macdonald briefing decision makers

Author: ueaedu

Post on 31-May-2018




0 download

Embed Size (px)


  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


    decision-makers the evaluat ion of the Humanities CurriculumPro jec t .

    CAREUp;lfersity of East Anglia.Reference Only


    By Barry MacDonald, Centre of Applied Research in Education, Universi tyof Eas t Anglia

    All evaluation is concerned with prov id ing info rma tion for decis ion-makers ,but not a l l evaluators agree about who t he impor tant dec is ion-make rs are ,or what information they need. One argument of this paper is tha tevalua t ion , a t l eas t in some curriculum areas , should pay more at tent ionto diagnosing and sa t i sfying the needs o f the decisio n-m aking groups otherthan the programme developers . This i s not to question the val idi ty of"formative" evaluation , Certain ly we need to devise sound curriculumoffer ings , but we also need, i f they are to be effec t ive ly used, tounderstand bet te r the forces tha t shape' the i r fa te in th e schools . Thefollowing outl ine of the Humanities Projec t and i t s evaluat ion wil l , Ith ink, support this propos i t ion.How i s a democracy in i t s schools to handle controvers ia l issues? That,in a nutshe l l , is the problem tackled by the Nuffield/Schools CouncilHumanit ies Curr iculum Projec t which, following three years of researchin to th is quest ion, is now publishing packs o f te ac hin g mater ia ls andadvising schools on ways o f d ev eloping teachIng ski l l s and ins ights intothe problems of curriculum work in th is a rea .Th e Projec t was se t up in 1967 as par t of the preparat ion fo r ROSLA in

    ... 1972. The centra l team was asked to provide st imulus, support andmater ia ls for ' schools teaching the humanities to pupils aged 14 to 16of average and below average ab i l i t y . In the i r view, the def iningcharacter i s t ic of the range of subjects labe l led "Humanities l1 was aconcern wi th important human i S 8 U f ' ~ . and they decided to focus their researchupon the specia l problems of work in controvers ia l value a reas . In th isway they fe l t they could help schools respond to a demand" tha t thecur ri cu lum o ff er ed to adolescents should be ' re levant ' and tha t schoolsshould t ac kl e con tr over si al issues with these pupils in an honest and adul tway.

    lAs they saw it

    * See Schools Council Working Paper 2H.M.S.O. 1965.

    Raising the School Leaving Age.

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


    - 2 -As they saw it, the cen t ra l problem facedmeet th i s demand, was how to a l low pup i l s

    by schools which t r i ed "0to explore is su es r es po ns ib ly

    without being r e s t r i c t ed by the t e ache r ' s bias or subjec ted to unduepres su re s by o the r pup i l s . They approached th i s problem by a t tempt ingto s t imu la te and study in clabsroom s e t t i ngs a pa t t e rn of enqui ryt eaching with a p a rt ic u la r s ty le of d i s ~ s s i o n a t i t s core .Col lec t ions of or ig ina l source mater ia ls were gathered around enquiryareas and used as 'ev idence'* for discussion. Teachers, in the roleof d iscus s ion group chairmen, took r e spons ib i l i t y fo r feeding inevidence for the pupi l group to study and i n t e r p r e t . They undertooka lso no t to give t he i r own views on the i s sues , and to pro tec tdivergence of view among pup i l s . This t e ache r ' n eu t r a l i t y ' , al thoughby no means a new idea in th i s context ", has a t t r a c t ed a grea t dealof public a t t en t i on during the l i fe of th e Pro j ec t , and has beenperce ived by some to be i t s de f in ing f ea tu re , a judgement which mayove r s t r e s s one element in the te ach er ro le which the Pro jec t has beenexp lo r ing . The Pro jec t team produced i n i t i a l co l l ec t i on s of mate r ia lin such areas as war, education, the family , re lat ions between thesexes , people and w ork, and pover ty . (Co l lec t ions on r ace , la wand order , and l iv ing in c i t i e s , are in hand). Durlng the year s1968 to 1970, these co l l ec t ions were used by some 150 t eachers in 36school s throughout England and Wales. The cen t r a l team pu t forwardh yp oth es es a bo ut teaching s t r a t eg i e s , and asked th ese te ach ers tot e s t them by adhering to sugges ted r u l e s . The teachers were a lsoasked to comment on the usefu lness of the mater i a l s when these ru leswere fo l lowed, to sugges t a l t e r na t i ve ru les or hypotheses , and todevelop o the r enquiry ac t i v i t i e s "ha t needed to be bu i l t up aroundthe discuss ion .

    From Eas te r 1970 rev ised packs began to be publ i shed commercia l lyand t r a in ing schemes for t eachers were s e t up th roughout the countryto meet the re"ponse from ind iv idua l school s and loca l educat ionau tho r i t i e s . During the cu r r en t academic yea r some 600 school shave bought the mate r ia l s , which a re ava i lab le on the open market .Although most of th ese sc ho ols ex pre ssed the i n t en t i on of adopt ing

    / the r e sea rch s t r a t egy, 'Evidence ' as the word is used by the Pro j ec t , has a j ud i c i a l o rh i s t o r i c a l connota t ion . It means merely t ha t the mate r ia l i sre lev an t to the mat ter under d iscus s ion .

    **See, for instance,London Press 1927, 'Errors in School Ipp 227 - 229.

    John Adams, Unive r s i t y of

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


    - 3 -

    the research s t ra tegy explored by the cen t ra l team, fewer than halfof them have, to date , at tended t raining courses . 'The eva lua t ion of th is p ro jec t began in 1968, when I was appointed.My job was not closely speci f ied , but it was b ro ad ly int ended tha t Ishou ld study the work of the Project , provide feedback to the centralteam about the progress of the experiment in the schools , and designa sui table evaluation programme for implementation in 1970-72. Duringthe past year I have been joined by three col leagues , and the four ofus are now engaged in carrying out tha t programme.

    The problems of evaluation struck me as formidable when I began. Whena curriculum experiment is mounted in a la rge ly unresearched f ie ld ,which was the case with HCP, there is l i t t l e experience to draw uponin order to predic t i t s impact or ant ic ipa te the ' problems i t wil l

    innovation ef forts**.encounter. There i s . of course. the accumulated wisdom of previous

    Measured aga inst t h i s , a gloomy prognosisemerged. The Projec t . a t f i r s t glance, seemed to have many of th eearm arks of past innovat ion fa i lu res . I t required induct ion coursesfor teachers , i t was d i f f i cu l t to use, i t was cost ly in terms of schoolresources , i t conf l ic ted with e st ab li sh ed va lu e s. In shor t , theProject showed d i s t i nc t promise as a case-study in the pathology ofinnovation, from symptoms to post-mort.em. This prognosis assumedtha t the Projec t should be judged by th e amount of pupil learning i tproduced in a given period. This seems to me now an inappropriatelynarrow cr i t e r ion for jud gin g the merits of a curriculum development ofth is kind. A closer look at SOme key features of the Project mayhelp to underl ine th i s , and will also allow me to explain theinfluence of th e Pro jec t ' s design upon the development of the evaluation.There are three points I want to brief ly mention.The f i r s t p oin t concerns th e design of th e Projec t . The most widelyadvocated model of curriculum development is tha t which begins bys p ec if yi ng le ar ni ng ob,jectives in terms of end-of-course pupilbehaviour. The content of the programme and the method by which i t

    I i s taugh t

    The Evaluation Unit, which is attempting to document the overal lpattern of adoption and use of the mater ia l s , is not i f ied by thepublishers of a l l sa les , and asks a l l purchasers f or i nf orma ti onabout how they intend to us e the mater ia ls .See , for ins tance , 'Innovation and Education' , edi tor M.B. Miles ,Columbia Universi ty. 1964.

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


    _ 6 -

    What I had t o cope w ith then was an a t t e m p t a t c r e a t i v e curr iculumdevelopment with v a r i a b l e components, obvious d i s t u r b a n c e p o t e n t i a land a novel approach. My aim a t t h a t s t a g e was s imply to d e s c r i b e thework of the P r o j e c t i n a form which would make it a c c e s s i b l e to p u b l i cand p r o f e s s i o n a l judgement . In view of the p o t e n t i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ofso many a s p e c t s of the P r o j e c t , I f e l t I should commit myself i n i t i a l l yt o a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of i t s exper ience and to making myself awareof a f u l l range of r e l e v a n t phenomena. E v a lu a ti on d e si g n , s t r a t e g i e sand t a c t i c s would, I hoped, evolve i n response t o the impact of theP r o j e c t on the system and the s t r u c t u r e of the e v a l u a t i o n problemswhich t h a t impact would throw up .

    The P ro j e c t i n the Expe rimen ta l Schoo ls 1968 - 70.The 36 s c h o o l s which mounted the exper iment i n the Autumn of 1968were n o t s e l e c t e d by normal sampl ing methods. They were nominated byt h e i r a d m i n i s t e r i n g a u t h o r i t i e s , and r e f l e c t e d by t h e i r v a r i e t y ,i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n ju dgemen ts a nd p r i o r i t i e s among the l o c a le d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t i e s . Only i n a few cases were the c r i t e r i a ofnominat ion made e x p l i c i t . In most cases they had to be e l i c i t e d ori n f e r r e d . Pursuing the reasons which l a y behind LEA choices was ani m p o r t a n t e v al u a ti o n e x er ci se . I t helped me t o unders tand thec h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the school sample, to l e a r n something about theLEA p o l i c i e s and s t r a t e g i e s w i t h regard to c u r r i c u l u m development , t oa s s e s s how wel l d i f f e r e n t LEA's knew t h e i r s c h o o l s and by what meansthey judged them. C l e a r l y t h e r e were a v a r i e t y of c r i t e r i a involvedin nomination. In some i ns tanc es s ch oo ls were nominated which werel i k e l y to r e f l e c t well upon the a u t h o r i t y concerned, w h i l s t i n o t h e r swe had sChools which were c o n s i d e r e d to need an i n j e c t i o n of new i d e a s .It appears t h a t o c c a s i o n a l l y an old school may be o f f e r e d p a r t i c i p a t i o ni n an i n n o v a t i o n as a compensat ion f o r having t o put up w ith very poorm a t e r i a l condi t i o n s and f a c i l i t i e s . In o th er a re a s the "showpiece"8chool i s chosen. The grounds of nomination may be more d o u b t f u l .I n one a u t h o r i t y t h e r e ap peared to be an u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t the head ofthe school would no t use the P r o j e c t as an excuse to demand an u n f a i rshare of resources, such as new equipment. S o m ~ schools were, of course,s e l f - s e l e c t e d i n the sense t h a t the i n i t i a t i v e had come from the heado r the s t a f f who, having heard about the e xp er iment , p re ss ed t h e i r claimupon the a u t h o r i t y . On the whole, LEAs seemed to nominate schools whichthey c o n s i d e r e d to be ' good ' i n some n o t very p r e c i s e l y s p e c i f i e d way.

    l e l o s e acquaintance with

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


    - 7 -Close acquaintance with the experimental schools suggested that someLEA decision-makers do not know thei r schools very well and tendto make judgements about them on l imited c r i t e r i a , part icular lycommunity image. Such comments on LEA choices should not be allowedto disguise the fact that a primary considerat ion in most nominationswas th e p er ceiv ed su i tab i l i ty of the school fo r t he exper imen t.

    The part ic ipat ing teachers got to ge th er w it h the central team duringthe summer of 1968 a t regional conferences where the nature and designof the experiment were explained to them and the i r task out l ined.By a ll accounts most of them went away from these con fe rences withsome enthusiasm for the task.The exper imen ta l schoo ls were dis t r ibuted throughout England andWales, and located variously in rural , suburban, urban and conurbanenvironments. Questionnaires completed for me by each school showeddifferences in type, s ize , organisat ional s t ruc tu re , and in theformal characterisat ion of thei r c l ient populations. As a consequenceof the centra l team's policy of sharing decision-making, th iscontextual divers i ty was compounded by differences in the decisionsthey made about how to introduce, organise and implement the experiment.For ins tance, the time allocated to the work c a m ~ to four periods inone school but fif teen in another, while the number of s ta f f taking partvaried from one teacher to ten. Some schools chose to involve thei rable f i f th-year pupi ls , while others worked with thei r most l imitedfourth-year leavers. The si tuat ion was fu r ther complicated byvariables which became c learer as time went on, var iables in themotivation, understanding and expectations of the people part ic ipat ingin the experiment. Yet another var iable was the extent and nature ofthe support each school received from i ts local a u ~ h o r i t y .


    The immediate impact of the projec t was on the w h o ~ e alarming. Therewas enormous confusion and misunderstanding, leading to a generalfa i lure on the part of the schools to respond appropr ia te ly to thespeci f ica t ions of the centra l team. There were many unanticipatedproblems, and widespread misperception of the demands that the projectwas making. Some elements in this were:

    /1 . The importance of

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


    - 8 -

    1. The importance of headmasters in innovation was underestimatedby the cent ra l team, who did not see i n i t i a l l y the scale of thedemands they were making on ra ther in f lex ib le administrative ins t i tu t ions .I t was not easy for schools to create the nece ss ar y cond it ion s fer theexperiment, nor was it easy for t eachers ' to undertake such di f f i cu l tand novel work without the head 's unde rs tandi ng and support .

    2. The teach ers d id not ant ic ipa te the exten t to which many pupilshad developed, in the i r previous schooling, a ' t r a i ned ' incapacity forth is work, nor the depth of al ienat ion from any kind of curriculumoffer ing which many pupi ls f e l t , nor the degree to which they themselvesand the i r pupi ls had been successfully socia l i sed into a t rad i t ion of


    teacher dominance and custodial a t t i t udes . They were confounded whenpupi ls , inv i ted to discuss, maintained a sul len or embarrassed s i lence .Many were surprised by how dependent pupils appeared to be upon th eteacher taking and maintaining the i n i t i a t i v e , or by the scept icismwith which the proferred invi tat ion to ' t a lk f ree ly ' was received.I t would appear tha t almost a l l schools and teachers are moreau thor i ta r ian than they rea l i se . The impl ica t ions of the Project forthe school 's author i ty st ruc ture became increas ingly clear . Many ofthe teachers found t hemselves locked in role conf l i c t s , or in attemptsto bridge an unforeseen cred ib i l i ty gap between themselves and theirpupi ls . Thus the following comment from a teacher:"I'm very t o l e ran t in the discuss ion group to what the group wants tosay ...... but then a t other t imes when they approach me in an easy (_offhand way I f ind my adul t pride springing up in me and I f ind Ihave to sor t of take a posit ion over them you know - author i ty r t of show my super ior i ty in a sense in re la t ion to them and thiscauses a b it of anguish on my par t , ins ide me. "3. I t emerged tha t the centra l team had fa iled a t the outse t tocommunicate successfu l ly th e nature of the en terpr i se . From theteacher ' s point of view the ethos of the Project was evangel ical ra therthan exploratory, and the suggested teaching s t ra teg ies looked l iket e s t s of teacher proficiency ra ther than research hypotheses. Many f e l ton t r i a l . This both reduced the i r capacity to prof i t from theexperience and adve rs el y a ff ec "ed the i r feedback to the cent re .Had the picture from the schools been so uniform as these pointssuggest , perhaps th e evaluation might have developed di f feren t ly .it was not . Al though the programme proved general ly to be

    mightBu t

    /demanding, di f f i cu l t

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


    - 9 -demanding, d i f f i cu l t and dis tu rb ing , there were s t r ik ing exceptions andmany contradic t ions . While many schools repor ted severe problems, fo rexample with the reading l evel of the mater ia l s or the a t t i tudes ofthe pupi l s , others expressed surpr ise a t accounts of di f f i cu l t i eswhich they had not th emse lv es encountered. 'L imited ' explanationsof perceived f a i lu re / success , such as pupil ab i l i t y , teacher behaviour ,or i n s t i t u t i ona l ethos, could not read i ly be general i sed . Nor was i teasy to reduce through experience the number of theore t ica l ly postu la tedvar iab les . Teachers working in the nor th-eas t of England suggestedtha t th e di f ference in the response to small-group discussion of boysand g i r l ~ could only be explained in terms of a powerful sex d i f fe ren t i a lin expectations and aspirat ions in t ) lat region's working-class cul ture .while teachers in a Welsh school claimed, only par t - jokingly, that thereason they couldn ' t get discuss ion going was tha t there 's no such t i l ingas a corl trovers ia l i ss ue in the Welsh val leys . The matter seemedincreas ing ly complex, even le av in g a sid e such regional arguments.During the f i r s t year, while the cen t ra l team grappled wi th the problemsof the schools in an effo r t to sus ta in th e exp erim ent in a via ib leresearch form. I concentrated on t ry ing to es tab l i sh precisely what washappening in the schools, and on g ath er in g in fo rmatio n th at might helpto explain dif fer ing pat terns of act ion and response. I studied theac t iv i t i e s of the team Rnd th e interac t ion between them, t h localauthor i t ies and the schools . g ath ere d d ata fo r each sch ool about theexternal forces of support and opposit ion tha t were mobilised by thein troduct ion of the experiment. got out a check- l i s t of hard and so f tdata i tems which added up to an ins t i tu t ional prof i l e of each school.t r i ed to as s e s s , h,v q u e s t l o n n a i r e ~ admillist .erpd at conferences , thepart ic ipat ing teacher:::' understflrd iog of Project theory. and theira t t i t udes lowards i t . and or,rrani: -5pd a ref-ahack s:yst,pm of aUdiotapes o fclassroom d i s c u s ~ , : ; i o n with writ ten supplpmPllr8ry datA. I al::>o madevideotapp reco rd in gs of c l a 5 ~ r o o m work through the generous cooperat ionof a number of educat iol la l t e l e \ ' i ~ i o n un i t s th ro ug ho ut th e country,* Theneeds of the centra l team and of the ~ v a l u a t i o n . overlapped suff icient . lyto form a continu ing basis of coopflrat lon. e-ven i f the demands of the i rsupport role made i t increasirlgly dif f icu l t to match pr ior i t i e s .

    '1 embarked on* An edited maRter-tape of these l ' e c o r d i n g ~ 1S now avai lable from

    the F.valuation lJnit as a \ ' iRual report on the Project .

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


    - 11 -

    3. No two schools are so al ike in t he i r ci rcumstances thatprescr ip t ions of cur r icu la r ac t ion can adequately supplan t th e judgementof the people in them. His to r ica l /evo lu t iona ry d i ff e rences alone makethe in n 1lvation t ga p ' a v a r i a b l e w h i c h ha s s ign i f i cance f o r decis ion-making..

    4. The goals and purposes of the programme developers are notnecessar i ly shared by i t s users . We have seen the Project usedvariously as a po l i t i ca l resource in an exist ing power strugglebetween s t a f f fact ions , as a way of increasing the effect iveness of acustod ia l pat tern of pupi l cont ro l , and as a means of garnishing theimage of i ns t i tu t ions which covet the wrappings, but not the merchandise,of innovat ion. The l a t t e r gives r ise to the phenomenon of innovationwit ho ut c hang e.

    The Rat ionale and Framework of the 8valuation Programme: 1970-7:2.To avoid poss ib le misunderstanding, I should point out tha t evaluat ionof th e Pro jec t is not an act iv i ty engaged in solely by specia l i sedppr .onnel . All members of th e d ev elopmen t team have devoted much oft h e i r time to e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r work in o r d e r to in cr ea se t h ei rullderstanding and improve the qual i ty and appropr ia teness of the i rsuppor t to schools . Many of the schools have, with the ass is tanceof th e team, devised examinations sy l labuses and forms of pupila s s e s s m e n t . Ho wev er. I am r e s p o n s i b l e o n l y f o r th e work o f anindependent evaluat iol l uni t at tached to the Project , and i t is thatwork which I am h e r e con cern ed 1 0 d e s c r i b e #Evaluations may be judged hy w hether they get the r i gh t informationto th e r igh t people a t the r igh t t ime. But who are the r igh t people,w h at is t h e r igh t i n f o r m a t i u n , an d when is i t n e e d e d ?

    Faced w i t h a central team who were op p o sed to th e u s e o f ' objec t ives ' ,I had to look elseWhere for a concept of evaluation to guide me. Inany case, as I became aware of the complexity and diver s i ty of what wasgoing on in the experimental schools, 1 hecame increas ing ly scept ica lo f t h e n o t i o n o f c onf in ing e val ua ti on 1. 0 th e m ea su re me nt o f i n t e n t . i o nachievement. I then explored the po ib i l i ty of def in ing myr espons ib i l i t i e s in re la t ion to l ikely readers of my repor t . The

    / ideas o f e v a l u a t i o n

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers



    ideas of evaluation for consumers at trac ted me. In time 'consumers'became redefined as decision-makers and four main groups of decis ionmaker s eme rged - sponsors, local educat ion au tho r i t i e s , schools andexamination boards . The task of evaluat ion was then defined as thnto f an swering the questions tha t decis ion-makers ask. This taskdef in i t ion was subsequently perceived as unsa t i s f ac tory pri l lcipal lybecause it assumed tha t these groups knew in advance what questionswere appropr ia te . This is not a jus t i f ied assumption when educationalprocess is so l i t t l e understood that the effec ts of intervening in i tcannot be fu l ly an t ic ipa ted .

    At the presellt time we see our task as tha t of feeding the judgementof decision-makers by promoting understanding of the considerat ionstha t bear upon cur r i cu la r act ion . This task def in i t ion has two mainadvantages. In the f i r s t place it great ly increases the number ofpeople for whom the evaluation i s po ten t ia l ly use fu l . Secondly, itgoes some way towards meeting the oft-voiced complaint tha t evaluationdata comes too l a te to af fect decisions about the programme. Where theev alu atio n fin din gs are speci f ica l ly t ied to the programme and do notgeneral i se beyond it, th is cr i t ic ism is a t e l l ing one. Our f indingsought to be re levapt to recurring prob,lems of educatioflal choice , andcontr ibute to a cumulative t r ad i t ion of cur ri cu lum s tudy.With these considerations ill mirld, we carl def ine the objec t ives of theevaluat iof l urlit as fol16ws:1. To ascer ta in the ef fects of the Project . document the circumstancesin which they occur , and present th i s in fo rmatio n in a form which wil lhelp educa t iona l deci sion -maker s to evaluate the l ike ly conseque"ces ofadopting the programme.2. To describe the present Si tuat io l l and operai ions of th e schools westudy so that decis ion-makers can understand more ful ly what i t i s theyare t rying to change.3. To describe the work of the Pro jec t team in terms which wil l helpth e sponsors and planners of such ventures to weigh the value of th isform of investment, and to determine more precise ly the frame work ofsupport , guidance and control which are appropr ia te .4. To make a cont r ibu t ion to evaluation theory by a r t i cu la t ing ourproblems c lea r ly , recording our experience. and perhaps most importantly ,by publ icis ing our e r rors .'5. To contr ibute to the underot1lnd ing o f the problem s of curriculuminnovation genera l l y .

    /Nat everyolle would

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers


    - 13Not everyone would agree t ha t a l l of these are defensib le objec t ivesfo r an eva lua t ion un i t s e t up to s tudy one pro jec t . I would arguef i r s t l y t ha t object ives are in par t a func t ion of oppor tun i t i es , andsecondly t ha t , a t a t ime when curr iculum development i s becominginc reas ing ly the concern of a number of new and r e l a t i ve l y inexperiencedagenc ies , there i s a need fo r t h o s ~ involved in the f ie ld to contr ibu tewhat they can towards an understanding of the problems of change.

    There still remains the problem of the ' r i g h t ' in format ion . As anAmerican f r iend put it, " I t ' s not a see- through blouse i f nobody'slooking ." Decision-making groups d i f f e r in t he i r data requirements .Teachers may be mainly in te r es ted in pup i l developmen t, h eadmas te rs int eacher development, LEAs in school development , planners in Projects t r a t eg i e s , boards in the adequacy of examinat ions fo r theassessment of pupi l l earn ing . Moreover, ind iv iduals d i f f e r in thedegree o f c on fid en ce they place in d i f f e r en t kinds of da ta , and in thel eve l s of conf idence a t which they a re prepared to ac t . Faced withsuch diverse i n t e r e s t s and requirements, we are making a very broads tudy of the Pro jec t , combining both sub jec t ive and object ive approaches,( to use a convenient , i f mis leading , dichotomy) , in our acquis i t ionof r e l evan t information.The des ign we are working with conta ins c l i n i ca l , psychometric andsoc iometr ic elements . Bas ica l ly we are seeking informat ion from twoover lapping SChool samples, one l arge and one smal l . The idea i s tos tudy in some de ta i l over a period of t ime the experience of a smal lnumber of schools , while gather ing su f f i c i en t in format ion about what i shappening in a la rge number of schools to permit i n t e rpre ta t ion fromone sample to the other . The des ign looks l ike t h i s :a ) In the la rge sample of schools (c.lOO)

    ( i ) Gather ing input , contex tua l and implementation data byquest ionnai re .

    ( i i ) Gather ing judgement data from teachers and pup i l s .(iii) Object ive measurement of t eacher and pupi l change. (We have,

    a t the beginning of t h i s year car r ied out pre - t e s t s of pupilson 21 object ive t e s t s which r ep resen t the combined judgementsof t eachers , pup i l s , the cen t r a l team and ourse lves , of l i ke lydimensions of pupi l change. This is a massive opera t ion ,but wi l l be j u s t i f i ed i f it can

    /help us es tab l i sh

  • 8/14/2019 MacDonald Briefing Decision Makers