern schooling (Author's special pre-publication ed.). New York: Oxford Village Press.
Gray, P. (2017). What exactly is play, and why is it such a powerful vehicle for learning? Topics in Language Disorders, 37(3), 217.
Haworth, R. H. (2012). Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Hoffmann, K. F., Huff, J. D., Patterson, A. S., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Elementary teachers' use and perception of rewards in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 843-849. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.004
Jeynes, W. (2011). Help families by fostering parental involvement: Show an interest in your students' families before demanding that parents support your school. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 38.
Kelly, J. A. (2014). Fostering effective parental involvement: The case for developing school-sponsored programming to assist middle school parents (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2014. http://ezproxy.viu.ca/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1528550339?accountid=12246
Levin, J. (2009). Principles of classroom management: A professional decision-making model (2nd Canadian ed.). Toronto: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Mueller, J. (2012). Anarchism, the State, and the role of education. In R. Haworth (Ed.), Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education (p. 14-31). Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Paratore, J. R., & McCormack, R. L. (Eds.). (2014). Classroom literacy assessment : making sense of what students know and do. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Pichugina, V., & Bezrogov, V. (2017). 'fathers and sons' in xenophon's teaching of the man taking care of himself. History of Education, 46(3), 275-289. 10.1080/0046760X.2016.1271910
Ridgers, N. D., Knowles, Z. R., & Sayers, J. (2012). Encouraging play in the natural environment: A child-focused case study of forest school. Children's Geographies, 10(1), 49-65. 10.1080/14733285.2011.638176
Schecter, S. R., & Sherri, D. L. (2009;2008;). Value added?: Teachers' investments in and orientations toward parent involvement in education. Urban Education, 44(1), 59-87. 10.1177/0042085908317676
Suissa, J. (2010). Anarchism and Education : A Philosophical Perspective. Oakland, CA: Independent Publishers Group.
Tolstoy, L., graf. (1967). Tolstoy on education (1st Phoenix ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wassermann, S. (1992). Serious Play in the Classroom: How Messing around Can Win You the Nobel Prize. Childhood Education, 68(3), 133-139.
Williams, Kerry C. (2008) Elementary Classroom Management : A Student-Centered Approach to Leading and Learning. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.
Zandvliet, D. B. (2014). PLACES and SPACES: Case studies in the evaluation of post-secondary, place-based learning environments. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 18-28. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.011