Building Capacity in Greenland’s Educational Reform€¦ · Web viewReform leaders also invited members of the community including, teachers, parents, school leaders, board members,

Wyatt, Building Capacity, p. 1

Title: Building Educational Capacity in Greenland

Authors:

Tasha R. Wyatt, Ph. D. & Kattie E. Motzfeld

Inerisaavik: Institute for Arctic Education


Abstract

This article focuses on how Inerisaavik, a former agent of Greenland’s Ministry of

Education, is building capacity to support national education reform. At a glance, it

appears Inerisaavik is merely carrying out legislative orders to create a better school

system for using “best practices” in professional development and successful reform.

Closer investigation indicates that Inerisaavik is using principles of sociocultural

theory to address school improvement on a national level. Acting as an intermediary

between the government and Greenland’s schools, Inerisaavik’s design of the reform,

implementation, and on-going interaction with the community is highly collaborative.

The study reveals that Inerisaavik’s role in the change process is dynamic and

responsive to the needs of Greenlandic schools and the larger community.

Keywords: Educational reform, assisted performance, capacity building, Greenland


Building Educational Capacity in Greenland

Description of educational reform in indigenous communities is limited. What has

been written describes the importance of cultural compatibility in indigenous education

and how reform leaders have involved the community in initial stages (Demmert &

Towner, 2003; Rivera & Tharp, 2006). These descriptions do not provide a framework

for how to implement changes and ensure schools and the larger community support the

change effort. This article describes how Inerisaavik, a governmental agency in

Greenland, is approaching educational reform.

Intermediary organizations have recently emerged as important units of analysis

for research on school reform and change (Honig, 2004; McLaughlin, 2006). They

function as knowledge brokers between many levels of the educational system by

assisting in the development of knowledge, the tailoring of policy to local contexts, and

co-construction of reform. Intermediary organizations are in a unique position to create

change because they are not governmental or public entities and thus operate between the

top and the bottom of the implementations process (McLaughlin, 2006).

much like the highly collaborative intermediary organizations found in the U.S.

Drawing on research from sociocultural theory and school reform, we examine

Inerisaavik’s reform activities for their responsiveness to the needs of Greenland’s

schools and community. The first section describes Greenland’s nation-wide reform and

the pedagogical strategies reform leaders adopted to assist in their efforts. These

strategies will also be used as the theoretical framework for this study. The last section

describes the importance of building capacity to sustain reform change, focusing on peer

coaching as the current trend in educational reform.


Greenland’s Educational Reform

Greenland’s Educational Reform. In 1998, a small group of administrators from

Inerisaavik were commissioned to develop ideas for a new school system in Greenland.

Inerisaavik is the organization responsible for all public school affairs including in-

service professional development, assessment, and reform implementation. At the time,

Inerisaavik was under the Ministry of Education, but has recently been subsumed under

the University of Greenland. The group decided Greenland’s new legislation would be

built on clear performance standards while considering the effect colonization has had on

Greenlandic culture and identity (Olsen, 2005). Any changes would move away from the

Danish-Scandinavian models that have characterized Greenland’s educational system

since the 1700s and towards more culturally compatible education. To assist in their

efforts, reform leaders adopted the CREDE Standards for Effective Pedagogy.

The CREDE Standards for Effective Pedagogy

The Standards for Effective Pedagogy are principles of effective teaching and

learning developed by researchers at the Center for Research on Education, Diversity,

and Excellence (CREDE). They were developed through a synthesis of 30 years of

research on effective instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students and

were designed to help teachers maximize classroom interactions in ways that promote

learning of concepts and higher-level skills (Tharp et al., 2000). The Standards are (a)

Joint Productive Activity, teachers and students collaborating on joint products; (b)

Language and Literacy Development, teachers supporting language development in all

classrooms and subjects; (c) Contexualization, teachers making connections between

students’ prior knowledge and new information; (d) Complex Thinking, teachers


supporting students’ engagement and skills in critical thinking; and (e) Instructional

Conversation, teachers instructing through dialogue.

The CREDE Standards were derived from Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural

theory, which suggests that all higher psychological functioning has its roots in social

interaction. By engaging in joint activity through symbols, such as language and

numbers, children eventually appropriate those symbols. More proficient community

members assist novices in performing the tasks and roles of their culture. Over time, less

assistance is needed, until eventually learners can perform the behaviors independently.

Greenland’s reform leaders adopted the Standards to implement reform goals for

two reasons. First and foremost, they are based on our era’s dominant international

developmental theory (Tharp & Dalton, 2007). Sociocultural theory is a widely accepted

theory in international education and research and the Greenlanders wanted to use a

research-based form of pedagogy in their school system. Second, the pedagogy was

developed specifically for cultural and linguistic students paced at risk by a traditional

majority-culture education, many of which populations were currently or recently

decolonizing (Tharp & Dalton, 2007).

The CREDE Standards as a Theoretical Framework. In this study, the CREDE

Standards are used as a theoretical framework to describe how intermediary organizations

create and sustain educational change. In the U.S., intermediary organizations are non-

governmental agencies that work in collaboration with schools to implement reform

work. They have become popular because of their unique position to broker knowledge

between levels of the educational system (McLaughlin, 2006).


The Standards for Effective Pedagogy have been used to assist teachers in

organizing their classrooms to provide students with greater assistance. However,

because the Standards focus on the role assistance plays in the learning/change process,

they are useful in describing how intermediaries co-construct reform. When intermediary

organizations work with a reforming institution, such as a school, they work side by side

to achieve an outcome (Joint Productive Activity). In these activities, reforming

institutions develop new ways of describing their problems and procedures in relation to

the literature and research on educational reform and change (Language and Literacy

Development). The collaboration between organizations affords opportunity to develop

solutions to streamline reform implementation (Complex Thinking). These solutions are

generated through exchange in formal and informal dialogue (Instructional Conversation)

and are situated in a meaningful context for the reforming institution (Contextualization).

In time, schools become less dependent on the intermediary because they have

appropriated and internalized the necessary skills to implement change independently.

Collaborative activities between schools and intermediaries allow reform efforts

to take hold. Joint productive activity increases the likelihood the right type and amount

of assistance is given (Tharp et al., 2000). Working closely with external organizations,

schools gain perspective on the change process at their local site while developing new

knowledge about how the reform functions in other levels. In this way, collaborative

activities integrate policy and practice and help to ensure educational capacity is built.

Building Capacity for Reform

According to Fullan (2000), building capacity is one of the best investments

reform leaders can make in the midst of educational reform. Most importantly, is the


implementation of effective professional development that integrates what has been

learned into educators’ everyday working conditions (Birman, Desimone, Porter, &

Garet, 2000). Most professional development targets teacher and classroom change.

However, research suggests that professional development shouldn’t be limited to

teachers alone, but include all education personnel (Datnow, Lasky, Stringfield, &

Teddlie, 2005). From a reform perspective, principals, parents, and district employees

function as a unit. Interactions in one context generate outcomes in another that can

potentially condition the interactions or workers in other contexts (Hall & McGinty,

1997). Therefore, the entire system needs to be supported to sustain educational reform.

Researchers have begun to recognize that learning is both an individual and social

activity and have capitalized on this perspective in creating professional development

(Borko, 2004). The most effective models have evolved into those that emphasize

situated learning rather than disconnected teaching sessions severed from their working

environments. This requires a move away from the traditional workshop method for

delivering new understanding and strong step towards a more embedded, systematic

approach (Garet et al., 2001).

Peer coaching. Peer coaching is a situative form of professional development

useful for building capacity in an educational system (Showers, 1984). This process

involves teachers conducting classroom observations of co-workers’ implementation of

new instructional strategies. The coach collects data on the teacher’s use of the new

teaching tool and notes any changes in student understanding and behavior. Later, a

coaching conversation is used to discuss what was observed and what adjustments should

be made. In this model, the process is mutually beneficial for the teacher and coach. The


observed teacher receives immediate performance feedback while the coach is able to

correct her own approach to implementing a new strategy after seeing someone else’s

attempt.

Peer coaching incorporates many core features of other successful professional

development models. Teachers’ observation of each other is powerful in creating

instructional change (Seago, 2004). Observations afford teachers opportunities to see

their experiences mirrored in other classrooms reducing feelings of professional isolation.

Coaching conversations offer teachers sustained and ongoing communication with other

professionals interested in changing their practice (Showers, 1982). These conversations

afford opportunity for reflection and thinking about new ways to approach teaching

(Garet et al., 2001).

The Purpose of This Study

The purpose of this study is to examine Inerisaavik’s reform activities for their

responsiveness to the needs of Greenland’s schools and community.

Methods

This is a qualitative case study analysis, with Inerisaavik itself as “the case.” The

use of methods common to qualitative case study enabled Inerisaavik to be investigated

in a real-life context and allowed the perspectives of those actually implementing or

working with the reform to be presented (Yin, 2003). The research methods involved

multiple sources of data including interviews, participant observations, and a review of

relevant documents.

Data Collection


Participants. In keeping with the tenets of case study research, the participants

were chosen purposefully to address the research questions. From Inerisaavik, one

employee and two former employees were interviewed. From Inerisaavik, Kattie, the

second author in this paper was interviewed. Kattie is the head of the implementation

department and has implemented CREDE’s Effective Pedagogy in nearly all schools in

Greenland. She is responsible for coordinating professional development and ensuring

proper implementation. The other participant, Paartoq is the former director of

Inerisaavik and currently works in a high-level position at the Ministry of Education. He

is responsible for initiating Greenland’s reform and ensuring support at the political level.

Kaali, the former leader of Inerisaavik’s evaluation department currently works in the

Ministry of Education. He was an early reform leader involved in creating and initiating

the longitudinal database for student outcomes. All interviews lasted over one hour and

were transcribed.

Qualitative data in the form of participant observations were also gathered over

the three years. Most of the participant observations collected for this study was collected

by the first author who began reform documenting in 2005. The first author’s role at

Inerisaavik was to assist reform leaders in understanding and adapting the CREDE

Standards to the Greenlandic context. The first author was also hired to track the

developments of the reform and participate in the planning of further development. The

second author also contributed her own participant observations. Prior to position as

Head of Implementation at Inerisaavik, the second author was a principal at one of four

pilot schools that implemented the CREDE Standards in 2002. Her experiences both as a

principal and reform leader are included in the results.


Data Analysis

Data from participant observations, interviews and documents were analyzed

using constant-comparative methods. According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2000),

constant comparison method of analysis has its roots in grounded theory in which the

process of data collection and data analysis is interactive, iterative, and can be revised

with new information. Using this technique, data are collected by comparing social

phenomena across categories allowing new categories and dimensions to emerge.

Because this study has its roots in grounded theory, these emergent themes shaped further

lines of inquiry.

Data analysis began with codes that reflected Inerisaavik’s documented reform

activities for capacity building. As the data was further analyzed, these codes grew and

were separated into sub-codes. These subcodes were then analyzed for Inerisaavik’s role

in reform activities. Finally, these codes were compared across categories to examine

how Inerisaavik responded to the needs of the reform and their relationship with schools

and the community.

Results

The Evolution of Inerisaavik’s Approach to Professional Development

Professional development in Greenland has been the cornerstone for building new

knowledge of teaching and learning to support reform efforts. However, the models used

in the implementation of Atuarfitsialak have evolved over time to include more

responsive assistance and collaboration with schools and communities. This evolution

has been driven by “best practices,” but also to better fit the types of relationships

Inerisaavik wants to initiate in the school system.


In the early years of reform implementation, from 2004-2006, Inerisaavik relied

on individual courses to educate teachers about the CREDE’s Standards for Effective

Pedagogy. Teachers were flown in from around the country to a central location and

given instruction on how to change their practice. These sessions were largely ineffective

later evidenced in classroom observations.

The professional development was designed to develop classrooms that promoted

higher levels of linguistic and cognitive development through small group discussions led

by the teacher. In a classroom using the CREDE Standards, the teacher takes an active

role in facilitating peer assistance and guiding students through activity centers on

academic topics. However, after the first year of professional development in Greenland,

classroom observations revealed the teachers misunderstood the application of the

Standards and only implemented the supporting classroom management strategies. This

included at times, extended periods of non-interaction with students, student rotation into

activities that had no learning goal, and little to no focus on developing language or

complex thought (Field Notes, September 20, 2006). These observations prompted the

head of Inerisaavik’s implementation department, Kattie, to change her approach to

teacher education. She realized that the design of the current model of professional

development needed to be revised.

The first decision Kattie made was to change the name of the pedagogical method

from what was being used in Greenland to one that was more meaningful. She changed

the former reference to the pedagogical method, “CREDE” to what is now referred to as

“Effective Pedagogy.” She explained the problem with the former name:


CREDE is the name of the center. It is a researcher center. It is a building. It is a

house…. [People always asked me] What is that? What does it mean? We wanted

to find a word where [it] explains the content of the whole, of the goal (Interview

with Kattie, November 4, 2008).

Changing the name was an important decision for implementation because

Greenlanders are holistic in their thinking and the word “CREDE” didn’t activate any

schemas they could relate to. Kattie explained the importance of this issue

What I see very clearly is that we need to have a picture of our goals. And this is

our Greenlandic way of thinking, too. If you just have a house as a picture of what

you are going to reach to. If you don’t know what the content of that house is, you

wouldn’t know what your goal is. That is how we think.…The Greenlandization

[of the adoption process] is making [the goal] holistic so you just get a picture in

your mind and you say, okay, this is our goal (Interview with Kattie, November 4,

2008).

Kattie also intended to create more collegiality within the schools. She believed

Inerisaavik’s model of professional development was influencing how teachers worked

within their own work environments. Kattie felt that if teachers didn’t understand the

importance of collaboration in their schools they would not understand its place in

classroom learning. She outlined this connection between Inerisaavik’s approach to

professional development and how it affected teacher relationships.

What I could see was the individual teacher development done within the courses

of Effective Pedagogy was not giving responsibility to the teachers at all. The

responsibility kept staying at Inerisaavik. And Inerisaavik went out and gave the


courses, came home, and then went out and gave the coaching. The teachers who

had the courses were all by themselves and they didn’t have supports. The only

supporters they had were at Inerisaavik (Interview with Kattie, November 4,

2008).

Therefore, the second change Kattie made was to include a peer coaching model

following the work of Showers and Joyce (1996) that ran alongside professional

development workshops. Peer coaching was chosen as a model of professional

development because individual teachers receive feedback on their current level of

practice and the degree to which they have reached their goals from an external-expert

perspective (Showers, 1982). This immediacy of applying new knowledge is powerful in

changing practice. Kattie explained that by “coming and observing them and

discussing . . . what they feel and what they see and what their goal is…gives them more

confidence [that they are] doing the right thing.”

In addition, Kattie made many other changes in response to teacher needs. As part

of the coaching cycle, one day was reserved for a meeting on how to build collegial

relationships and work together as a supportive team. Kattie explained the importance of

this work,

JPA (Joint Productive Activity) is the very basic [tool] for teachers, too. If they

don’t make joint productive activity with each other, they cannot do it with their

students. Also, because the teachers need to develop language and literacy within

their own team on an academic level….If the teacher teams don’t use the

Standards, they cannot implement it themselves for their own class (Interview

with Kattie, November 4, 2008).


Other changes included principals required participation in courses on Effective

Pedagogy along with their teachers. Additionally, principals took a leadership role in

planning and scheduling of coaching sessions. In this way, they were given a place in the

implementation of Effective Pedagogy at their individual sites. An earlier report on

Greenland’s reform commented that this group was not included enough in early reform

efforts, affecting the degree to which they initiate change at their schools (Hindby, 2005).

By giving school leaders a modicum of responsibility in the implementation process, they

were given an opportunity to participate and build on reform activities.

By adding peer coaching as part of Inerisaavik’s professional development

package, Kattie needed to build a cadre of experts in coaching and instructing on

Effective Pedagogy. According to the second author, at this early point in the reform

there were very few Greenlandic experts capable of assisting in this capacity. In response

to this limited resource, Kattie instituted the trainer of trainer’s model in which experts in

both CREDE’s Effective Pedagogy and coaching were recruited from the U.S. to assist in

reform development. These American “CREDE-coaches” served as models for

Greenlandic teachers who were in the process of being educated as life-coaches. They

were selected because they were attempting to implement Effective Pedagogy in their

classrooms. According to Kattie, these ten teachers had the right combination of skills to

work as CREDE-coaches and instructors for Greenland.

Five of the ten chose to be “shadow-instructors” and taught courses on Effective

Pedagogy alongside more knowledgeable reform leaders. They were given small sections

of the curriculum to teach, but only if they were comfortable in this capacity. Most of


these teachers were already using the pedagogy in their own classrooms and had some

experience they could pass on during the instruction.

The other five teachers were used as “shadow coaches” and initially functioned as

translators for the American CREDE-coaches who only spoke English. In the first year of

their training, shadow-coaches were encouraged to observe questioning techniques used

by the experts. They were encouraged to understand how the coaching conversation can

be used to develop and deepen teacher understanding of Effective Pedagogy. In the

second year, the shadow-coaches were encouraged to glean the experts’ skills by asking

direct questions about CREDE-coaching and participate in the planning of coaching

conversations. This resulted in a collaborative relationship between experts and novices

who worked together to build capacity in Greenland.

Kattie suggested that these ten teachers have been important to the larger goals of

Atuarfitsilak. Many of them have initiated development within their local communities

by facilitating whole-town discussions on the importance of indigenous values and

culture and their relationship to education. Others have offered their services in coaching

at their own schools to further strengthen the implementation of Effective Pedagogy.

According to Kattie, they are bridging policy and practice in educational reform because

“they give a connection between school and society.”

How Inerisaavik Included the Larger Community in the Implementation Process

Reform leaders have been working collaboratively with schools and the

community since the beginning of the reform. For example, to prepare for a new

educational legislation, reform leaders held consensus-building discussions in order to

articulate what a Greenlandic school should look like. In 2000, a colloquium was held


that was a major event in the development of Atuarfitsialak. This colloquium provided a

venue for diverse perspectives on education to be considered and discussed. Leading

experts on Native education presented their views on how to change school systems to

accommodate Native populations. Reform leaders also invited members of the

community including, teachers, parents, school leaders, board members, union

representatives, and government officials.

Every strata of society was included in these discussions because reform leaders

believed that all perspectives from the community needed to be included to ensure

consensus and support for the reform (Hindby, 2005). Even student perspectives were

taken into consideration. For example, the reform project group sent a letter to all schools

requesting that students write about “my dream school.” Students were asked to consider

their desire for teacher qualities and instructional techniques to be used in the new school

system. The results of these discussions with community members and Native

educational experts from foreign lands provided valuable input to ministry officials.

These suggestions were included in the design of the School Act of 2002 which

eventually gave rise to the school reform, Atuafitsialak.

Inerisaavik has continued to include the larger community in Atuarfitsialak’s

development by using Greenland’s national television and radio stations. These mediums

are well-suited for the Greenlandic context, in which there is a unified educational system

spread over a large geographical area. The country of Greenland is nearly three times the

size of Texas, but there is no roads connecting towns. People travel with helicopters and

small propeller airplanes, but with only one airline, travel is terribly costly. Inerisaavik

has capitalized on this situation and created a series of 15-minute television and radio


programs describing important aspects of Atuarfitsialak. The videos are described briefly

below:

Video 1. The first video outlines the process of moving from a public school

system that uses traditional teaching methods to one that uses effective teaching

strategies. It outlines the new legislation guiding educational change and the initial

developments of the reform.

Video 2. The second video describes the Standards for Effective Pedagogy

through video clips of high-implementing classrooms in Greenland and explains why the

new methods promote learning.

Video 3. The third video details the changes in the curriculum to include the

newly developed learning goals for grades 1-3, 4-6, and 7-10.

Video 4. The fourth video describes the new assessments administered in grades 3

and 7 tracking students’ developments in various subject areas. The video explains the

value of on-going assessment in connection to higher education.

Video 5. The fifth video provides an overview of Inerisaavik’s plan to educate all

of Greenland’s teachers at a post-baccalaureate, Master’s or PhD level, depending on

their current level of education. This goal is to be realized by 2028.

According to Kattie, the Head of the reform implementation, these videos were a

way to involve parents into the reform process. She expressed that “it is very important

for Inerisaavik to participate in giving information for the communities for what the goal

[of Atuarfitsialak] is.” In her opinion, this kind of work was much needed because after

initial reform efforts, most of the developmental work has been at the level of the


schools. Changes that have occurred at the classroom level have not necessarily been

communicated to the wider community because reform work is still in its initial stages.

This has caused some problems in that some parents have questioned the

legitimacy of the reform saying that “Atuarfitsialak” is not Atuarfitsialak. Meaning, the

schools in Greenland are not good schools. Kattie explained the videos are assisting

parents to see reform as a process that cannot produces immediate results, “The goal is

Atuarfitsialak and that is something we are trying to reach. Not today, but that we need to

get tools to reach the “‘good school’”. She feels that the videos have helped the parents

shift their perspective on educational reform to that of a process and not to expect

immediate results.

Longitudinal Database as a Vehicle for Reform

In the initial stages of the school reform process, reform leaders realized that

teachers lacked tools for measuring students’ academic achievement. This resulted in the

creation of an evaluation department to create these tools. The former leader of

Inerisaavik’s Evaluation Department, George, described this early work.

This department started in 2002 … as a result of the Artuarfitsialak school reform.

We found out during the process that both internal evaluation and external

evaluation [was lacking]…. The instruction on a daily basis was very traditional

with no evaluation with students’ achievements. They did not have a goal for the

students and the instruction was based on textbooks and there were no goals for

individual students or for classes. So what we found out was that we needed to

strengthen the teachers’ understanding of … formative evaluation (interview with

Kaali, March 3, 2006).


To assist teachers in the assessment of individual students, Inerisaavik created

assessments based on the learning goals outlined in the revised national curriculum.

Previously, students were examined once in 10th grade, the final year of Greenland’s

public education. Enormous pressure was placed on students who had to pass

comprehensive exams that served as gatekeepers for post-secondary institutions. So much

was at stake in passing these exams that many teachers across the country used the final

year of high school to prepare their students.

These new “step-tests,” administered in grades 3 and 7, have taken a different

approach to assessment and evaluation by capturing individuals’ progress through school.

He explained that “In the old days, the reporting to parents were only marks and no

further information on how well the student is doing, why he got that mark, and where he

is the learning process.” Teachers were not responsive to individuals’ learning because

they didn’t have the training, tools, or understanding of how to do this. In fact, they

passed the buck and placed the responsibility in the hands of time. Kaali details the

general attitude teachers had at this time:

What we found out during the process of school reform was even though the

teachers found out that students [were having] problems with learning, they don’t

(sic) initiate special arrangements for the students. If he is not following the

standards in Greenlandic and writing, they just say, “Oh, they will learn some

time” (Interview with Kaali, March 3, 2006).

Inerisaavik’s created a longitudinal database that housed students’ exam scores.

The database was developed so that everyone in Greenland is able to access it. Moreover,

the interactive website allows schools to locate and track improvement by school,


teacher, and individual students to see if there is growth throughout the years. The

database will be used to improve Greenlandic education by following “every individual

student.” Kaali expressed satisfaction with his department’s contribution to the reform,

and commented “We will have the opportunity to follow the development of the whole

country.”

Discussion

This purpose of this study was to describe Inerisaavik’s responsiveness to the

needs Greenland’s schools and community by examining reform activities. Although

Inerisaavik is not an intermediary organization by definition because it is technically a

governmental agency (McLaughlin, 2006), their collaborative work is similar to these

types of organizations. In Greenland, the power of the state is immense and educational

policy and practice is controlled by the Ministry of Education. In spite of this, Inerisaavik

played an active role in addressing the disconnection that typically exists in most reform

work (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000). Reform leaders took a dynamic role in the “hand-

over” process by approaching implementation using principles of sociocultural theory

(Vygotsky, 1978).

Reform is not a straightforward sequence of program adoption and

institutionalization that follows a linear path (Datnow, 2000). Reforms are dynamic and

changing because they are shaped by the structural and cultural features of school and

society. This complexity has made it difficult for researchers to capture how reforms

change over time. As such, little is known about how reform leaders adjust reform work

based on their new knowledge acquired through experience (McLaughlin, 2006). This


study contributes to the literature on how experience was used to adjust a model’s

implementation to a new context.

Inerisaavik’s approach to educational reform is important in light of Greenland’s

colonial history. Like most formerly colonized places in the world, a dominant economic

and political system has oppressed and exploited the indigenous people (Dirlik, 2002).

Historically, the Greenlanders have accepted the educational mandates given to them

from a foreign government without having much opportunity to negotiate their

appropriateness in Greenlandic society. Inerisaavik’s collaboration with Greenland’s

schools and community is breaking this historical pattern. They have taken a strong step

away from the long-established patterns of one-sided implementation towards one of

mutual co-construction.


References

Documents

Building Capacity in Greenland’s Educational Reform€¦ · Web viewReform leaders also invited members of the community including, teachers, parents, school leaders, board members,