Those of us who came of age in the sixties to the strains of The Times They Are A'Changin' could not have predicted the enormity nor the pervasiveness of those changes, especially in education.

We've seen trends come and go. We've accepted an increasingly heavy burden thrust on us by a society whose greater concern about equality and justice often fails to "trickle down" to minorities and children, and, especially, to minority children.. We've adjusted as governments got bigger and more intrusive in education and then adjusted again as they've "downsized." We've learned to do more with less and, more recently, less with less. On the whole, though, most of us can say with confidence, that we are doing a better job of educating children than we were thirty or forty years ago. That the media and government might have different views is the subject for another column. What all this means is that for the past three decades or so, we have engaged in a major rethinking of the entire educational enterprise. In recent years, that thinking has been complicated and enriched by the impact of the technological revolution.

Because of technological advances, our pedagogical capabilities are growing at a dizzying rate of speed. We can now see the potential for educational change of a magnitude that is unprecedented, at least since the invention of the printing press. Never before have we had such a wealth amount of information so readily available so quickly. Whether we can reshape educational practice to take advantage of what we now have and what we will soon have available remains to be seen, but I believe that we can. Members of the Faculty of Education believe that we can, and in the past two years have taken many steps to ensure that our students are exposed to best current practice using computer-based technologies.

A little over a year ago, we opened a new 48-seat Pentium laboratory in the Faculty of Education, and when this laboratory is not filled with students working on course assignments or "surfing" in the way that our generation browsed the library stacks, it is populated by faculty members who are rethinking their delivery options and redesigning their courses to take advantage of the fact that students can now learn 30% more in 30% less time. Realizing that both those numbers will likely get larger, we are cognizant of the need to keep learning and growing. A few months ago, we opened a state-of-the-art Science and Technology Laboratory, another facility that we needed in order to provide our students the kind of education they need to be effective teachers in the next century.

In January, Dr. Ken Stevens will join the Faculty as the first holder of the Chair in TeleLearning, funded in large part by Industry Canada. A specialist in rural and small schools, Dr. Stevens will help to focus the Faculty's research efforts on the impact of technology on schooling in Newfoundland and Labrador. Individual members of the Faculty are experimenting with using the Internet for course delivery, and as a Faculty, we are working toward the goal of having some degree of web page support for every course offered in the Faculty by January of 1998.

Indeed, the times they still are a'changin', and The Morning Watch is changing with them. As evidence, we mount our first issue of the "virtual" Morning Watch. This new way of producing and delivering The Morning Watch, however, signals no less commitment to the journal and its readers. Educational technology should be neutral. It is a tool - an instrument and not an agent. The editors of The Morning Watch and members of the Faculty of Education remain the agents of change but hope to use the instruments as effectively as possible. With this issue, then, comes change but with that change we also continue a well-established tradition. We hope that our new format will permit faster and wider dissemination and allow for more direct interaction with our readers.

Within the last decade, there have been strong calls for the development of new models of school administration which recognize the need for collaboration among teachers and school-based management (Caldwell, Smilanich, & Spinks, 1988; Royal Commission, 1992; Fullan, 1993; Nova Scotia Department of Education, 1994). Although school-based management is linked to school improvement and reform efforts, research suggests that the implementation of school-based management may not result in the improvements in student achievement that are anticipated by reformers (Berman & MacLauglin, 1976; Deal, 1990; Cranston, 1994; Fullan, 1993; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Sarason, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1995; Sheppard & Brown, 1995). In fact, "the empirical evidence in the literature up to this point is that the majority of cases are counterproductive" (Fullan, 1995, p. 231). It is within this context of scepticism toward school reform that this research is conducted, as it seeks to determine to what extent (a) leadership training can influence (b) leadership behaviours of school leadership teams, © the development of the school as a learning organization, and (d) student outcomes.

Leadership Approach and Training

The need for strong school leadership has been supported by research on effective schools (Edmonds, 1979; Gezi, 1990; Hall & Hord, 1987; Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 1990); school improvement (Cox, 1983; Crandall, 1983; Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Louis & Miles, 1990); innovation, change, and implementation (Fullan, 1993; Hall & Hord, 1987; McLaughlin, 1990). However, there is agreement that the concept of leadership is not well understood (Bass, 1981, Bolman & Deal, 1994; Brown, 1995a; Handy, 1985; Owens, 1995). Emerging theories are moving away from technological, rational planning models, toward cultural, collaborative approaches in which teachers are viewed as partners (Blase, 1993; 1987; Evans, 1993; Griffiths, 1988; Laroque & Coleman, 1991; March, 1988; Pellicer, Anderson, Keefe, Kelley, & McCleary, 1990; Weber, 1989). Current studies support the transformational leadership framework as appropriate when schools are engaged in change (Brown, 1994; Leithwood, 1992, 1994, 1995a; Sheppard, 1995a). The collaborative nature of such leadership is supported by research which reveals that department heads play significant roles in leadership for change (Brown, 1994). Additionally, it is based on the proposition that change cannot be left to the experts (Fullan, 1993; Glickman, 1993; Harrison, Killion, & Mitchel, 1989; Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992; Lewis, 1989; Peters, 1992). Teachers must be leaders in the change process and they must be critical-reflective, action oriented professionals working in an environment of collaboration where they are committed to making a difference to teaching and learning (Calhoun, 1994; Fullan, 1995; O'Neil, 1995a; Sagor, 1992). Despite such studies supporting the model of leadership noted abo ve, there exists little evidence that such leadership can be developed through training (Krug, Ahadi, & Scott, 1990). Yet, training through leadership institutes is an integral component of this emerging concept of leadership. As our research reveals weaknesses in the leadership training process, therefore, our training is modified as a means of further contributing to theory in this area.

Schools as Learning Organizations

In light of uncertainty of reform efforts, "the generative concept of the learning organization" (Fullan, 1993, p. 6) provides the basis of a promising theoretical framework for the development of improving schools. This concept is grounded in the five "disciplines" expounded by Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, & Kleiner (1994): the development of personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. While the concept of the learning organization has developed outside of the school setting (Senge, 1990), research within education (Fullan, 1993; Leithwood, Dart, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1993; Louis, 1994) supports its meaningfulness in the school context. Fullan (1993) sees this as "the new work of the principal and the teacher" (p. 66) and further contends that if we are to succeed in bringing about meaningful improvement "schools must become learning organizations" (Fullan, 1995, p. 234). In spite of such support, the relevance of this learning organization concept to education requires empirical study (Fullan, 1995; O'Neil, 1995b). The intent of this research is to provide such study, and to contribute to the development of a theory of "learning organization" in the school and school district context. It extends research of learning organization into rural and remote schools (smallest is a remote, multigrade school with 50 students, not accessible by road). Also, it addresses teacher leadership training relative to the learning organizations and how this relates to student learning.

Student Outcomes

The intent of efforts at reform in education is improved student learning (Fullan, 1995; Goodlad, 1992; McLaughlin, 1990; Murphy, 1992; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1995). Goodman (1995) contends that schools have been based on a model of the efficient and productive business organization where test scores have become the essential products. Successful school reform, he argues, must be based on values other than those of efficiency and productivity. While the selection of appropriate student learning outcomes is subject to debate (Madaus, Airasian, & Kellagan, 1980), Fullan (1993) suggests that The Conference Board of Canada profile of employability skills is indicative of directions schools in Canada are looking toward. This profile suggests that employers need people who can communicate, think, and continue to learn for life; who have positive attitudes and behaviours, are able to take responsibility for their actions, and are adaptable; and who can work with others (McLaughlin, 1992). In Newfoundland and Labrador, desired student outcomes have been determined through a public consultation process (Newfoundland and Labrador Educational Indicators System, 1995). A central contribution of this research is to determin e the extent to which leadership training, leadership approach, and the learning organization accounts for variance in student outcomes that have been deemed important by primary education stakeholders.

Methodology

Sample

The sample is composed of 8 schools in one school district in Newfoundland with 139 teachers and 2623 students. School size ranges from 50-530 students located in both rural (50%) and urban (50%) centres. Teams of teacher from all participating schools (38 teachers) attended a week long summer leadership institute developed and conducted by the researchers in partnership with district office personnel. There was equal representation of male and female teachers attending the leadership training. The unit of analysis for the quantitative aspect of this research is the individual teacher. The choice of the teacher as the unit of analysis is based on research which suggests that if leadership is to be effective it must be vali dated by the consent of individual followers. In fact a criticism of transformational leadership theory is that it presents a view of leadership that resides in the individual leader without due attention to the leader-follower relationship (Blase, 1993; Brown, 1993; Lord & Maher, 1990; Sheppard, 1995a). The focus for the qualitative aspect is the school. This choice is based on the recognition that leadership is context bound and exists within "the corridor of beliefs" which already exists in the followers (Brown, 1995b; Foster, 1989). Bringing both individual and school foci together recognizes that "leadership is interactive in multiple directions such that in schools for instance, the principal is largely shaped by the teachers, the reputation and history of the school, and the expectations that have become institutionalized over time within the school and the community" (Angus, 1989, p. 76).

Data Collection & Analysis

In all participating schools, data were collected throughout the first year. All leadership team members were asked to maintain journals and to participate in school leadership interviews. A sample of one-third of each school staff were asked to participate in school leadership interviews. Interviews were conducted quarterly, in site visits, with the first interview data being collected four months following the leadership institute. All teachers were asked to respond to two surv ey instruments: School Leadership Survey and Process of Professional Learning Survey (Leithwood, 1995b; Leithwood, 1995c). The survey data were collected midway through the first year. Documents analyzed include: school improvement plans, staff meeting minutes, and team meeting minutes. On-going support was provided to leadership teams in each school through both a district support network and the faculty researchers. District and school teams have agreed to provide student outcome data consistent with the Newfoundland and Labrador Educational Indicators System (1995). At this point, however, there has been no formal attempt to measure change in student indicators that were targeted by this initiative. This lack of formal measurement of these indicators is deliberate. Like Sengeet al. (1994), school and district teams and the researchers concluded that "measurements that are made prematurely will lead to erroneous conclusions" (p. 45). Only when it is reasonably certain that leadership appro ach is shifting toward the model promoted in training sessions and that schools are moving toward becoming learning organizations can impact be measured.

The Advantages of Partnerships

In this research, the university researchers play the role of "critical friends" and the school staffs assume a critical-reflective role which actively involves them in the research process (Lieberman, 1995, p. 3). The staff provides the closeness necessary for greater depth of understanding of practice, whereas the university researchers are more able to distance themselves in interpreting what is happening. Below is an outline of the various roles and responsibilities of the three main groups.

District

Schools

University Faculty of Education

The Partnership

Findings

The partnership model appears to work for all partners: return rate on surveys has been exceptional (86%), thereby providing an excellent sample to help understand the process. Feedback provided to the district and schools has been recognized as critical to their improvement efforts and provides endorsement of the concept of teacher as leader of change. As a result of positive feedback regarding the process, other schools have asked to become involved as partners.

School Team leadership appears to work best when the principal is recognized as a significant source of leadership as well. It appears imperative that one individual must emerge as a source of leadership; otherwise the team leadership appears to falter. Neither training nor support from the district has been sufficient to get two particular school staffs to engage in the process of school growth through team leadership. In both schools, teachers did not perceive that the principal provided leadership. While such a perception existed in a third school, changes have begun. In this school, teachers recognized the vice principal and a lead teacher as providing leadership for school improvement.

Leadership is often perceived as administration. As a result, the development of team leadership can be misinterpreted. Also, one cannot assume that all are ready for a new model of leadership. For example, some principals moving from the traditional model of administration to shared decision-making and school-based management revealed anxiety about their changing role, questioned their effectiveness, and needed on-going support. There is a need to provide principals with clear images of the emerging role, since facilitative power or "power with" appears to be confused in some cases with the abdication of responsibility or laissez-faire leadership. In another case, efforts of the Leadership Team were derailed because teachers viewed the team as "additional administration".

A District Superintendent's desire to shift leadership approach from a traditional hierarchical approach to a school-based model does not result in a quick shift either at the school or at the district level. Even when recognized as a direction to work toward, differing expectations result in frustrations at both levels. One particular district wide initiative promoted by an assistant superintendent and by some principals seemed to cause major difficulties in some schools attempting to operate in the school-based model endorsed by the superintendent. A consistent message reinforced by appropriate action from all district personnel is essential.

Teachers perceive that most leadership for school improvement comes from individuals or groups within the school. They do not perceive that program coordinators or district administrators provide much leadership in that direction, even though close examination reveals evidence to the contrary. They attribute even less leadership to parents, students, and the Department of Education. In the current sample, 72% of teachers perceive that the principal is a significant source of leadership; 54%, the whole staff; 24%, program coordinators; 19%, district administration; 12%, parents; 10%, students; and 16%, Department of Education.

Team members who attended the summer institute attribute much of their progress to the institute. Other teachers are less aware of the influence of the institute, but some recognize a shift in approach to change.

Journal keeping is a key component of this research model. It allows time for reflection and when shared with the "outside critical friends" it provides a critical component for formative evaluation of the process. While all members of the Leadership Teams agreed to keep a journal, for most it became lost in the practical realities of daily routines in the district, school, and classroom. This poses a challenge as we continue to work with teachers to develop a new model in which teachers a re critical-reflective action oriented professionals who are leaders in the change process.

In the majority of schools with which we are working, the principal is recognized as the primary source of leadership for school improvement and this is complemented by a team comprised of teachers and school administrators. Leadership is perceived to promote high expectations (87%) and to be democratic (78%), participatory (70%), inclusive (70%), visionary (83%), change oriented (86%), visible (94%), supportive (90%), collaborative (83%), goal-oriented (89%), and intellectually stimulating (75%).

The positive direction of the constructs suggests that the leadership approach and the professional learning is perceived to be consistent with characteristics desirable in "Learning Organizations" that the district has been attempting to promote. In most cases, however, the score is close to the mean, suggesting that work is required on all constructs.

In one school that has been engaged in this process over a two year pilot period (Sheppard, 1995b) results indicate that the model of team leadership training directed at the development of the school as a learning organization is workable and that it contributes to improvements in teaching and learning and student outcomes. Teachers and administrators observed that efforts to implement cooperative learning as a teaching strategy within the new model was much more successful than any previous implementation attempt.

One teacher commented, There is a greater focus on this than any other initiative that we have attempted. There is far more consistency and more follow-up. As a staff we are far more like a team. We are drawn together around the implementation of cooperative learning.

Similarly, a program coordinator stated: There is more cooperative learning going on than before. There is significantly greater commitment to trying cooperative learning. There is a climate of collaboration at the school that did not previously exist. There is a feeling in the school among teachers that they can do something about what is happening in the school.... Teachers see that they have control and that this is not just another bandwagon; rather this is a step by step plan that provides the direction they believe to be necessary in their school.

The deliberate attempt to delay measurement of student outcomes has not prevented casual observations. Teachers believe that the school has fostered a culture that is conducive to learning. Students and teachers have learned the power of cooperation . Students are engaged in developing their social skills each day, they have become more tolerant of student differences, and behaviour problems and absenteeism have been significantly reduced.

The summer institute for team leadership training must include the presentation of methods and tools that assist in the application of theory and must allow practice time in their use. While teams were quite positive during the summer session and were engaged in several problem-solving sessions on team learning and school improvement, they found that back in their schools they did not have the practical experience to sustain the process toward the development of a learning organization. Also, the need for a follow-up reflective session for teams during the Fall Semester was suggested by many as a critical need.

On going support and follow-up with high expectations for change is essential. Many teams expressed the significance of follow-up by the district coordinator for school improvement and the continued presence of the "critical university friends" in providing the support and the motivation to sustain their efforts toward school growth.

Administrative structures can be major obstacles and some second-order changes are needed to facilitate the transition to a learning organization. Evidence confirms that a school structure which limits teacher flexibility inhibits collaboration and team planning. Also, downsizing, the loss of key team members, and forced transfers into the school can adversely affect the fragile environment being created, and undermine efforts at school improvement and reform.

In summary, findings from this research confirm that leadership training can influence the leadership approaches taken in schools such that team leadership is an integral component of the way schools operate and such teams provide the foundation for the school to become a learning organization. While we have not yet attempted to formally evaluate the effects on student outcomes, informal observations indicate that our current efforts show much promise. This research, however, supports other findings that training and support must be on going rather than a one-time event. Leadership patterns and professional practices in schools and school districts are deeply engrained components of the educational culture that cannot be changed by simply declaring new values. "Deep beliefs and assumptions change as experience changes, and when this happens culture changes" (Senge et al., 1994, pp. 20-21). The partnership between university researchers as "critical friends" and the educational practitio ners (teachers and district office personnel) as critical-reflective professionals actively engaged in the research process provides the methods and tools that allowed teachers to explore new ideas. These new ideas result in changes in the traditional structures. Overtime, such "surface movements" begin to change aspirations, skills and capabilities, attitudes, and beliefs--change that really matters (Senge et al., 1994). Findings of this research that indicate a shift in leadership approach and the development of a culture of professional learning consistent with that found in a learning organization indicate that appropriate training can make a difference. This difference promises to improve student outcomes.

Imagine for a moment a developed nation which regarded its rural schools as its elite and as models to be envied and emulated by metropolitan schools. Imagine a system in which rural schools were the prime beneficiaries of educational research, the recipients of a steady stream of the nation's best educators, and the bastions of the education world's power prestige, and resources. - Jonathan Sher

Over the past four years I have become increasingly involved in rural education studies. The rural nature of Newfoundland and Labrador presents a unique opportunity to do specialized work in this field. Sixty percent (60%) of all schools are officially classified as rural; fifty percent (50%) of the 472 schools in the province have fewer than 200 students. Sixty-five (65) of these schools have fewer than 50 students and only 14% of our schools have a student population of more than 400 (NF Department of Education Statistics, 1996). Given these numbers, perhaps, the context makes rural education studies an obligation.

In this essay I will describe how I came to be interested in rural education. I will also outline some the projects and activities that I have engaged in over the last four years as this interest has grown and developed. I will conclude the essay with some thoughts about the future direction I would like to see rural studies take in this province.

At the very beginning, I would like to say that rural communities and small schools were not obvious places of affinity for me. My personal and professional background were urban. My experiences as a student and as a high-school English teacher were in large city schools. After graduating from Memorial University with an Arts Degree (English) and an Education degree (Secondary), I began my teaching career in Corner Brook. It never occurred to me at that time to consider applying for a position in a small rural community. My places of choice were the larger centres with their larger schools. This earlier attitude of mine has served to sharpen my appreciation of one of the perennial concerns of rural district: teacher recruitment and retention.

After eleven years as a high-school English teacher, I returned to university to pursue graduate work (M.Ed.; Ph.D) in curriculum studies and drama education in Toronto. I cannot recall at any point during my undergraduate or graduate programs at Memorial or the University of Toronto (OISE) ever hearing anyone speak of small schools or rural education. To be fair, I have to say that I did not seek out such knowledge either. Why would I? Nevertheless, upon reflection, I think it is remarkable, given the rural nature of this province, the extensive rural areas in Ontario and the rest of Canada, that I completed three education degrees and never once encountered small schools or rural education as a significant topic.

I did not set out to become interested in rural education; nor was it ever suggested to me by anyone that it might be an interesting or useful area of study. I think I was a typical urbanite, or townie as we say in Newfoundland, whose knowledge of rural Newfoundland and Labrador was at best vague and at worst stereotypical. West of the "overpass" was the old fashioned, the quaint, and the past. Something I knew very little about and had even less interest in. The point I am trying to make is that nothing in my experience or education pointed me in the direction of matters rural. So I have to conclude that some how rural education found me.

The impulse that initiated my interest in rural education was primarily idle curiosity (not necessarily a bad reason to begin any inquiry). Somehow, I do not remember how or why, I happened on Frank Riggs' Report of the Small Schools Study Project (1987). This was in 1992. The report introduced me to a term I had never heard of before: multi-grade classrooms. As I read about these classrooms, I was both amazed and curious. I had spent all of my educational life as a teacher and a student in single grade classrooms. As a teacher for eleven years in a large city high-school, I was responsible for just one subject, English; I never had more than one grade level in my classroom. This report informed me that in small rural schools, teachers ar e not only responsible for many subjects but often have to teach more than one subject and grade at the same time in the one classroom. This seemed like a truly impossible teaching situation. How could one teacher be responsible for more than one grade level and have to teach as many as twenty, thirty or more subjects? How could anyone manage in such a situation?

I decided I wanted to know more about these "multi-grade" classrooms. Specifically, I wanted to know how the teachers did it. From my urban, large school, single grade, I could not imagine how effective teaching and learning could possibly occur in such situations. To discover how they did it I started to plan a research study. At this point in time I was interested in multi-grading as a distinct phenomenon. I was not interested in small schools or the rural context. My intention was to conduct this study, find some straightforward answers to my methodological enquires, write a report detailing the strategies used by multi-grade teachers and move on to something else.

That was the plan. Four years later I find myself totally immersed in rural education studies and totally committed to sustaining and supporting community based small rural schools. How did this happen? How did I get from what was supposed to be a quick "how-do-you-do-it" study to where I am at today?

What happened was my intended straightforward inquiry starting to take a number of number of detours. The problem was I chose the "wrong" methodology for my intended purpose. I began my study by visiting some small schools. I spent some time in multi-grade classrooms, talking at some length to teachers about their approaches. This resulted in my original question developing into many questions. The participants in the study were quite willing to have me come to their schools and classrooms. They were quite eager to answer my questions. They were quite delighted that someone was actually interested in what they doing. These teachers, however, were not just interested in answering my questions. They insisted in asking me a few of their own.

They wanted to know, for example, when the University was going to start preparing teachers for multi-grade classrooms. With so many small schools and multi-grade situations in the province, didn't I think that this was an issue the Faculty of Education should be addressing? Other questions they asked included: Why do the curriculum guides produced by the provincial Department of Education provide no advice or guidance as to how to implement the prescribed programs in multi-grade situations? Why is it that when we go to a professional development workshop and ask a question about how to do something in a multi-grade classroom, the presenting "expert" confesses he has no idea what we are talking about? Why were the needs of teachers and students in multi-grade classrooms and small rural schools almost totally ignored by all agencies responsible for education in the province? The teachers in the schools were willing to share with me the strategies and approaches they used in their multi-grade classrooms. I, the expert educational authority, was unable to answer their questions. More to the point, I had to confess that it never occurred to me even to ask these questions. My first rural school contacts also asked me one more question: What was I going to do with the information I was collecting? What they were really asking was: Was it my intention to use the data I was collecting to help improve their situation. They were assuming and hoping that my interest in their work was an indication of my commitment to help. I think there was an assumption on their part that somehow I cared about their situation and was interested in doing something about it. At that point in time their assumptions were mostly wrong; for the most part I was interested in my questions not their problems.

To communicate with people in person where they work and live can a dangerous thing to do. To spend an extended period of time in a school and a community with the teachers, the students and sometimes the parents is a very different research experience than gathering data at a distance. It provides people with an opportunity to elaborate on issues and to identify additional research questions. This is very different (not necessarily better) than the receiving in the mail several hundred (pos sibly anonymous) completed questionaries with the appropriate boxes ticked to the predetermined set of questions.

These initial encounters with rural teachers in small schools changed the nature of my first research study and reset the course for my future work in rural education. Two things struck me very forcibly. One of these was the distinctive and inviting atmosphere of small schools. The human scale of the places, the relaxed informality, the family-like atmosphere, the style of interaction between teachers and students, were all very appealing to me. Secondly, as I talked with the teachers, and importantly the more they talked and the more I listened, increasingly, I became convinced that our system of education was not treating them in a fair or just manner. They appeared to have the most difficult of teaching situations yet they received the least help and consideration.

These initial encounters forced me to broaden the scope of the inquiry. I was still interested in the methodology issues (the how-do-you-do-it questions) but I decided to paint a more comprehensive portrait of multi-grading in the province. I decided to document the number of multi-grade classrooms in the province and their great diversity in terms of the number of grades combined and the grade combinations that existed. Also, I was determined to provide the opportunity for multi-grade teachers to describe the challenging nature of their teaching situations. I provided them with a forum to express their frustrations and anger with the lack of attention small rural schools had generally received from the educational establishment and its leaders in the province.

The report of the study, Learning and Teaching in Multi-grade Classrooms was published by the Faculty of Education Publications Committee in 1993. One chapter of the report focused on methodology (my agenda); most of the contents of that report reflected the concerns that had been identified by rural teachers. The final chapter entitled "Future Directions" consisted almost entirely of their suggestions as to how the various educational agencies in the province could do a better job of preparing and supporting multi-grade teachers in our small rural schools.

My curiosity about multi-grade classrooms lead me necessarily to be interested in small schools. With very few exceptions, multi-grade classrooms are a feature of our smaller schools where the enrolment does not warrant the allocation of one teacher per grade as dictated by Department of Education Guidelines. It is difficult to study multi-grading without becoming aware of issues and questions related to small schools.

Interestingly, for some teachers and parents in rural communities the existence of multigrade classrooms is the least of their concerns. A more pressing issue for them is the way that existing Department of Education funding guidelines discriminate against small schools. Funding is primarily on a per pupil basis; this means the total amounts of money coming into a school depend on the number of students. Invariably, this results in small schools not having enough money for even the most basic of resources. The extra provision made by government for small schools is woefully inadequate to compensate for the built in inequality of the funding arrangements.

The nature of the workload of teachers in small schools is yet another serious issue. Teachers have responsibility for many more subjects and courses. At all levels they are required to teach often in areas in which they have little or no academic or professional background.

The first "small schools" issue that attracted my attention was school closure and consolidation. It was through my study of multi-grading that I became interested in this issue. I discovered that multi-grading has been used quite often as a weapon in school closure battles between school boards and rural communities. The existence of multi-grade classrooms or the threat of having to create them was used to convince people to agree to the elimination of schooling in their community. Parents were told that multi-grading was an inferior and outdated form of schooling. If they really cared about their children's education, they were told, they would agree to have their children bussed to another community where they could attend a larger school with single grade classrooms.

As I became more knowledgable about multi-grading I came to the realization that these closure decisions were being made on false or misleading information. The fact is that multi-grading is a world wide phenomenon wherever there are small schools. Many people believe that having more than one age group and grade level in a classroom is a preferred approach to education. In addition, research studies generally suggest that children learn as well in a multi-grade classroom as in a single grade classroom. I began to wonder what other "facts" were being used to force people to give up something they felt so strongly about and wanted to maintain.

This "wondering" has lead to the second major thrust of my research work in rural education: school closure and consolidation. I am particularly interested in community response and resistance to closure efforts on the part of school districts. I have been collecting case studies that describe how the drama of closure and consolidation has been played out in this province. In some instances, schools have been closed without protest; in others the people in rural communities have fought long and hard to save their small community schools. Sometimes the protests have been successful; most often they have failed. The beliefs and values that inform the bigger is better and the one best system ideologies are strong and deeply entrenched. Too often the views and values of rural communities are discounted and dismissed for being irrelevant. Too often their protests and appeals have been treated with contempt by those in positions of power and authority.

School closure and school consolidation are also the most current issues of concern for rural parents and teachers. I am writing this article on November 13, 1996. In two weeks time the government will release a revised Schools Act. One section of this Act will detail a revised version of school viability regulations. These regulations will set the criteria that will be used to decide the future of small schools in this province. Earlier this year (January, 1996) the government set minimum standards for school viability in terms of grade enrolment. A k-6 school, for example, had to have at least 20 students per grade to be considered viable. Any school not meeting this standard would be labelled non-viable and targeted for closure. Under these regulations 150 rural schools became non-viable.

These guidelines were successfully challenged by rural parents and educators and the government was forced to withdraw them. During September and October of this year the minister of education has toured the province conducting "public consultations hearings." People have been provided with an opportunity to provide the government with input on the issue of school viability and the related issue of school busing. Everyone now is anxiously awaiting to see what the new version of school viability will look like.

When someone asks me now what my primary research interest is I tell them rural education. That's not to say I am no longer interested in multi-grading and small schools and the pedagogical and organizational issues associated with these topics. However, I find that Rural Education is a more inclusive term for the range and scope of issues and questions I am interested in pursuing. More importantly it situates and identifies my work within a very specific context - rural communities. I have made this change for several reasons.

The first reason is rather obvious. As I indicated at the very beginning of this paper Newfoundland and Labrador is primarily a rural province and a province of small rural schools. Thus, to be interested in small schools in Newfoundland and Labrador is to be interested in small rural schools. It is important to note that, while all but a few of our small schools are rural, not all rural schools are small. Because of many successful attempts at closure and consolidation we have a fair number of larger schools (by our standards) located in rural communities. Small schools in urban areas are not the same as small schools in rural areas. The small private school in St. John's has little in common with a school the same size located in an isolated fishing community on the south coast of the island.

A second reason for emphasizing "rural" was not so obvious to me when I began this journey. However, I am becoming convinced that it is the unique features and characteristics of the rural context that give primary definition and direction to my work. I do not think I can make a contribution to improving education in rural communities if I do not understand and appreciate the strengths and challenges associated with living in rural areas. Coming to this realization has both complicated and enriched the nature of my work. It would be simpler to ignore the context but to do so would make anything I do less valid.

I am still struggling to understand the rural context and its implications for education and schooling in Newfoundland and Labrador. Part of the challenge here is the sheer diversity of that context. In Canada rural communities are defined by default. Statistics Canada gives an urban designation to all communities with a population of 5,000 of more. All others by default are classified as rural. Newfoundland and Labrador follows this model as well. Thus, included in this general category are communities that differ quite substantially, and for research and development purposes, quite significantly, in population. Such a crude indicator gives no information about the degree of isolation or remoteness; not does it tell us anything about the infrastructure of the community or the services that might be available in the community or nearby. In terms of infrastructure one of the most important considerations is basic tele-communications connectivity.

Existing and emerging technologies are increasingly making the size and location of rural schools irrelevant to their capability of providing a broad range of course offerings. It is no longer valid to close a rural school because it cannot offer the kinds of courses available in larger schools. Hence one of the traditional perceived "problems" in rural schools now has a possible solution. However, many rural communities in this province do not have the necessary telephone lines to enable students and teachers to access the various services that are now available. Internet access is still problematic in many schools often the very ones which need it the most. There is little point in suggesting technological solutions for small rural schools if the technology assumes an infrastructure that does not exist.

I am becoming increasingly aware that the socioeconomic characteristics of rural Newfoundland and Labrador have to play a very prominent role in any investigation or discussion about educational provision and achievement. Our province is well known as the most economically depressed area of Canada. In many of our rural areas the depth of that economic depression is truly startling. Levels of unemployment exceed 70% in some instances. There are a significant number of families who are dependent on welfare and many, many others who fit the category of the working poor. In addition the educational levels of the rural adult population is significantly lower than the national average. When we consider what we know about the relationship of factors such as these and student achievement and participation in school, the rural context of education in Newfoundland and Labrador is truly unique. To plan a curriculum and to evaluate student and school performance without taking these and other rural factors into consideration (which is what is done all the time!) is to distort terrible the educational achievement of our rural educators. In terms of educational progress and human development many of our small rural schools emerge as some of best in the country when measured using a fair test.

Small schools may also benefit greatly from being situated in rural communities. Traditionally, rural parents and other members of the community have taken a great interest in their schools. There is much written about the special relationship that often exists between school and community in rural places. Unfortunately, this special bond between school and community is constantly under siege as government attempts to force more and more communities to give up their schools.

There is an emergent body of research data purporting to show that small schools have a positive effect on "at risk" children. The at risk factors focused on in these studies are those associated with socioeconomic factors. The conclusion of these studies is that with student populations in economically depressed regions, a small school may provide these students with their best chance of success. Given the current economic conditions in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, closing our small rural schools may be the single worst thing we could do in the name of reform. Instead of improving matters for rural students we may in fact be condemning them to failure.

The umbrella term, Rural Education, also allows me to include in my areas of interest Native Education. The Micmac, Innu, Inuit and Metis populations of this province go to school and receive their education in the rural areas of this province. These unique culture groups add to the diversity that defines and enriches the rural context.

I feel that I have only scratched the surface in my attempt to understand the contextual realities of rural schooling in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mythology, nostalgia, sentimentality, stereotypes, outdated notions, misinformation, lack of information, and urban indifference create barriers that impede the search for knowledge. One thing is crystal clear: to speak of rural Newfoundland and Labrador in generalities is to speak falsely. I have become very wary of anyone who attempts to make any general statement about rural Newfoundland or rural schools. A typical rural community simply doesn't exist.

The international field of rural education studies makes problematic all our traditional, i.e. urban, notions about education and schooling in rural communities. It suggests we need to re-think and re-evaluate whose interests are being served when centralized governments set out to improve rural schools. Historically, rural education reform has always assumed that improving rural schools meant making them more like urban schools. This has resulted in the closure and consolidation of small community schools and various attempts to find ways of delivering an urban curriculum to rural students. Today, however, there is growing realization that rural education reform must proceed from a very different paradigm. The uniqueness of the context, the particular cultural and economic aspirations of rural citizens and the views of rural people must be the starting point for change. Perhaps, most important is the view that rural education change and improvement must, in the first interest, serve the needs of rural communities and rural children. It is rural citizens who must be the prime decision makers as to what is best for their communities and their children. The role of the rural education studies should be to provide rural communities with the knowledge they need to make their own informed decisions about education and schooling.

Ultimately, we have to come back some fundamental questions: What is the purpose of education and schooling in rural communities? Whose interests are being served by current practices and provision? Should not the primary aim be the sustaining and developing of rural communities? Some would argue that the success of rural education is measured too often in terms of how many young people choose to leave their home communities and move to the cities and towns. Intended or not the outcome of education in rural areas has seen in many instances their de-population and eventual demise.

In the first part of this essay I have tried to trace the progress of my journey so far in becoming interested in rural education. I have tried to show that what started as idle curiosity has been transformed into a commitment to understanding and improving the provision of education for children in the rural areas of our province. In the second part I will suggest some future directions that might consider in terms of further developing rural education studies in the faculty. I will also suggest some resources and connections that that I have discovered over the past four years that may prove useful to others.

Centre for Studies in Rural Education

I think the time is right for the Faculty to establish a Centre for Studies in Rural Education. There are several such centres in the US and a few in Australia. There are none in Canada. Such a centre would be an important step forward for Newfoundland and Labrador. It would send a clear signal to the people of the province that the university recognizes the significant number of rural schools in the province and is committed to working on their behalf. Such a centre would provide a focus and meeting place for all those with an interest in pursuing research and development work in rural education studies. One very important role for such a centre could be to develop a data base of information about rural schools in this province which would be available to any faculty member or graduate student who wished to develop a research project in rural studies. Another function of such a centre would be the compilation of both local, national and international resources specifically related to rural education. Such sources would include both published materials and electronic links and resources. Establishing connections with rural education scholars and other rural research and development centres world wide would also be part of the proposed centre's agenda.

Newfoundland and Labrador is not unique in having a large percentage of rural schools. Other Canadian provinces and territories, many US states, many parts of the UK, especially Northern Scotland and Wales, as well as other places have similar challenges as we do. One role for the proposed centre would be to establish and maintain contacts with individual scholars and organizations in other places who have a special interest in rural education.

One such organization in North America is The National Rural Education Association (NREA). The NREA is the national organization in the United States for people interested and involved in rural education. Membership includes university teachers and researchers, rural teachers and administrators, and school board personnel and parents. This group has an annual conference and features a wide variety of presentations and forums dealing with a wide range of rural education issues. Although most of the participates are from the US, others come from Canada, Australia, and the UK. It is often claimed that small rural schools have more in common with similar schools in other contexts than they do with larger schools in their own province, state, or county . The presentations and discussions at the NREA conferences certainly confirm this. The NREA publishes one of the two main journals in rural education studies, The Rural Educator. (The Journal of Research in Rural Education, published by the University of Maine is the other.)

Last year the First National Rural Education Congress was held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Organized by the SELU, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, this was the first time that a national conference on rural education had been organized in Canada. Plans were made at this conference to create a national organization for those interested in rural education. Following the American model this organization will be open to everyone: university researchers, k-12 educators, school board personnel and parent groups and organizations. The second annual conference is scheduled again for Saskatoon in February 1997. At that time final plans will be made for organizing a national organization. Starting in 1998 the conference to be held in different parts of the country. I think it would be a good idea for that third conference to be held here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Having a Rural Education Centre in place would certainly facilitate the planning of such a conference. I have had preliminary discussions with the Minister of Education, Roger Grimes, the NLTA president Art Baggs, and Dean Piper of the Faculty of Education, MUN, about the possibility of Newfoundland and Labrador hosting this Rural Education Congress in 1998. All have ex pressed support for this idea.

A third group that a connection could be established with is the Small Schools Network. This is a national organization for "all those interested in small schools" and is run by John Davis of The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) in Toronto. This group publishes a regular newsletter (the current editor is Wynanne Downer of Corner Brook) and holds an annual conference. Their next conference is being held in June 1997 here in St. John's.

The Centre for Studies in Rural Education could function as a link and connector for rural educators in this province and organizations and groups such as these and others world wide. It could facilitate contacts, promote exchanges between teachers, administrators and researchers in Newfoundland and those in other parts of the world.

I would like the Faculty to consider establishing at the graduate level a program focus or specialism in Rural Education Studies. We have the potential in this province to develop a world class program in rural education. Many of our graduate students come to us with years of experience in small and rural schools. The context provides us with a ready made laboratory for extensive field work in all discipline areas from a small and rural school perspective. There is an opportunity here that m any others in similar contexts have developed to the advantage of the institution and the rural communities it serves. The most recent example I have come across is Northern College in Scotland. (Memorial University and Northern College recently signed a memorandum of agreement). Iain Maclean, the college's Director of Development, recently visited this province. One of the reasons he was here was to recruit teachers from Newfoundland and Labrador for the graduate program in rural studies offered by Northern College. Mr. Maclean informed me that Northern Scotland is very similar to Newfoundland in the number of small rural schools. Northern College has developed their rural program with these schools in mind but also with a view to marketing these programs to rural educators world wide.

The very least we should do is to continue to develop new courses that address rural issues and to include these in existing graduate and undergraduate programs. We should also continue to address the special circumstances created by small and rural schools in all existing courses at both graduate and undergraduate levels. We need to be preparing our teachers and educational leaders for the actual context in which many of them will work.

Our undergraduates will, in many instances, have their first teaching experience in a small rural school. In such situations they will have to teach a large number of courses, frequently in learning areas that were not part of their degree programs. Invariably they will have to teach more than one grade level in the same classroom at the same time. In small rural schools, the principal is also a full time teacher. This places very challenging demands on such an individual who must find the time to do two full time jobs in the time allotted for one. Distance learning is a integral part of many rural high-schools and provides access to programing that would be otherwise unavailable to students. However, the presence of distance learning in a school often changes everything from bus schedules to teaching assignments. This creates special organizational and planing demands for principals. The recruitment and especially the retention of teachers in rural areas is another topic that has to approached somewhat differently if we are preparing educational leaders for rural districts. We need to focus more attention at both the graduate and undergraduate levels on the unique characteristics and demands of the rural context per se. For many students going to a small rural community is a definite cultural shock.

At the present time the Faculty offers a number of courses through a variety of distance learning formats. This enables individuals who live in rural areas of the province to take courses without having to come to St. John's. I think we should continue to develop and offer programs and courses through distance learning. However, I have a number of reservations about this approach to education.

In my view, distance learning is, as the telephone commercial says, the "next best thing to being there." For me, teaching at a distance will never take the place of working with students in person on campus. I have been a teacher for twenty-seven years. For twenty-six of those years my students and I shared an actual space. We could see and hear each other in real time. Teaching at a distance doesn't allow for that. I miss meeting with the students as a group once or twice a week in a classroom setting. I find it very strange interacting with people whom I may never see in person. I miss not being able to see the students' reactions to what I am saying in their eyes, their smiles, their frowns, their looks of puzzlement or interest. There can be no silent or subtle sharing of an understanding, no non verbal indications of agreement. Perhaps my preferred teaching style does not lend itself very well to distance teaching. At the beginning of the term I like to establish a sense of community in the class by having people interact together and share their experiences. I like joining my students for a cup of coffee at break time. I especially like having them drop by for an in-person chat about their research papers or points of interest raised in the class lectures or discussions. And I remain unconvinced that accessing a library on-line is equal to visiting a library in person and browsing around the periodical shelves and book stacks. Many of the most interesting items I have found in libraries over the years I have discovered when something other than what I was looking for caught my eye. And a key board and a terminal will never take the place of a live librarian.

In the view rural students, being able to take courses at a distance is crucial. Before distance learning, students had to travel to St. John's to take a course. For rural residents this mean a much greater investment in time and money compared to students who lived in town or close enough to drive to commute. They were clearly discriminated against because of where they lived. Students who learn at a distance are aware of the differences I described above. However, in their view, what they lose is more than compensated for in what they gain.

Given the point of view of the students, I think we should continue to develop and offer distance courses. Also, I think we should be constantly monitoring and evaluating our delivery formats to ensure that we are offering the highest quality distance learning experiences to our students.

One of the key issues for me is to ensure that distance learning not become a form of "learning in isolation" for the student with little or no direct human contact. A very important element in the distance course I teach is the biweekly teleconferences that I requested be one of the delivery modes I would be using. Although my students and I are all in our separate places at various points around the island and Labrador, we do manage to create a living verbal community that provides some sense of human contact. At least we can hear each other's voice and this helps us to imagine the rest. Although we also communicate by E-mail and have a list server, we all agree that the live teleconference is a very important dimension to our course.

Scheduling some in-person gatherings for students and instructors is another way of humanizing distance learning for the participants. There is a distance graduate program in education currently being offered by another university in the Atlantic Region taking this approach. Teachers from around the province, enrolled in this program meet at regular intervals in Gander with their instructors. These meetings are a very important component of this program for the participants.

A second important issue is the creation of barriers that exclude people in rural communities from taking distance courses. There is little point, it seems to me, to create distance programs and courses and then erect technical barriers that exclude people who may not have access to the hardware, soft ware, or infrastructure, or do not have the expertise required to participate. Distance learning eliminates the barrier of physical location in terms of access to education. It should not create a whole new set of barriers in terms of technical demands. This is where knowledge of context is important. Knowing whom you are attempting to help, where they are located and what their capabilities are must be the basis of distance programs if we are to meet the needs of our rural teachers. Otherwise we may end up excluding those who are in most need of our help.

Distance learning should be available through our faculty in a variety of formats providing access to those with the most up to date machines and technical skills and to those seeking to learn in more traditional distance formats. Distance learning should supplement and complement our campus based programs, but it should not in any way replace them.

Research and scholarly writing on rural education in Newfoundland and Labrador has been a tradition with the Faculty and other educators in the province. Earlier I have referred to the work of Dr. Frank Riggs. Previous to this important work was done by Ishmael Baksh and Amarjit Singh in 1977 (Society, Culture and Schooling), 1979 (The Teacher in the Newfoundland Community) and 1980 (Teachers' Perceptions of Teaching). A record of some of the other significant work that contributes to our understanding of rural education in Newfoundland can be found in back issues of the Morning Watch (see especially Vol.1, no.3) and Society and Education in Newfoundland Volume I & II (edited by A. Singh & I. Baksh). The former NTA Journal and the current NLTA Prism also contain important contributions to our research base. "Dealing with individual differences in reading in a one-room school" by Lary Sipe and published in the Summer edition of NTA Journal in 1974 is a good example of rural educators in the field attempting to share their experiences with colleagues.

A number of teachers in the province have completed Masters' Theses which focused on rural issues. Among those are: E. Smith, who described a whole language approach to literacy in a four/five multi-grade classroom; L. Barr-Bailet, who examined the provision for science education in small rural schools, C. Vincent who focused on the effects on rural students when they make the transition from attending a small school in their community to being bused to a larger school in a distant community. J. Howard investigated a sample of small schools which went against the norm and performed on standardized tests at or above the provincial average. P. Ryan inquired into the capabilities of teachers in small rural primary schools to deliver a new French program that assumes a high level of oral competency on the part of the teacher.

In addition there other graduate students who have also chosen rural and small schools issues as their focus and are at different stages in their work on thesis, projects and paper portfolios. Most recently Dr. Jean Brown has published an article entitled "Grandy's River Collegiate: Can a Rural School Survive in an Urban Landscape?" in the Alberta Journal of Education. The newest member of the Faculty, Dr. Ken Stevens, the new Chair of Tele-Learning, brings with him a wealth of experience in rural education research and development.

There are strong traditions and current expertise here for us to build on. There is a steady stream of graduate students coming into the faculty who bring with them an interest and expertise in, and a commitment to, rural and small schools. By combining our efforts and interests we could create within this Faculty a centre of excellence in rural education studies.

The title of this essay is "Why Rural Education?" I have attempted to provide a very personal answer to this question. First I described how I became involved in rural schools and how that initial inquiry has been transformed into a much broader set of interests and a deep commitment to improving educational provision in rural areas. In the second part I shared some ideas for the future development of rural education studies in the Faculty.

To be involved in rural education is very challenging, rewarding and frustrating. This is a particularly difficult time for the rural areas of the province. The rural areas have always endured tough economic conditions and have somehow survived. The current period, however, is one of extreme crisis. The cod moratorium has threatened the continued existence of many rural communities. Even in those areas not directly affected by the moratorium unemployment is at all time high. Many people have left their home communities. The decline in population and school enrolment is dramatic in many areas. This coupled with an ongoing erosion of rural services through an endless round of cutbacks and layoffs have created grave concerns and doubts among the people about their futures. There is a sense of unease as people wait and wonder what is to happen next. There is also a conviction among many that the government's hidden (perhaps not so hidden) agenda is another round of resettlement. To have the task of providing education to the children of rural Newfoundland at such a time in such a state is very challenging. I have been following this developing situation closely with a particular interest in how this general condition is affecting the schools. I continue to admire and be impressed with our rural educators who struggle on a daily basis to provide quality learning experiences in communities under siege. One thing is very clear. We ignore this situation and its impact on education and schooling in this province at our peril.

This paper examines briefly the sociopolitical and philosophical bases of career guidance. It identifies its pragmatic roots in a political era that has passed and is characterized by discrete, decontextualized activities aimed broadly at fostering development. I maintain that specific elements of career guidance erroneously assumes a transcendent view of self that is knowable through objective means. This dominant discourse of career guidance is prescriptive and, it is argued, only one among many possible discourses of the self. While specific alternatives are not proffered, the constructivist view is highlighted as one way of furthering the conversation about career guidance, though it too engages in a self-contradictory language game characteristic of the epistemological world-view.

Systematic career guidance, and more recent views labelled "constructivist" approaches (Peavy, 1994), certainly do not comprise the final vocabulary on the topic. This paper examines the nature and place of career guidance within the culture of education. It does not offer alternatives; rather it serves as an expression of "curiosity about possible alternatives" (Rorty, 1989). Engaging in an alternative discourse entails a sort of leveling of the dominant systematic approach. Specifically, the incommensurability of systematic career guidance with the cultural psychology perspective will be proposed by focusing on two points:

1. Career guidance continues largely to ignore its sociopolitical and cultural roots.

2. The philosophical basis for career guidance assumes the existence of a core, unified self capable of self-knowledge.

The dominant discourse of career guidance in Canada may be described as a "systematic" view. It proceeds along three broad strategies of engagement with students: (1) Providing students with information, as opposed to stimulating active searching; (2) Utilizing tests as objective measures of student abilities and aspirations; (3) Assuming the student as a discontinuous, discrete knower of self. It is characterized by coordinated programs that commence with elementary school-aged children and continue throughout the educational lifetime of the individual. This planned approach is outcome based, relying on clearly stated objectives and evaluative procedures. Systematic, or comprehensive, approaches "endeavour to specify clearly the results sought and the specific methods by which such results will be obtained" (Herr & Cramer, 1996, p. 46). It should be noted that not all school career guidance is conceived as a systematic approach. And there are specific elements of career guidance that do not or cannot adhere to programming.

The philosophical traditions underlying the systematic approach to career guidance illustrate a view of humankind that asserts the existence of a core self, an essence, and implies the possibility that we can be knowers of the truth about ourselves and the world by engaging in structured and objective inquiry based on epistemologically-centred philosophy and positivist traditions. It also possesses an ethic: it proposes a moral obligation to engage in guidance activities since gaining self-knowledge will allow us to be better citizens.

It would be tempting merely to describe this view as paternalistic, but this would inadequately reflect the deeper issue inherent in such a view. A basic assumption is that there is a knowable human essence, a self that exists and that can be identified in its objective core. Further, individuals can achieve self-knowledge with the assistance of another who possesses the necessary tools for uncovering this truth about the self and the world. The view also ignores the significant cultural bias that links self-knowledge with happiness and that ignores the plight of millions of children in the non-Western world who have more pressing concerns such as food, shelter, basic human rights, and a clean environment (See Apple, 1996).

Contemporary conceptualizations of career guidance appear to be linked to the economic and political decisions taken by the American government in response to the threat posed by the then Soviet Union, i.e. the space race, the arms race, and the perceived decline in American superiority in maths and science (Shertzer & Stone, 1981; Vanzandt & Hayslip, 1994; Stone & Bradley, 1994). Historical accounts of the American guidance movement have noted earlier important events in its chronology. However, formal funding, widespread training, and articulated programs of career guidance counselling proliferated in the U.S. following the events culminating in the Cold War. Of course, the appeal to democratic virtues is linked to modernist notions that value individualism, empiricism, and competition. As Davis (1996) notes, "the desire for progress lies at the core of all modern educational philosophies" (p. 141).

While progress itself is not inherently a bad thing, contextualizing career guidance within an ideological drive toward political hegemony and cultural dominance, where the parameters constituting progress are ill-defined and unpredictable, casts it in the guise of social Darwinism. Notwithstanding the recent geo-political changes that preempt such a system, the questionable effectiveness of career guidance programs demands critical inquiry into the "privileged sets of descriptions" (Rorty, 1996) employed by contemporary guidance counsellors. For example, how does career guidance counselling confront the inequities apparent between the rich and the poor in Western democracies? It is ironic that a popular textbook on the topic of career guidance documents the need for more systematic career guidance services based on the results of surveys conducted by business organizations citing the "growing problem of alienated, disadvantaged, disconnected, and other at-risk youth" (Herr & Cramer, 1996, p. 414). Having institutionalized a system that perpetuates the uneven distribution of wealth, the architects of systematic guidance counselling criticize the results and call for more of the same. In reality, this succeeds only to reproduce the cultural status quo (Bruner, 1996).

Vanzandt and Hayslip (1994, p. 3), in a textbook focusing on programmatic elements of guidance counselling, pose a series of questions to encourage the counsellor to think about their own philosophy of guidance: "Why are teachers so reluctant to let counsellors in their classrooms? Why don't administrators provide more support to guidance programs? Why are guidance positions some of the first to be cut when there is a budget crisis?" Similarly, another text by Stone and Bradley (1994) includes a section at the beginning of the book that "could help schools articulate why a guidance counsellor is needed". Obviously, we live in times where every profession is susceptible to marginalization through economics, but the guidance profession seems particularly prone to self-scrutiny and repeated public justifications of its continued existence. Perhaps this sense of vulnerability and angst results from the awareness that career guidance counselling clearly needs students, but students do not of necessity require career guidance. Guidance may be construed as a "privileged representation of essences", invoking Rorty's (1979) terminology to suggest the presupposition of what is good for students.

A fundamental contradiction is apparent between the philosphical traditions of systematic guidance counselling and its pragmatic ties to the educational system. The freedom and dignity of the individual that is the centrepiece of the principles of systematic guidance, is located within a pedagogy that continues to foster dependence and decontextualized learning. Shertzer and Stone (1981) reflect this commonplace belief held by the practitioners of systematic guidance when they suggest that, "Guidance is concerned primarily and systematically with the personal development of the individual". The phrase "facilitating development" is ubiquitous amongst statements of philosophical belief for school guidance programs, yet development (moral, cognitve, social) occurs without the aid of facilitation. More importantly, it assumes knowledge of some universal principles to aid the development of students regardless of culture, socioeconomics, family background, or personal readiness. Using standardized assessments, surveys, and aptitude tests to pronounce that student X is socially isolated, vocationally immature, and underachieving might sound like objective grounds for intervention. However, it is presumptuous to assume that student X perceives the situation in this light, and self-deceiving to believe that such a program can provide the proper path for student X's development. Systematic guidance programming is one from amongst many vocabularies that can describe and assist the career development of student X. It presents student X with the description of herself when there is a multiplicity of potential descriptors. It seems more appropriate for guidance counselling to foster the choosing of these alternative vocabularies of being.

The self is conceived as a cohering unity in the systematic approach to guidance counselling. Few textbooks on guidance fail to declare its focus on strategies, activities, and interventions aiding the development of the individual. Typically, career guidance programs concern themselves with the broad concept of identity and interventions that will assist the work identity of students. The theoretical bases for identity development generally conceive of the self as internally localized and knowable through objective means. Structured activities are devised that will lead to a changed, more "developed" self. The concept of the self constitutes a significant body of work in disparate fields of academic endeavour, with most contemporary conceptualizations being incommensurate with systematic career guidance.

Rorty (1979, 1989) proposes that a conscious departure from the established norm of systematic philosophy be undertaken. Departing from traditional views of self is accomplished through the creation of new metaphors of the self, adopting another language from the multitude of possible languages used to describe the world. Philosophers in Rorty's tradition do not propose to have found any objective truth, or to offer any accurate representations of how the world is. It is a tricky task since it involves having "to decry the very notion of having a view, while avoiding having a view about having a view" (Rorty, 1979, p. 371). This vision concerning what philosophy should attend to may be applied to the entire field of career guidance. As it is currently conceived, career guidance attempts to present a permanent framework for the development of the student, a framework that relies upon a world of myriad aptitude, achievement, and interest tests that presume to mirror the nature of the student and provide a point of departure for further career exploration. Further, it ignores the individual student as the organizer of personal meaning by providing both the path for stimulating career awareness and the information in a manner that is decontextualized and fosters passivity. To take a less critical view of systematic guidance would be to suggest that it is merely the best approach, the most effective vocabulary that we have of aiding the developing career identity of students. Unfortunately, the pragmatics of the approach have taken on a life of their own and have become intertwined with notions of personal freedom. To engage in career guidance activities is seen as a liberating practice, as contributing to the optimal development of the self. But the self can more accurately be seen as a mirroring of language. The self is a "tissue of contingencies" (Rorty, 1989), and as such, cannot be objectively known through ennunciating a set of "facts" that may be gleaned at any particular moment in time. Yet, this is precisely what the vocabulary of the career guidance program proposes: to present the student with an objective portrayal of herself and prescribe the route to change via selected activities. This amounts to no more than a shot in dark.

Constructivist notions of career counselling advanced by Peavey (1993) attempt to advance another way of approaching career counselling, but even these speculations are offered by invoking the tone of a privileged set of descriptions. There is a sense that this discourse of systematic guidance has already acquired privileged status, and one must ask, have we learned anything, or are we still making the same mistakes? Peavey, unintentionally I believe, has engaged in a self-contradictory language game. To pose such a transformation of approaches is to invoke another theory of knowledge about the nature of reality, but there is nothing to validate this particular vocabulary. One might speculate on the course of this theory by simply referring to Bruner's (1996) observation that, "Eventually new genres become old banalities" (p. 139). However, Peavy should be commended for his attempt to continue the conversation, to break with traditional conceptualizations and dare to challenge the dominant discourse. As he suggests, "distinctions between different kinds of career counselling are becoming more artificial. Such distinctions are more a function of bureaucratic turf than of a realistic knowledge of client need and counselling process" (Peavey, 1993, p. 136). It is worthy to note that his views occupy a scant three columns in a 724-page textbook (Herr & Cramer, 1996) that is widely regarded as the standard in the field of career guidance counselling.

As indicated near the start of this paper, it is not the intention of the author to articulate an alternative view of systematic career guidance. Rather, its goal is to explore the world of possibility by examining the origins of contemporary career guidance in the traditional epistemological view, and urge a continuation of the dialogue that is occurring across disciplines concerning the nature of the self. The ensuing conversation should not be construed as a denigration of worthy efforts by career guidance counsellors. It is, however, an attempt to spark a questioning of the old paradigms. There should not be any danger in such questioning, for as Rorty contends, "Professions can survive the paradigms which gave them birth" (Rorty, 1979, p. 393). Without resorting to self-contradictory language games myself, I propose that Freud's suggestion (cited in Rorty, 1989), that we let chance be "worthy of determining our fate", is as rational an approach as any.

Apple, M.W. (1996). Remembering capital: On the connections between french fries and education. JCT, 11, 113-128.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Davis, B. (1996). Teaching mathematics: Towards a sound alternative. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.

Frosh, S. (1991). Psychoanalysis, psychosis, and postmodernism. Human Relations, 44, 93-104.

Herr, E.L. & Cramer, S.H. (1996). Career guidance and counselling through the lifespan. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Peavy, R.V. (1993). Envisioning the future: Worklife and counselling. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 27, 123- 139.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shertzer, B. & Stone, S.C. (1981). Fundamentals of guidance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Stone, L.A. & Bradley, F.O. (1994). Foundations of elementary and middle school counseling. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Vanzandt, C.E. & Hayslip, J.B. (1994). Your comprehensive school guidance and counseling program. White Plains, NY: Longman.

I wish to begin by a brief consideration of the distinctions between the different usages of the word "motive." When we speak of someone being motivated or not being motivated, we are referring to some qualities of the person's behaviours directed towards achieving some end. When we describe someone as being motivated to learn, we are making a judgement based upon observation of that person's behaviours: things they say, things they do, and the quality of the work they produce. In the context of schooling, a person motivated to learn may be characterized, in part, as someone who is willing to engage in the task (eagerness), will persist at a task, and is self-initiating and self-directing. Such a person demonstrates a commitment to learning by focussing on learning new skills, acquiring more knowledge, improving competency, understanding and mastering the work. On the other hand, someone who is not motivated to learn may refuse to do the assigned work or may do the minimum work necessary. Tha t student may choose to do only the easiest work, perform the work in the easiest way possible, and avoid any unnecessary work. The student may shy away from challenging problems or situations which may tax his or her abilities. Such a person may be less interested in learning than pursuing other ends.

In contemporary cognitive psychology, metacognition has emerged as a dominant construct characteristic of the type of motivated person described above. Good learners are metacognitive, poor learners are not. Good learners are mentally active, poor learners are not. It is the quality of this mental activity that determines immediate and future performance. By metacognition, we mean the orchestration and utilization of mental resources to address the task at hand. When a student approaches a task, the student must identify the type of task and know what the task requires. The student must also know about ways to complete the task, or strategies. The student must know what strategy might work and what strategy might not work. Yet, the learner must also regulate thinking while performing the task. The learner needs to make plans, monitor strategy use, and evaluate performance on the task. In other words, the learner must be mentally active. The student needs to be aware of his/her thinking, in control of his/her thinking, and be willing to modify his/her thinking.

The development and utilization of this mental activity is closely connected to motivation to learn. Not only does this mental activity describe a person motivated to learn, the motivational disposition of the learner may sustain and enhance this mental activity. A student who is motivated to learn is a student who will be mentally active. Because the students is mentally active, utilizing components of the metacognitive system, he or she is more likely to achieve success through his or her efforts. Having achieved success through effort enhances the development of the metacognitive system and sustains motivation to learn. This motivation will increase the likelihood that the student will put forth the necessary mental effort enabling the student to achieve future success. Thus motivation to learn, metacognition, and success become interrelated in a way that promotes the development of the child.

On the other hand, a student who is not motivated to learn will not engage in the mental activity necessary to achieve success. Consequently, he or she may fail. In failing, the student does not acquire the metacognitive knowledge and skills needed for future learning. Motivation may continue to be low, or pushed lower. The student eventually falls into a pattern of failure which may become debilitating. Understanding motives is important to improving academic performance.

When we speak of a person as having a motive, we refer to the reason a person engages in some behaviour, such as an act or speech. This reason may be external to the person such that the person is compelled to engage in the behaviour. Such a view is not uncommon and was a powerful force in early psychology. Early attempts at formulating laws of learning and behaviour tried to explain behaviour in terms of reinforcements and punishments. A person who was rewarded for engaging in some behaviour ought to be likely to engage in similar behaviours in similar circumstances. Such thinking underlies the current and prevalent practice of businesses offering token points for utilizing their services which may be accumulated and exchanged for some tangible merchandise. This particular school of thought views human behaviour as contingent upon reinforcement of responses to certain antecedent conditions. Something happens; we respond; there is a consequence to our response which determines whether or not our future responses will be similar to our initial response. Behaviour is conditioned, and the motive for our behaviour is conditioned -- we have learned to respond in a certain way in a certain situation.

Other schools of thought have suggested that the reasons for our behaviour, our motives, are internal -- they originate within us. Some view motives as arising from drive reduction, need satisfaction, or thoughts and beliefs. The drive reduction and the needs satisfaction views suggest that humans have drives that must be reduced or needs that must be satisfied. Our behaviour is subsequently directed towards reducing the drive or satisfying the need. For example, psychologists might postulate adults have a sex-drive or a need for sex, and behaviour is subsequently directed towards engaging in sexual activity to reduce that drive or satisfy the need. Such is the thinking underlying the suggestion of inducing learning behaviours in students by using novelty or tricks to stimulate interest or curiosity. The intent is to create a need to learn which will be satisfied by doing the assigned work. However, the cognitive school of psychology has suggested that the reasons for behaviours are more profound and arise from beliefs held by the person and it is this particular view I wish to expound.

Two constructs have emerged as being paramount in the cognitive view of motivation. The first construct is self-assuredness, the second is agency. To understand the role of self-assuredness, it is important to understand the constructs of self-efficacy and self-worth. Self-efficacy refers to a person's belief that he or she is capable of performing a task, a perception of competency. It is a confidence judgement about being able to what is being asked. The research in self-efficacy theory has resulted in some very straightforward claims. Students who believe themselves to be capable are more likely to be motivated; those who believe themselves incapable will not be motivated. This explanation is readily apparent when we witness a child exclaim "I can do that!" and readily attack the task at hand, or when we witness a child proclaim "I can't do that" and refuse to attempt the task.

Yet, we must also admit that this explanation is unsatisfactory on two accounts. First, while it may seem sensible enough to say that students who judge perceive themselves incapable will not be motivated to learn, it is not necessarily the case that students who are not motivated to learn see themselves as incapable. This point is evidenced by the bright but bored underachiever who does the minimum to get by. Such a student may feel capable but attaches no value to effort beyond the minimum. Second, we may have witnessed children proclaim "I can't do that" but proceed to attempt the problem anyway. A child may state that they do not know how to do something but that perception of incapability may not necessarily hinder that child.

However, if we view motivation as an attempt to protect self-worth then we can provide a more powerful explanation than self-efficacy theory. Covington has suggested that motivation may be explained as an attempt to protect self-worth. Each person has a need to believe that he or she is worthy and valued. According to Covington, many people believe that self-worth is inherently tied to one's ability to perform. Thus, who you are and your value as a person becomes inherently connected to one's ability to do something well.

If you will allow me to digress for a moment, a story will clarify what Covington is trying to point out. I happened to see a television interview of figure skater Kurt Browning on a CBC show called Champions. In this interview, Kurt was recollecting the events of the 1993 World Championships and 1992 Olympics. He was expected to win a gold medal at both events but during his performance at each event, he fell after attempting a difficult jump. At the end of one of the performances he came off of the ice crying and made the remark that this must be what it feels like to lose a child. He received many faxes and telegrams of support from fans, but one of the letters he received was from Barbara Underhill who had lost a child. She told him this is not what it feels like to lose a child. It was just a competition. In the interview, Kurt stated that when he read that, he realized that figure skating is not who he is, it is just something he does. Unfortunately, many people believe that who they are, their worth and dignity as people, is intimately connected to their ability to perform.

According to self-worth theory, self-worth is intimately connected with performance for many students and doing well is important to one's self of worth and dignity. Yet, if students cannot perform well, they seek ways to make it appear as though they could have succeeded. In other words, no matter what else occurs, do not look incompetent. Consequently, if students perceive themselves incapable of performing well, they become motivated to protect perceptions of competency, for if they can convince themselves and others they could do well they will maintain some sense of worth or dignity.

For example, imagine a student who has been given a test to complete. The student looks at the answers and realizes that this is a hard test. Instead of answering the questions, the student fools around and fails the test. The teacher admonishes the student by saying that with some effort the student could have passed. This is exactly what the student wanted, because the student and the teacher have blamed the failure on lack of effort, leaving the student's perception of competency and self-worth unthreatened (for now).

In summary, self-worth theory posits that if a student believes that self-worth is conditional upon performance, and performance is not satisfactory such that perceptions of competency may become threatened, that student will behave in such a manner as to protect perceptions of competency and self-worth. This is consistent with self-efficacy theory, for if the student believes himself or herself to be capable, then he or she will be motivated to do the work. If the student does not believe that a satisfactory performance is possible, the student will not be motivated to do the work. Covington describes such students as failure avoidant.

However, if the student does not believe that self-worth is conditional upon performance or that ability is the source of performance, competency perceptions may not influence motivation for a task. These students seek to learn, and increase competency. Failure, for such a person, does not necessarily imply incompetency or lead to a lower sense of self-worth. Failure is interpreted as meaning that one lacks some skill or knowledge needed for the task which can be acquired. Thus, even though initial confidence is low, a student may still be motivated to perform a task because he or she can learn from doing it. More importantly, the student, despite low competency perceptions, may engage in a task because the student sees himself or herself as a causal agent. Such a student believes that with effort and knowledge success is attainable.

Agency has emerged as a second important construct in contemporary motivational theory. The basic premise of agency as a motivating force is that people who see themselves as agents are more likely to be motivated than people who are passive. By agency, I refer to a sense of control and autonomy. Students who believe that their success lies within their control attribute their success to internal, controllable factors (e.g., effort or strategy use). These are students who will feel proud, satisfied, and competent. These students recognize that it was through their own efforts they succeeded, they feel good about themselves and have attained a measure of self-worth. Consequently, these students are more likely to choose to work on harder tasks, persist in the face of difficulty, and produce work that is of good quality. These students will be self-regulating and self-determining. Such behaviours should lead to more success which should result in enhanced feelings about self.

Some students do not see themselves as agents of success. These students will attribute success to internal, uncontrollable factors (specifically ability) or to external factors (e.g., luck, teacher's help). Consequently, they do not feel proud or satisfied with the work they do. These students tend to be less motivated. They prefer to work on less-challenging tasks and do not persist in the face of difficulty, produce work that is of lesser quality, and are prone to maladaptive or dysfunctional behaviours.

Of particular importance is the attributional pattern in which success is attributed to external factors (e.g., luck) but failure is attributed to internal, uncontrollable factors (especially inability). Such a pattern is characteristic of students who are helpless. If they fail, they blame themselves; if they succeed, they do not give themselves credit. The result of this pattern of thinking is a student who does not see himself/herself as an agent and feels very little control over his/her learning. He/she does not feel proud or satisfied and his/her sense of self-worth disappears. Consequently little learning occurs and the metacognitive development of the learner suffers.

Yet agency is not just a matter of believing that one is in control. Agency is an essential part of the human condition that stems from an innate human desire to behave in an autonomous manner. That is, people seek to be self-determining and behaviours are directed towards becoming autonomous or maintaining autonomy. Students who believe themselves to be acting in a self-directing manner will be more motivated -- they will be self-regulating, take greater interest in their work, experience more positive emotions about their work, and develop deeper conceptual understanding of the content. If students perceive that they are being coerced, or if their sense of autonomy is threatened motivation to learn will decrease as other motives arise (such as please the teacher or not fail the test).

Motivation, being motivated, is closely connected to the formation of the self. Students who are motivated are in the process of becoming aware of themselves and have a strong sense of self. They are self-assured and have a sense of agency or autonomy; they are motivated to learn and their behaviours are self-enhancing. If this sense of self becomes jeopardized or threatened, or if students lose a sense of self, then their behaviour becomes dysfunctional. They begin to engage in behaviours which are self-protective or self-destructive.

A sense of self-assuredness and agency develop, not from curriculum innovations or educational reforms, but from human interactions. Students come to feel good about themselves and come to develop a sense of agency through interactions with teachers and parents who are perceived to be caring, respectful, and striving to promote feelings of competency and agency.

The relationship between self-assurance and motivated behaviours has two important implications. The first implication concerns the messages we send to students about the opportunities for success and the value of success. What opportunities do we provide to students so that they can meet success with effort? Often the rewards that are offered to students are distributed such that only a few can share in the rewards and achieve success. Grade distributions are arbitrarily constructed such that only a few can achieve A's within a class. Special privileges are often allocated to those who finish fastest or have the most correct, cutting of most students from a chance to share in those privileges. Consequently the opportunity to achieve success is a remote possibility for some students.

Further, if performance and self-worth are as closely connected as Covington suggests, are we providing opportunities for students to find things that they are good at (such as the arts, trades, academics), and thus obtain some measure of self-worth? Do students have an opportunity to display their various skills or are all assessments written format? Such considerations are important because there are certain trends that present the real possibility of cutting students off from sources of self-worth through displays of competency. For example, many students with reading disabilities have very good spatial skills and are good artists or musicians. While they may not read or write very well, they can draw or perform. If the only opportunities these students have to express their knowledge is in written form, they may not do very well and self-worth may suffer. However, if they can express their knowledge in other forms (through art or music, for example), they may come to see themselves as competent, be seen as competent by their peers, and thus attain some measure of self-worth.

Yet we must also consider the types of programmes that are being offered and being cut through economic downsizing. If programmes in the arts, music, the humanities, and physical education are eliminated, and math, science, and technology become valued as the programmes to which resources should be allocated, many students will be cut off from sources of self-worth. A large number of students do not see themselves capable in math or technology. Yet if math and technology are the paths students are pressured into because of scarcity of resources and economic priorities, many students will be cut off from a major source of self-worth.

As an example, I watched a documentary about a school in ØWestern Canada which implemented a new pass/fail system in math and science in which the passing grade was raised to 80%. From a self-worth perspective, students who were achieving at 75% may be able to raise their performance to 80%. But students who were performing at the 60% level may see the new pass level as unattainable. If so, they would perceive themselves as having little chance of success; self-worth would be threatened and motivation to learn would disappear.

Yet, the most important implication of self-worth theory pertains to the formation of the performance-worth link itself. The belief that worth comes from performance creates a conditional sense of worth. I am worthy as long as I am good at something. But is it possible to unconditionally accept someone? Can we say to our students that you are a good person, you are important to us, we love you even though you may not be getting A's? What messages are being sent by teachers and parents about the worth and dignity of the person? You are valued only if you do well?

The agency-motivated behaviour relationship has important implications for teaching, specifically the types of messages we send and the opportunities we offer students for making meaningful decisions. Psychological research has pointed out that students who are motivated to learn are students who see themselves as agents. Students who are not motivated to learn are students who make external or uncontrollable attributions. What messages do we send about the causes of success and failure? Does our language and do our practices leave students with the belief that ability is the cause of success or failure? Or do we teach them the importance of strategy and effort in success and failure?

Offering opport unities for students to be autonomous is critical for the development of self-determination and self-regulation. But do we provide students with the opportunities to make meaningful decisions in their learning? Do students have a role in decision-making matters with in the school? Could they be given opportunities to make decisions about what they might learn, how they might learn it, what tasks they might accomplish, or how they might be evaluated? Are students given an opportunity for making meaningful decisions?

Motivation to learn is strongly related to self-assuredness and agency. Students who are sure of themselves and have a sense of agency are students who will be motivated to learn. But this sense of self and agency is developed through interpersonal relationships. Parents and teachers who are seen as caring and supportive will help students develop a strong sense of self. Parents and teachers who are seen as uncaring, manipulative, or punitive will stunt the growth of the sense of self within the student. For example, the inappropriate use of reward systems can lead to a decrease in motivation to learn by decreasing students' sense of agency. Students may begin to form external attribution patterns and feel a loss of autonomy. Classrooms which get students to think about how they learn and solve problems, create meaning in the work for students, give students opportunities to make decisions, and place emphasis on effort and strategy use tend to be classrooms in which students are motivated to learn.

Ames, C. (1993). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Boggiano, A. & Katz, P. (1991). Maladaptive achievement patterns in students: The role of teachers' controlling strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 35-51.

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., and Pressley, M. (1990). ' Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of meta-cognition, attributions, and self-esteem', In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hills dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., and Pressley, M. (1990). ' Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of meta-cognition, attributions, and self-esteem', In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hills dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., and Pressley, M. (1990). ' Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of meta-cognition, attributions, and self-esteem', In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hills dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, A. & Palincsar, A. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.

Brown, A. and Palincsar, A. (1982). 'Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training', Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.

Covington, M. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 85, 5-20.

Covington, M. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 85, 5-20.

Deci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., & Ryan, R. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346.

Dweck, C. (1986). Motivation processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Dweck, C. (1986). Motivation processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Marshall, H. (1987). The motivational strategies of three fifth grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 135-150.

Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (1987). Explanations of reading comprehension: Schema theory and critical thinking theory. Teacher's College Record, 89, 281-306.

Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (1987). Explanations of reading comprehension: Schema theory and critical thinking theory. Teacher's College Record, 89, 281-306.

Palincsar, A. (1986). Metacognitive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 53, 118-124.

Seifert, T.L. (1997). Academic goals and emotions: Results of a structural equation model and a cluster analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

One of the more interesting issues to consider in schooling is that of motivation. Teachers often lament about students' lack of motivation. Psychology has been interested in motivation for some time, and many theories have been developed as a means of trying to explain and enhance motivation. However, these theories seldom seem to find their way into classroom practice in an explicit way. Good teachers, though, seem to have an intuition about students' motivation that is consistent with these theories. The following article shows how one teacher has struggled with implications of the ideas from psychology in her classroom.

Timothy L. Seifert

In reflecting on an eleven year teaching career I have tried to come to terms with one question that everyone asks: How do you motivate your students? Most of the time I laugh it off and say, "I have no idea". However, I have come to realize that I do know how I motivate my students. I do not motivate them: they motivate themselves. What I do is give them the kind of classroom environment that fosters their motivation. Therefore, to answer the question "How do you motivate students", I have to analyze my teaching strategies, classroom environment, instructional strategies, and goals as well as my students' self-efficacy/self-worth, cognitive strategies, evaluation processes, attributions, and their interpretation of belongingness in my classroom.

There are a variety of ways to accomplish this mammoth task: (1) understand the interaction of students and their interactions with others; (2) interpret the perceptions of students; i.e. their perceptions of teaching and other students; (3) develop personal goals for a classroom and allow the students the same right; (4) develop a form of evaluation for all the stakeholders, and (5) encourage students to develop a sense of self-esteem and worth, a love for learning and the experience of new challenges, and a greater understanding of how they as individuals add to the classroom environment. In order to attain this very important task teachers also need to focus on their own emotions and those of their students. We are teaching students a love of learning and a "way of being" (Seifert, 1996).

In order to develop a motivational atmosphere in any classroom one must have a definition or understanding of what educational motivation actually means. According to Weiner (1990), motivation consists of various cognitions that are interrelated. He lists five such cognitions; casual ascriptions, efficacy, control beliefs, helplessness, and goals for which one may strive. However, I also believe that Atkinson's (1964) theory of emotions, Covington & Beery's (1976) theory of self-worth, and Dweck's (1988) goal theory are highly relevant to developing a motivational classroom and must be included in a working definition of motivation. In our classroom we use the following definition for motivation: "Classroom achievement motivation is a students' and teacher's set of beliefs and behaviours that guide both in a social environment to interact with teaching and learning".

The next step is to take the classroom environment and link it to what current research has to say regarding motivation. The five motivational theories of attribution, self-worth, self-efficacy, self- determination, and goal (social cognition) are, I believe, the most important in developing a motivational classroom. Each theory adds another dimension to a classroom environment and the beliefs and methods of teachers and students. If teachers can understand and find ways to implement what the theories propose in their classroom practices, then teachers will have ample data to develop motivational strategies for their classrooms.

First Strategy for a Motivational Classroom

As a new teacher I never paid attention to how students interpreted their learning outcomes. I attached no value to how they felt about their normative evaluations. I never believed that success or failure mattered much to future learning. If students passed it was good; if they failed, they would try harder the next time or I would try to encourage them to review their test for future reference. I did, however, write comments regarding their performance. I never asked the question "What caused this student to do well and that student to do poorly"? After reading Weiner's Theory of Attribution I can now answer such a question with some degree of knowledge and comprehension.

Weiner's theory (1984) proposed that students try to understand and uncover why a happening has occurred. For example; "Why did I fail this test"? Students will attribute the cause of failure or success to either effort, ability, others, emotions, task difficulty, or luck. What we as teachers have to do in our classrooms to enhance motivation and continue success is to help the students develop healthy attributions about their successes and failures. We have to help the students interpret the event in a positive way so they can maintain their sense of the value of the learning experience. How do we do this, one might ask. I focus on the positive aspects of the performance. If a student did poorly in a particular test I would find a way to put it in a positive light. For example, I would ask questions to ascertain if the student's knowledge was adequate to complete the assignment successfully or if their study skills were effective. We have to help students develop a sense of control over their successes and failures.

Second Strategy for a Motivational Classroom

Any motivational classroom must have incorporated a strategy for developing and fostering a sense of self-worth and self-esteem in students. When we discuss a definition of students' self-worth we need to understand that students' perceptions of value and their ability are primary activators of achievement behaviour. Covington's self-worth theory (1984) proposed that there is a direct link between ability and effort, performance and self-worth. Covington and Omelich (1982) asked first year college students to rate their successes and failures to their feelings of self-worth in the courses. A path analysis showed that the grades the students received accounted for one-fourth of the feelings of self-worth and that perceived ability, independent of grades, accounted for one-half of the feelings of self-worth. I believe that high school students are no different from first year college students; therefore, the research carried out by Covington and Omelich would apply to a high school classroom.

The first question to be asked is "How do teachers affect students' self-worth?" I believe that teachers have great influence regarding students' self-worth through perceptions of and interactions with students. Teachers therefore need to be cognizant of the fact that what is said and done will greatly affect students. Research (Ames 1977, Kelly 1971, Schnur 1982, Covington 1984) has shown that high school students and young adults perceive that ability is the most important causal factor in their achievement. It behooves us as teachers to make sure that we try to help students develop a sense of value in our classrooms regardless of their academic achievement. We must give students the control they need for their learning but it must not be a conditional control. Like unconditional love, unconditional value is of the utmost importance in developing students' sense of belonging and self-worth.

To develop a self-worth motivational strategy a teacher needs to focus on the individual student. This must be done in the beginning weeks of class. Using ice breaker strategies like "getting to know you bingo" will help all members of the class come to know one other. Having all classroom participants set guidelines for the year also shows the students that they have some control over their learning. Setting up in-class-helpers for various tasks allows all individuals to feel they are part of the development of the classroom activities, be it just as motivators or timekeepers. All of these classroom practices help foster self-worth and well being. If we focus on self-worth based on belonging and value in the class and believe that all students have that value and belonging, regardless of academic achievements, then student's self-worth will grow in a positive direction. Self-worth can be accomplished while maintaining standards and goals. We must remember that all students have various degrees of ability, so we need to set, at the beginning of the year, standards based on the goals the students have set for themselves.

Third Strategy for a Motivational Classroom

When students make personal judgements regarding their performance capabilities in any subject they are using what Bandura (1977) termed the "Self Efficacy Theory". As teachers we need to understand how a student's self-efficacy works in our classrooms and how it affects a student's achievement. According to Schunk (1985), self-efficacy is believed to have very diverse effects on motivation, achievement, performance and the choices of activities for the student. Bandura (1981) also proposed that students gather information about their self-efficacy in any domain from evaluations, experiences, social interactions, and physiological states. It is very important for teachers to know this because if we give students the wrong information regarding any one of the elements of this theory then we are going to influence a student's sense of self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy can develop in a negative or positive direction. Collins (1982) found that students, regardless of their ability on standardized tests, would try more mathematical problems and solve more problems correctly if they had a high self-efficacy. This finding helps teachers understand that if students' judgements regarding their performance is high then, even if their abilities are not as high as others, they will persist longer and expend greater energy in trying challenging activities. Students with high self-efficacy are not afraid to try new activities. While this is not the solution for all low ability students, if we can help develop a student's self-efficacy then we can give them the foundation to try and perform to their full capability. Schunk's (1985) studies have shown that the effects of any student's performance on self-efficacy can be changed by the cues derived from a teacher's educational practices. If we as teachers do not engage in positive feedback during and after instruction then students may feel their performance is lacking and if their expectations and the teacher's do not match then the chances are that students will develop a low self-efficacy or not maintain the high level of self-efficacy they had before starting the class. If teachers at the beginning of the year asked students how they weigh their learning and performance cues, then the classroom learning goals and activities can be developed to suit the various cues. However, learning goals for students must also be viewed as a very important component in developing a motivational classroom.

Fourth Strategy for a Motivational Classroom

According to Seifert (1995), recent research has shown that when it comes to achievement motivation goal theory emerges as the predominant explanation of students' motivation and behaviour. Again the first question that teachers need to address concerns what goal theory means. Dweck (1986) argues that students pursue two very different types of goals. These are performance goals (wanting to gain other people's good judgements about performance) and mastery goals (wanting only to learn to gain competence). In any given classroom students are motivated for various reasons to attain these two very different types of goals.

Teachers need to be aware of the goals their student engage in during classroom activities. If teachers know in advance what type of goals their students engage in, they can find ways and means to help students become mastery learners (wanting to learn for competence). This training will be a skill needed for life long learning and the processes that the teacher and students go through will be a valuable experience for both. How does a teacher ever get to know what their students' goals are? According to Dweck (1986) a teacher has only to develop goals that focus on mastery rather than on performance of a task. Students need to internalize that it is more important to focus on if and how they learned and not on whether they did better then their classmates. Consequently, the focus shifts from a performance goal to a mastery goal. Teachers, therefore need to develop goals orientated toward developing students' abilities and not toward adequacy of their abilities. Feedback from teachers during the task is very important in developing a motivational classroom that focuses on goal theory.

Fifth Strategy for a Motivational Classroom

Regardless of all the principles derived from the last four theories, students who feel in control of their learning and who have choices in their learning do much better in classroom activities (Deci & Ryan 1987). This is the proposition advanced by Self-Determination Theory. There are two dimensions in self-determination: they are intention and choice. An intention is generally thought of as a determination to engage in a behaviour (Atkinson,1964). For a teacher, this implies that students have personal causation and this motivates the student to act. When students engage in a task, their behaviour plays a role in the initiation and regulation of the learning outcome. Students will have a desire to achieve positively valent outcomes or avoid negatively valent ones (Deci & Ryan, 1987).

According to Deci & Ryan (1987), one way to enhance motivation and learning is to give students the opportunity to choose some of the tasks they want to do. This is not that difficult to accomplish. Teachers and students have to design from the very beginning what activities can be carried out in class, how they can be carried out, and how are they evaluated. When classroom environments' accomplish this task the students are given a choice over three important elements of learning. Several studies (Pintrich, Roeser and De Groot, 1992) reported that high school students were more likely to focus on learning and mastery if they were in a positive focused classroom. Students were found to have high levels of task interest and value for the course material when the classroom environment provided the students with some choice of tasks, the work was interesting, the teacher provided good explanations, and allowed the students to work with each other. This classroom environment also fostered high levels of self-efficacy and low levels of test anxiety. Students also engaged in cognitive and self-regulated strategies.

Sixth Strategy for a Motivational Classroom

The final element in developing a motivational classroom environment encompasses the emotions of teachers and students. In 1983 Weiner wrote "Affective reactions and affective anticipations, in conjunction with expectancy of success, are assumed to influence a variety of motivational indexes, including persistence of behaviour, choice, and approach or avoidance of tasks and other people" (p. 531). This statement is very significant for teachers, students and the development of classroom environments. Studies conducted by Dweck (1975), Reimer (1975), Weiner (1971), supported the findings that a theory of motivation must take into account the full range of the self, including the emotions of the self. Atkinson (1983) developed the emotion motivation formulation which states that a student will approach or avoid a goal depending on the affective elements of pride, shame, anger, gratitude, guilt, and pity. Teachers have to take into account all these emotions and feelings that they and their students possess in planning feedback, classroom activities and evaluation. If we do not consider the students' emotions then we are not providing a motivational classroom. Weiner (1985) developed a theory consisting of emotion and motivation. The theory has five elements: causal antecedents, casual ascriptions, causal dimensions, psychological consequences and behaviour consequences. Under the elements of causal dimensions, psychological consequences and behaviourial consequences fall in Weiner's opinion (1985) the four determining motivational factors of controllability, expectancy, affective involvement and persistence.

If teachers would take the time in the beginning of the year to talk to the students about their emotions and feelings that arise in a classroom, the students would be knowledgeable about the emotions that may effect their motivation and achievement. We have to remember that students do not try and fail, that what they do is try to be or look successful by maintaining their self-worth. This is accomplished in ways and means that are either beneficial or not beneficial to their future successes and learning. Some educators may believe that teachers do not need to be concerned with all of these theories and findings, that theory and practice just do not equate to a learning environment. However, research has shown time and time again that a nurturing caring attitude develops and fosters a motivational learning environment.

When a teacher steps into the classroom at the beginning of the year there is always high hopes that all will go well, that students will be motivated to work and achieve success. Students are human beings and because of that fact they have just as much right to dignity and worth as do teachers. If we give them that dignity and worth from the beginning we will be sending a message that they have value in our classroom, that they add another dimension to our teaching. Our motivational classroom would not be the same without them; therefore they belong and have value in the teaching/learning paradigm. If we can realize these beliefs, then we help students maintain their academic success, self-worth, self-efficacy, a set of positive attributional beliefs, self-determination and a set of goals that foster mastery learning. All of these elements need to be individualized and if they are then it is not the teacher who motivates the student but it is the students who motivate one another.

Adjusting the Course Part II, (1995). Queen's Printer, Confederation Building, St. John's, NF.

Amabile, T. (1979). Effects of external evaluations on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221-233.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C. & Ames, R. (1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a Qualitative definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 535-556.

Anderson, C.A. (1983). The causal structure of situations: The generation of plausible causal attributions as a function of type of event situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 185-203.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent though: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J.H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 200-239). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1982b). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 18, 122-147.

Benware, C., & Deci, E. (1984). The quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765.

Boggiano, A. & Barrett, M.(1985). Performance and motivational deficits of helplessness: The role of motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1753-1761.

Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200-215.

Butler, R. & Nisan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 210-216.

Collins, J. (1982). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behaviour. Paper presented in March, The American Educational Research Association, New York, New York.

Conroy, J. (1977). Enemies of exploration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35, 459-477.

Covington, M. (1984). The motive for self-worth. Research on Motivation in Education, 1, 77-113, Orlando, Florida, Academic Press.

Covington, M., & Omelich, C. (1979). It's best to be able and virtuous too: Student and teachers evaluative responses to successful effort. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 688-700. (b)

Covington, M. & Beery, R. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York: Rienhart, & Winston.

DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal Causation: The internal affective determinants of behaviour, New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1987). The support of autonomy and control of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.

Diener, C., & Dweck, C. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940-952.

Dweck, C., & Elliott, E. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Dweck, C. & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychology Review 95, 256-273.

Dweck, C. (1986). Motivation processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Farrell, E., & Dweck, C. (1985). The role of motivational processes in transfer of learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Feather, N. & Simon, J. (1971). Attribution of responsibility and valence of outcome in relation to initial confidence and success and failure of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 173-188.

Fisher, C. (1978). The effects of personal control, competence and extrinsic reward systems on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 21, 273-288.

Harackiewicz, J., Abrahams, S. & Wageman, R. (1987). Performance evaluation and intrinsic motivation: The effects of evaluative focus, rewards, and achievement orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1015-1023.

Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. New York: Dell.

Kast, A. (1983). Sex differences in intrinsic motivation: A developmental analysis of the effects of social rewards. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, New York.

Kelly, H. (1971). The process of causal attribution. American Psychology, 28, 107-128.

Koestner, R., Ryan, R., Bernieri, F., & Holt, (1984). Setting limits in children's behaviour: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233-248.

Law, G. (1970). Co-operative Education: Handbook for Teachers-Coordinators. New York: American Technical Society.

Licht, B., & Dweck, C. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interactions of children's achievement orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20, 628-636.

Littlefield, A. (1985). The power of Co-operation. Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Foundation Letter, Sept/Oct.

Locke, E., Shaw, K., Saari, L., & Latham, G. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980, Psychology Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Maehr, M., & Stallings, W. (1972). Freedom from external evaluation. Child Development, 43, 177-185.

Mason, R., & Haines, P. (1972). Co-operative Occupation Education and Work Experience the Curriculum. San Diego: Interstate Printers and Publishers

Meichenbaum, D. (1971). Examination of model characteristics in reducing avoidance behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 298-307.

McGraw, K. & McCullers, J. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 285-295.

McGraw, K. (1978). The detrimental effects of reward on performance: A literature review and a prediction model. In M. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of rewards (pp. 33-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pintrich, P. & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P., Roesser, R. & De Groot, E. (1992). Classroom influences on student and self-regulated learning. Paper presented in April. The American Educational Research Association Convention, San Francisco, California.

Roeser, R., Aberton, A. & Anderman, E. (1993). The relations among teacher beliefs and practices and students motivation across the school year. Paper presented in April, The American Educational Research Association Convention, Atlantic Georgia.

Ryan, R. & Grolnick, W. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.

Schunk, D. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools. 22, 208-223.

Schunk, D. (1983). Reward contingencies and the development of children's skills and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 511-518.

Schunk, D. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behaviour. Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58.

Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House.

Seifert, T. (1996). The stability of goal orientations in garde five students: comparison of two methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 73-82.

Seifert, T. (1996). Characteristics of ego- and task-orientated students: a comparison of two methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 125-138.

Seifert, T. (in press). Academic goals and emotions: results of a structural equation model and a cluster analysis.

Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to Learn from Theory to Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Swann, W., & Pitmann, T. (1977). Initiating play activity of children: The moderating influences of verbal cues on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 48, 1128-1132.

Weiner, B. (1990). History of Motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 616-622.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychology Review, 92, 548-573.

White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Winne, P., & Marx, R. (1982). Students' and teachers' views of thinking processes for classroom learning. Elementary School Journal, 82, 459-518.

Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628.

Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 443-446.

Craig Janes is a graduate student in our Master of Education programme. He has undertaken a review of the literature on teachers' expectations and written a solid paper on the topic. His summary of the research conducted in this area, when considered in light of the other two papers on motivation, illuminates our understanding of schooling in an important way.

Timothy L. Seifert

In a document prepared by the Newfoundland Government entitled, Adjusting The Course (1994), it was emphasized that a fundamental priority of Newfoundland's educational system be that high levels of expectations and standards be maintained for the success of the schools and students. A shift in our approach to educational achievement was necessary, a shift that would form the basis for establishing high standards and for creating an expectation that these standards can be met . The repetition of the word expectations is not merely for literary purpose but is indicative of the growing emphasis placed on the causal relationship between expectations and student achievement. It will be useful at this point to examine how the literature defines expectations.

Lawler, cited in Saracho (1991), defined expectancy as " the persons' estimate of the probability that he will accomplish his intended performance, given the situation in which he finds himself" (p. 27). Saracho (1991) then went on to state that teacher expectation is the "teachers' estimate of the child's academic performance within the classroom" (p. 27) .

The other concept that we are attempting to understand is attribution theory and more specifically how attribution theory and teacher expectations relate to one another. On a very simplistic level attribution theory undertakes to explain "why" an event occurred when there is an unexpected outcome (Weiner, 1984). On a deeper level, this theory analyzes the perceived causes of an event from a number of causal dimensions:

1. Locus of Control - was control of the cause within or outside of the individual.

2. Causal Stability - does the cause always exist or is it only present for a short period of time.

3. Controllability - whether or not the cause was something they could control (effort vs. illness).

4. Intentionality - Poor effort vs. poor use of a strategy.

(Weiner, 1984)

Once such an examination takes place, the learner will attribute the unexpected event to a particular cause and this will result in some affective or emotional change (Weiner, 1984). For instance, if a student attributes a good mark on a test to ability, a perceived stable and non-changeable cause, they are likely to experience feelings of pride and a sense of accomplishment. Failure attributed to a stable and non-changeable cause results in feelings of guilt or shame (Tollefson, 1988).

In the realm of motivation, how the student attributes the cause of an event will directly affect his or her level of motivation for future tasks. Tollefson (1988) argued that students who attribute success to a stable factor such as ability increase their expectations for success and are therefore encouraged to greater task persistence. When failures are attributed to ability, the student's expectancy for future success decreases and along with it task persistence. There is a sense of hopelessness and resignation in that the learner feels there is nothing he/she can do about it. Weiner

(1984) echoed this hypothesis when he noted that once success or failure has been attained and as long as the conditions or causes of that outcome are perceived as remaining unchanged, then individuals will anticipate success or failure for future tasks with a certain degree of certainty.

If a learner believes, however, that the causes are a result of unstable and changeable factors, such as luck or effort, then the focus of motivation shifts. If failure is attributed to an unstable factor there is still a high expectancy for future success but, if success is attributed to either of these factors, a low expectancy for future success results (Tapasak, 1990). The basic premise is that a learner will not expect to succeed later if the present success was a result of something that can change from situation to situation. In the same vein, failure as a result of something that can change would not reduce one's possibility for future success. The fact that the factor can change implies that it might, so there is no reason to think that one will always fail.

To summarize thus far then, expectations are the beliefs that a teacher and student hold for that student's future success in learning situations. Attribution theory states that where a student attributes the causes for their success or failure will affect his/her emotional state and expectancy for future performance. The connection to be made at this point is that what one expects to happen in the future with regard to success or failure is inherently linked to what one believes to be the cause of past successes or failures. Therefore, expectations for success or failure can sometimes be linked to how one attributes past successes or failures. But this may be a reciprocal relationship in that one's expectations for success or failure may dictate where one attributes the causes for past events. If one expects to be successful, they may determine that a changeable factor was responsible for past failures and a stable one responsible for past successes.

In either case, the expectations and attributions that a student holds must originate from somewhere or, at the very least, be fostered in some manner by outside influences. It is here that we have to examine the role of the teacher in this relationship. In other words, how does the teacher influence the students' expectations for success or failure and thereby influence the attributions that students make.

Theories on how a teacher's expectations, for the success or failure of a student, influences that student's actual achievement are varied and some times even contradictory. One of the original studies by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968) entitled Pygmalion in the classroom showed a definite relationship between the expectations of a teacher for a student and that student's level of achievement. Teachers were told that some students were high achievers while others were low achievers when, in fact, there was no actual measured difference. At the end of the study, those labeled as high achievers had actually done better than those labeled as low achievers. However, later studies done along the same lines often failed to produce the same results (Clairborn, 1969). In fact, Williams (1975) put forth that it is mainly the intellectual capacity, social origin, and structural arrangements that a school provides which affect students' performance. This would echo the findings of 'The Coleman Report ' which claimed that no particular school characteristic had a measurable, positive impact on student achievement (Towers, 1992). The report even went so far as to claim the only factor considered to have any impact on student achievement was the social class of the student body.

More recent studies and literature, however, have reported that there is a relationship between teacher expectations and student achievement. Although the major body of literature agrees the relationship exists, it is the exact nature of the relationship which needs to be examined further.

Early research held the notion that there was a direct cause and effect relationship between teacher expectations and student achievement (Anderson, 1991). It was felt that the simple possession of high expectancies for students would translate into increased achievement levels. The belief was that if students knew what they were expected to do and how they were expected to act, they would behave accordingly (Monhardt, 1995). Hassenpflug (1994) asserted that a teacher with high expectations could raise students' expectations and have a positive effect on students' achievement. She goes on to say that "students actually can and will do better if quality work is expected of them..." (Hassenpflug, 1994, p. 161). This line of thinking may, in fact, need further development, for Anderson (1991) maintained that such an interpretation may be naive and superficial in light of the current research. This basic association between expectancies and achievement will need further refinement and clarification.

Much of the literature reviewed attempted to explain the relationship in a more succinct and detailed manner by attributing the relationship between teacher expectations and students' achievement to one or more of the following concepts: Perceptual Bias, Sustaining Expectation Effect, and Self-fulfilling Prophecy (Anderson, 1991; Kolb & Jussim, 1994; Saracho, 1991; and Weinstein, 1995).

The concept of perceptual bias revolves around a very simple premise. Kolb (1994) stated that perceptual biases result when the expectations of the teacher influence the teacher's evaluation of the student's achievement . In other words, a teacher feels that a student is a high achiever and evaluates them higher than their abilities merit. In this particular case, then, there is no action on the part of the student which affects his or her achievement but rather the action is on the part of the teacher.

Closely related to perceptual bias is the notion that in some teachers there is the tendency to expect students to continue or maintain previously developed behaviour patterns, disregarding the students' abilities. This is the process known as sustaining expectation effect (Saracho, 1991). Anderson (1991) further clarified this effect by stating that "teachers expect students to sustain previously developed behaviour patterns to the point that they take these behaviour patterns for granted and fail to see or capitalize on changes in the students' potential" (p. 22).

A further development in the analysis of teacher expectancy comes in the form of the concept self-fulfilling prophecy. Merton (1948) first coined the phrase to describe how erroneous beliefs about people and situations sometimes create their own fulfillment. Kolb and Jussim (1993) refined the notion when they explained that self-fulfilling prophecies occur when teachers induce students to perform at levels consistent with their (teachers') initially erroneous expectations. In other words, if a teacher believes a student to be bright then the interactions between the two may be such as to ensure that this expectation comes true (Anderson, 1991). This is where we begin to see a deviation from the notion of a direct causal relationship to one that is more detailed and explanatory.

The prominent notion being argued now is that it is not the expectations themselves which influence the students' achievement and behaviour but rather how those expectations cause the teacher to interact with the students thereby affecting achievement levels. In each of the three concepts mentioned the onus is placed on the teacher and his/her interactions with the students as the major factor affecting achievement levels. It is also within an examination of teachers' communicated behaviours towards students that we can understand how a teacher's attributions about student success and failure is delivered to the student, internalized by the student, and subsequently affect expectancies for future success. It is here that the complementary nature of expectations and attributions begins to take form when the role of the teacher and their behaviours are incorporated into the argument.

Much of the research and literature now holds fast to the notion that, although teacher expectations are an integral part of the issue, it is more a matter of how the expectations are communicated in 'differential treatment' that actually influences student achievement (Weinstein, 1995). In fact, Anderson (1991) endorsed the notion that "current analysis of teacher expectations shows that while the expectations teachers hold for students may indeed be influential, the way in which the teacher responds or behaves as a result of these expectations is a more important variable" (p. 22). Numerous studies (Gottfredson, 1995; Hall, 1993; Kolb and Jussim, 1994 ; Lee-Corbin, 1994; Taylor and Reeves, 1993) have been done to determine the validity of the thesis that if a teacher has different expectations about pupils, they then respond differently toward those pupils.

Studies (Gottfredson, 1995; Hall, 1993; Kolb and Jussim, 1994; Lee-Corbin, 1994; Taylor and Reeves, 1993) have concluded that there is a great deal of evidence to support the premise that teachers interact differently with students based on their expectations for those students. Teachers tend to call upon those who they think will know the answers more often than those who they feel will simply provide an incorrect response (Taylor, 1993). Also, when a teacher has high expectations for a student, they often develop an interest in that student and focus on improving his/her (student's) performance (Saracho, 1991). This inherently implies, then, that students about whom negative perceptions are held are not provided the same opportunities for performance improvement. In fact, the following behaviours are used more often with perceived low achievers: insincere praise, less frequent and informative feedback, paying less attention to the student, making less eye contact, and making less use of students ideas (Gottfredson, 1995). What could these behaviours communicate to a student about how the teacher attributes the student's success or failure?

A teacher's perceptions about the causes of students' behaviour is extremely important. Peterson and Banger (1988), as cited in Fennema (1990), maintain that a teachers' causal attributions are vital because their view on why a student succeeded or failed influences the teachers' expectations for future achievement on the part of the student. If a teacher felt failure was a result of ability and therefore unchangeable, they are less likely to react toward that student in the same manner than if such failure was attributed to effort. This is where the communication aspect comes into play.

It is my contention that students will develop their own attributions based, to a certain degree, on how the teacher interacts with them following failure or success on learning activities. Complementary with expectancy theory and the transmission of perceived expectancies comes the notion that attributions are also transmitted to a student. Kurtz and Schneider (1990) contend that...

"Teachers influence cognitive development and school achievement not only through explicit strategy instruction but also through overt and subtle messages about their perceptions of children's' abilities and their attributional theories about other factors that influence achievement." (p. 269)

An example of this line of thought is provided by Tollefson (1988). If a teacher attributes failure to some uncontrollable cause such as ability, he or she is more likely to help and praise the student. However, when combined with the standard behaviours of teachers toward students with perceived low ability, such praise may simply be gratuitous and given simply to placate the individual (Saracho, 1991). Such behaviour communicates to the student that their failure is a result of something they, the student, cannot control and this, in turn, will cause the student to lower their expectancy for success in the future. They lower their expectancy for future success because they have attributed their failure to a stable and unchangeable factor based on the teacher's behaviour toward them. Anger and frustration toward a student's failure communicates that the attribution is a controllable one such as effort and therefore does not result in a reduced expectancy for future success.

Kurtz and Schneider (1990) maintain a similar argument by claiming that the attributional theories about achievement a teacher possesses combined with their expectancies for various students will affect the amount of praise and/or criticism they provide to the children. It also plays a significant role in the level of intimacy and degree of power sharing a teacher has with certain students (Grant and Rothenberg, 1986 cited in Kurtz and Schneider, 1990). Transferred to expectancy theory, the argument is that students with perceived low ability are given less autonomy when it comes to working on tasks (Saracho, 1991). This would communicate to the student that not as much is expected of them because they are incapable of doing the work. Here, then, low ability is equated with low expectancies for success. What results is a certain degree of influence relating to children's' achievement expectations, effort expenditure and resulting achievement. Tollefson (1988) views the relationship in a cyclical manner...

"A student believes he / she cannot do the work without help. The teacher believes that the student could do the work if he/she tried harder and withholds help. The student develops an attitude of ' what's the use in trying if I am going to fail'. The teacher maintains his/her attribution and continues to be angry, critical, and unhelpful, and reinforces the student's beliefs and subsequent behaviour." (p. 264)

While the teacher in this instance may believe the student capable of doing the work, the critical and unhelpful nature displayed actually communicates the opposite according to expectancy theory. Such behaviour is characteristic of teachers who perceive low ability in and have poor expectations for students. Therefore, a perception of low ability on the part of the teacher and subsequent teacher behaviours communicates to the student that the cause of their failure is uncontrollable therefore the student experiences the emotions of hopelessness and resignation.

A detailed list of teacher behaviours based on high and low expectations is provided in Appendix A and while their existence does not guarantee the theorized effects in all situations, the research evidence does hold that there is a correlation.

Fennema (1990) tied this element to the expectancy of teachers in the following way. The instructional decisions that teachers make which, in turn, transmit to the student their views on what caused the event are mediated by the teachers' beliefs. Teachers have a wide range of preconceived ideas and beliefs about students based on a number of factors and such beliefs vary from student to student.

Such discrepancies in expectations can result from a number of traits: race, gender, age, appearance, handicap, perceived effort, and socio-economic status (Anderson, 1991; Gottfredson, 1995). While a complete analysis of all these topics is beyond the scope of this paper, it is interesting to note a couple for their inclusion is important when examining possible solutions to the effect.

These so-called 'foundations' for expectancy differences can be succinctly summed up using two words: stereotyping and labeling. Stereotyping leads people to have preconceived notions or ideas about someone simply because that person possesses some of the characteristics of a particular group of individuals. Once labeled as part of this group the teachers' behaviour may change accordingly. When combined with expectancies in the school setting, a number of interesting conclusions have been drawn.

First of all, students of a particular race, about which preconceived notions are held, often have expectations about them in line with the 'stereotype'. Minority students are often given subtle messages by their teachers about their ability and worth thereby negatively influencing their achievement (Hall, 1993). Studies such as the one carried out by Fennema (1990) addressed the myriad of contentious issues surrounding the perceived gender differences between boys and girls in the area of math achievement. It was discovered that teachers tended provide more encouragement for boys than for girls to engage in math. Boys' success in math was often attributed to ability and, as already discussed, success attributed to ability results in feelings of pride and a sense of accomplishment (Tollefson, 1988). For the girls, their success was often attributed to effort, a changeable factor, which results in a decreased expectancy for future success (Weiner, 1984).

When Tapasak (1990) examined how males and females, themselves, attribute success and failure he discovered the same pattern. Males tended to attribute success to stable factors such as ability and failure to changeable factors such as effort. Women, on the other hand, made attributions in the exact opposite manner. Therefore, they attributed success to an unstable factor such as effort and failure to a stable factor such as ability; both situations often result in reduced expectancies for future success. These situations would appear to be a result of the preconceived stereotypes that individuals hold which have tended to propagate the idea that boys are better at math than girls.

The discussion thus far has been purely one of providing information about a situation that exists within the school system today. Such a task would be worthless without an examination of suggested solutions or intervention strategies to the problems created by differing expectations in the class.

From the study so far it is quite obvious that the problem in this situation lay not with the student but with the teacher. Therefore any discussion of solutions will naturally have to center upon those actions that teachers can take to correct where necessary their thoughts and behaviours.

On a very simple scale, Metcalf (1995) said that it is important to think differently about what you do in the class - to look beyond the negative behaviours... and focus on the positive. Using labels and stereotyping may help to rationalize the behaviours of students but it does not help to solve the problem. Teachers need to be better educated on the effects of racism and discrimination (Hall, 1993). Grant and Zeichner (1995) incorporated this line of thinking into their discussions on reflective teaching. They stressed that the reflective teacher must be dedicated and committed to the teaching of all students not just certain students. This would imply that teachers must reject the thoughts that restrict them in their teaching practices and develop new ways of viewing the teachability of all students. Weinstein (1995) felt it was vital for teachers to be exposed to situations whereby evidence, which he called 'disconfirming' evidence, would be provided to dispel the previously held notions about certain groups of students. Although this particular solution is tied to the notion of stereotypes, it is linked with far more significance to an overall strategy for success:

"...interventions need to provide an ongoing context in which negative beliefs can be disconfirmed and more positive beliefs and actions can be developed, and which would enable teachers and administrators to play a reflective and active role in both diagnosis and prevention of low expectancy practices." (Weinstein, 1995, p. 126)

On a deeper or more sophisticated level, the changes necessary are much more complicated. Weinstein (1995) asserted that in order to create a 'positive expectancy climate' changes must occur to the eight interactive features of the organization of classrooms and school life. These eight features are:

a) curriculum

b) grouping for instruction

c) evaluation

d) motivation

e) student responsibility structures

f) relationships within the classroom

g) relationships with parents

h) relationships within the school

When concentrating on motivation and attribution theory, the possible solutions are quite similar in that the perceived causes of the events, and in particular failure, need to be changed (Weiner, 1984). Altering teacher behaviours when addressing the notion from the vantage point of expectancies is a deliberate step in the right direction. But like expectations, the underlying reasons for the behaviours must be dealt with if a profound and long lasting change is desired. Tollefson (1988) asserted that the solution resides in the elimination of the negative thoughts and actions and their replacement with positive ones. Teachers must become cognizant of the effects that subtle behaviours have on the attribution patterns of students. Once aware that gratuitous praise and pity communicate to the student that their, the students', ability is the cause of their poor results, the teachers can strive to communicate more productive and positive messages. Such radical changes in the thought processes of both teacher and student will require a commitment to work together to solve the problem.

In the area of expectations, collaboration and cooperation from teachers is paramount to the success of any intervention strategy designed to be used in a positive manner (Hassenpflug, 1994; Metcalf, 1995; Taylor, 1993; & Weinstein, 1995). Taylor (1993) insisted that success can only be achieved if teachers agree to train together and provide mutual support for the implementation of new teaching strategies to encourage active student engagement. Kolb and Jussim (1994) suggested that teachers must be educated about the subtle ways in which they may have created an environment that can depress some students' performance. A couple of studies are so confident of the relationship between expectations and student achievement that they stress the importance of maintaining high expectations as a viable intervention strategy (Kolb and Jussim, 1994 & Taylor and Reeves, 1993). In both cases, they felt that for any substantial rise in the achievement of students to occur, it was paramount to keep expectations high as a motivational factor. This would appear to mirror the message stated at the beginning of this paper concerning the document Adjusting the Course (1994, p. 10); "High expectations and standards are necessary and all students, except those with specific disabilities, should be able to meet those expectations and standards".

From a review of the literature it is apparent that the findings of the Coleman Report are dubious in light of the evidence which asserts a direct link between teacher expectations and student achievement. The research would also support the notion that a teacher can communicate 'why' the success or failure occurred influencing how the students attribute their success or failure. Although the exact nature of this relationship is open to some interpretation as to the degree to which perceptual bias, sustaining expectation effect, or self-fulfilling prophecy operate on those concerned, it has been proven that they do operate in some fashion.

First of all, there is evidence of some correspondence between what a teacher expects from a student and what that student's achievement levels turn out to be. How these expectations manifest themselves in the behaviour of teachers is the key to understanding the relationship. Studies have shown that high and low expectations on the part of the teacher lead to observable differences in achievement. Studies have also shown that the perceived cause of the event will influence the expectations for future success or failure and that these perceived causes can be transmitted from teacher to student. In both cases their interaction is closely linked through the behaviour of teachers toward students. The degree and type of feedback and amount of teacher interaction with the pupil are just two such behaviours where differences have been recorded.

Secondly, such expectations arise from the misguided behaviour of stereotyping and labeling. Many teachers hold certain expectations about a student based on the particular group to which that student belongs. Teacher expectations are influenced by gender, race, and socio-economic background just to name a few. Such expectations, based on an irrelevant factor such as gender, have shown that they influence the attributions of both teachers and students.

Due to their close interaction and reliance on the communicated behaviours of teachers', solutions to the expectancy/attribution problem are very similar. Efforts must be made to dispel the underlying thought processes which guide and dictate behaviours. The elimination of stereotypes and labels is a positive step in the right direction. Secondly, teachers must become aware of how their obvious and not so obvious behaviours communicate poor messages to the students. Once aware, they can work to moderate their behaviour and direct behaviour which communicates constructive messages to those who need them.

Anderson, A., Vogel, P., & Reuschlein, P. (January/February, 1991). The implications of teacher expectations: A review of research. Capher Journal, 21-27.

Clairborn, W. (1969). Expectancy effects in the classroom: A failure to replicate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(5), 377-383.

Department of Education (1994). Adjusting the Course: Improving the conditions for learning. St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Fennema, E. & Others (1990). Teachers' attributions and beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(1), 55-69.

Gottfredson, D.C. (1995). Increasing teacher expectations for student achievement. Journal of Education Research, 88(3), 155-163.

Grant, C.A., & Zeichner, K.M. (1995). On becoming a reflective teacher. In G. Taylor and R. Runte (Ed.), Thinking About Teaching (pp. 54-67). Toronto, Ontario: Harcourt Brace.

Hall, J.L. (1993). What can we expect from minority students? Contemporary Education, 64(3), 180-182.

Hassenpflug, A. (1994). Notes from an English teacher: In pursuit of great expectations. Clearing House, 67(3), 161-162.

Kolb, K.J., & Jussim, L. (1994). Teacher expectations and underachieving gifted children. Roeper Review, 17(1), 26-30.

Kurtz, B. & others (1990). Strategy instruction and attributional beliefs in West Germany and the United States: Do teachers foster metacognitive development? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(3), 268-283.

Lee-Corbin, H. (1994). Teacher expectations and the able child. Early Child Development and Care, 98, 73-78.

Merton, R.K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.

Metcalf, L. (1995). Great expectations. How changing your thinking can change your students. Learning, 23(5), 93-95.

Monhardt, B.M. (1995). Safe by definition. American School Board Journal, 182(2), 32-34.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectations and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Saracho, O.N. (1991). Teacher expectations of students' performance: a review of the research. Early Child Development and Care, 76, 27-41.

Tapasak, R.C. (1990). Differences in expectancy - attribution patterns of cognitive components in male and female math performance. Contemporary Educational

Taylor, R., & Reeves, J. (1993). More is better: Raising expectations for students at risk. Middle School Journal, 24(5), 13-18.

Tollefson, N. (1988). Consequences of teachers' attributions for student failure.Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(3), 259-265.

Towers, J. (1992). Twenty-five years after the Coleman Report: What should we have learned? Contemporary Education, 63(2), 93-95.

Weinstein, R.S. (1995). Raising expectations in schooling: obstacles and opportunities for change. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 121-159.