A Minor Change?: A Case Study of Carleton Place's Integration of Minor Variance Procedures into Ontario's Development Permit System

The Development Permit System has been introduce with minimal directives for establishing a decision making process. This is in opposition to the long established process for minor variances and suggests that the Development Permit System does not necessarily incorporate all of Ontario’s fundamental planning principles. From this concept, the study aimed to identify how minor variances are incorporated into the Development Permit System. In order to examine this topic, the research was based around the following research questions: • How are ‘minor variance’ applications processed within the DPS? • To what extent do the four tests of a minor variance influence the outcomes of lower level applications in the DPS approval process? A case study approach was used for this research. The single-case design employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods including a review of academic literature, court cases, and official documents, as well as a content analysis of Class 1, 1A, and 2 Development Permit application files from the Town of Carleton Place that were decided between 2011 and 2015. Upon the completion of the content analysis, it was found that minor variance issues were most commonly assigned to Class 1 applications. Planning staff generally met approval timelines and embraced their delegated approval authority, readily attaching conditions to applications in order to mitigate off-site impacts. While staff met the regulatory requirements of the DPS, ‘minor variance’ applications were largely decided on impact alone, demonstrating that the principles established by the four tests, the defining quality of the minor variance approval process, had not transferred to the Development Permit System. Alternatively, there was some evidence that the development community has not fully adjusted to the requirements of the new approvals process, as some applications were supported using a rationale containing the four tests. Subsequently, a set of four recommendations were offered which reflect the main themes established by the findings. The first two recommendations are directed towards the Province, the third to municipalities and the fourth to developers and planning consultants: 1) Amend Ontario Regulation 608/06 so that provisions under Section 4(3)(e) fall under Section 4(2). 2) Change the rhetoric from “combining elements of minor variances” to “replacing minor variances”. 3) Establish clear evaluation criteria. 4) Understand the evaluative criteria of the municipality in which you are working.

Expertise Development in Volleyball: the Role of Early Sport Activities and Players’ Age and Height

The purpose of this study was to analyse the developmental pathway of skilled and less skilled volleyball players by focusing on the quantity and type of sporting activities, as well as their age and height in comparison to peers in those experiences. Retrospective interviews were conducted to provide a longitudinal and detailed account of sport involvement of 30 skilled and 30 less skilled volleyball players (15 male and 15 female players per group) throughout different developmental stages (stage 1: 8-12 years; stage 2: 13-16 years; stage 3: 17-20 years). Results indicated that the developmental pathway of these volleyball players (i.e. skilled and less skilled) was characterized by an early diversified sport involvement with a greater participation in sport activities during stages 1 and 2. However, skilled players specialized later in volleyball (between age 14 and 15) and performed more hours of volleyball at stage 3 (from 17 years of age onwards). Also, skilled players (male and female) were younger in both the diversified sport activities and volleyball at the later stages of development (i.e. stages 2 and 3), and skilled female players were taller than peers in those activities in the early stages of development (i.e. stages 1 and 2). The present findings suggest early diversification as a feasible pathway to reach expertise in volleyball and highlight the importance of practicing with older peers once specialization in the main sport has occurred. The findings highlight the need for coaches and sport programs to consider different stimuli existing within the training environment (i.e. characteristics of athletes, such as age and height) that influence the quality of practice and contribute to players’ expertise development.

The Contribution of Structured Activity and Deliberate Play to the Development of Expert Perceptual and Decision-Making Skill

The developmental histories of 32 players in the Australian Football League (AFL), independently classified as either expert or less skilled in their perceptual and decision- making skills, were collected through a structured interview process and their year-on-year involvement in structured and deliberate play activities retrospectively determined. Despite being drawn from the same elite level of competition, the expert decision-makers differed from the less skilled in having accrued, during their developing years, more hours of experience in structured activities of all types, in structured activities in invasion-type sports, in invasion-type deliberate play, and in invasion activities from sports other than Australian football. Accumulated hours invested in invasion-type activities differentiated between the groups, suggesting that it is the amount of invasion-type activity that is experienced and not necessarily intent (skill development or fun) or specificity that facilitates the development of perceptual and decision-making expertise in this team sport.

Supporting Metacognitive Development in Early Science Education: Exploring Elementary Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in Metacognition

Metacognition is the understanding and control of cognitive processes. Students with high levels of metacognition achieve greater academic success. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine elementary teachers’ beliefs about metacognition and integration of metacognitive practices in science. Forty-four teachers were recruited through professional networks to complete a questionnaire containing open-ended questions (n = 44) and Likert-type items (n = 41). Five respondents were selected to complete semi-structured interviews informed by the questionnaire. The selected interview participants had a minimum of three years teaching experience and demonstrated a conceptual understanding of metacognition. Statistical tests (Pearson correlation, t-tests, and multiple regression) on quantitative data and thematic analysis of qualitative data indicated that teachers largely understood metacognition but had some gaps in their understanding. Participants’ reported actions (teaching practices) and beliefs differed according to their years of experience but not gender. Hierarchical multiple regression demonstrated that the first block of gender and experience was not a significant predictor of teachers' metacognitive actions, although experience was a significant predictor by itself. Experience was not a significant predictor once teachers' beliefs were added. The majority of participants indicated that metacognition was indeed appropriate for elementary students. Participants consistently reiterated that students’ metacognition developed with practice, but required explicit instruction. A lack of consensus remained around the domain specificity of metacognition. More specifically, the majority of questionnaire respondents indicated that metacognitive strategies could not be used across subject domains, whereas all interviewees indicated that they used strategies across subjects. Metacognition was integrated frequently into Ontario elementary classrooms; however, metacognition was integrated less frequently in science lessons. Lastly, participants used a variety of techniques to integrate metacognition into their classrooms. Implications for practice include the need for more professional development aimed at integrating metacognition into science lessons at both the Primary and Junior levels. Further, teachers could benefit from additional clarification on the three main components of metacognition and the need to integrate all three to successfully develop students’ metacognition.