IMPROVING LEARNINGFOR 11 to 14 YR. OLDS INMIXED ABILITY SCIENCE

GROUPSJack Whitehead BathUniversity School of

Education

CONTENTS

TEACHERS PROBLEMSAND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS . . ..............……page 5

1) Relationships between pupil and teacher2) Learning resources3) The nature of Science4) The process of Evaluation

THE OPERATION AND FUNDING OFTHE PROJECT ........................................page 7

1) How the group formed.2) Problems encountered.3) Factors increasing the group effectiveness

RESOURCES PRODUCED IN THE MIXEDABILITY PROJECT ........................................page 11

1) High structured Resources2) Resources for enquiry learning3) Monitoring effects of resources.

THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION page 17

1) Methods of Evaluation2) The value of the evaluation process (i)3) The possibility of improvement through

evaluation4) The realisation of improvement through

evaluation5) The value of the evaluation process (ii)6) The relation between evaluation and

teachers problems.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT page 25

1) For models of curriculum innovation2) For models of evaluation3) For educational research4) for in-service education

APPENDICES .........................................page 30

1) Proposal to Schools Council, Round I2) Proposal to Schools Council, Round II3) Models of curriculum innovation4) Models of evaluation5) A 5-year support programme and in-service

support for Independent Learning in Science6) Avon Resources for Learning Development

Unit7) DES/ATO in-service support course for

improving learning in mixed ability sciencegroups.

INTRODUCTION

Many teachers are experiencing serious problems in theirattempts to improve educational standards in mixed abilitygroups. This report shows how one group of teachershave tackled their problems and:

(1) created a network of in-service support (2) organisedresources for enquiry learning (3) established a process ofself evaluation.

In tackling their problems the teachers received one of thefirst local curriculum development grants from TheSchools Council in, "The Swindon Area Mixed AbilityExercise in Science".

Whilst this report is addressed to teachers who areimproving learning in mixed ability science groups, it ishoped that other teachers, educational researchers, andproviders of in-service support will find, in sections 2 & 3,useful guidelines for action.

The report begins with statements from teachers in mixedability science lessons, of their problems and possiblesolutions. These problems included the improvement ofrelations between teachers and pupils and theorganisation of resources for enquiry learning. In responseto these problems, the network of in-service support,described in section 4, was created. This network involveda Resource Collection and Evaluation Service from BathUniversity and financial assistance from Wiltshire L.E.A.and The Schools Council.

A central focus in the report is the process of selfevaluation, by the teachers, of the relationship betweenwhat they intended to do and what they achieved inpractice. The teachers were assisted, in this process ofevaluation, by video tapes of their classroom practice andinterview data on their own intentions and their pupilsresponses. This information was provided by the ScienceCentre of Bath University. You will see that improvementsin learning occurred through the creative and criticalpowers of individual teachers and a high degree ofcooperative activity. If you feel that it may be helpful toshare your problems with the individual teachers, theirnames and location are given on the back cover. Doplease contact them.

J. Whitehead August1976

Martin Hyman

By the time they come to us a lot of people have losttheir trust, confidence and eagerness to learn. Wehave to start trying to get it back and we succeedonly partially. All the children, even the non-examchildren are bound by the constraints of teacherswho feel obliged to cove exam syllabuses. I think thisis where the confidence goes.

I know I initially failed here because people ofdifferent abilities cannot be learning the same thing atthe same level at the same speed. They must beable to go at different rates and select to some extenthow far they go.

The report which follows is an account of howWiltshire Science Teachers are beginning toovercome their problems with the support of FrankHodgson (Senior Secondary Adviser), Tom Phillips(Wiltshire Curriculum Development Centre), JackWhitehead (Bath University School of Education) andThe Schools Council.

The account includes descriptions of how theteachers came together to work out ways ofovercoming their problems, the difficulties theyencountered in their relationships, the production ofresources, the selection and arrangement ofresources and the evaluation of their own and theirpupils work. It also shows how some progress hasbeen made and how the organisation of in-servicesupport in the area gives reasonable cause foroptimism that the improvements will continue.

4THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Bryan Entwistle and Jack Whitehead.

Bryan Entwistle: Wootton Bassett

The subject matter is discouraging me from teaching ina way in which I believe because quite honestly a lot ofwhat we teach, as you know, I don't particularly believein, I don't think any of us do.

Paul Swanston: Dorcan School

I've a number of ideas I try to achieve. I try to base myrelationship with my pupils on mutual trust and respect.From this I try to provide the opportunity to exploretheir own ideas and help them to feel confident enoughto be able to face the insecurity and try their ideas outwith my guidance and counselling. In the sciencelesson one often finds an intellectual and emotionalbarrier between pupils and teachers. I think this is dueto science teachers feeling there is some form ofmethod or technique special to science. The pupil mustlearn it and once having learnt it they must go througha pre-set exercise to demonstrate that they have learntit.

Jack Whitehead: Bath University

You said that you liked working in groups and not whenyou were taught in the classes. Why was that?

Denise (12 years old)Well, we just get bored sitting there and it's moredifficult to understand.

5TEACHERS PROBLEMS

AND

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

6

The teachers met to discuss their problems through anagreement between Tom Phillips and Jack Whiteheadto offer teachers in the Swindon area a particular formof in-service support. This form of support rested uponteachers meeting to discuss apparently commonproblems and their commitment to work together tosolve the problems. It was envisaged that the WiltshireCurriculum Development Centre and Bath UniversityScience Centre would contribute the materialresources and evaluation service needed to create andsustain any valuable innovation which emerged.

From three meetings at the Swindon Centre, a group ofsix teachers from three comprehensive schoolscommitted themselves to work together to design,produce, organise and evaluate individualised andsmall groups learning situations for their 11-14 yearolds, the majority of whom were organised into mixedability groups. Jack Whitehead was asked to co-ordinate the groups activities and provide assistancewith evaluation. Jack agreed to collect informationabout classroom practices through participantobservation, open interviews and video tapes, as wellas giving some help initially with the production ofresources.

In independent open interviews, the six teachersconsistently cited problems in the following categories:

1) Relationships between pupil and teacher

To establish relationships of trust in which the teachersare seen to be working with the pupils and in which thepupils experience the freedom and security to askquestions.

Example of the problem: PAUL SWANSTON

I try to base my relationship with my pupils on mutualtrust and respect. From this, I try to provide theopportunity to explore their own idea.

2) Learning resources

To select resources which are of personal interest topupils in mixed ability groups and are also of socialvalue.

To organise resources which allow the pupil to pursuetheir enquiries with a degree of independence from theteacher.

Examples of the problem:

a) ROGER BARROW

The first step in creating the learning situation 1

believe in, is to move to a more individual approachbecause then you can respond to the kids' questions,you can say 'go on and try it'.

b) PAUL SWANSTON

I think that I need some trolleys and trays andcabinets in the classrooms. If I was following a certaintheme on the combined sciences, then I would like tohave in my classroom all the core apparatusnecessary for maybe a months work, so that the basicstuff is inside the room. There would be cards,workbooks etc. which would relieve the teacher ofclass teaching and I'm certain, well I know that I andmany other teachers could train the children to workthrough a basic core of work, get their own apparatus,start off their own experiments and work along theirown lines of enquiry, when and where that came inand at the end of the lesson, when the bell went, theycould put it all back in some form of order.

3) The nature of Science

To create a situation in which the pupils scientificquestions are not stifled by the prolonged imparting ofscientific knowledge, as if it exists independently ofthe process through which it was created.

Example of the problem: BRYAN ENTWISTLE

I think we need our framework of scientific thought inorder to be able to give them a method by which theycan solve problems. We are, however, imposing ourso called scientific method on them, we are stifling thecreative instinct these kids may well have.

For a more detailed analysis of the teachers notion ofthe Nature of Science, see the Round 11 proposal tothe Schools Council Appendix.

4) The process of Evaluation

To judge the learners progress in a way which givesthe learner, information and criteria with which tojudge his own work in relation to his pastachievements, the subject he is studying and localregional and national norms.

Example of the problem: MAGGIE HANNON

Surely there must be a way to obtain an objectiverecord of a pupils progress and the effect that acourse of study is having upon him. It should bepossible to build up a profile of each pupil 'in situ'. Itshould be so designed that a glance will reveal avaluable and as far as possible objective profile of thepupil.

THE OPERATION

AND FUNDING OF

THE PROJECT

THE OPERATION

AND FUNDING OF

THE PROJECT

THE PROJECT

The Round If proposal, Appendix 2, describes thetwo phases in which the project was conceived.In phase I the teachers having mixed abilitygroups changed their classroom organisation forindividual and small group teaching. This includedthe production of a variety of worksheets andworkbooks with most of the problems "given" tothe pupils. The workbook on Forces is anexample of this form of resource.

In phase II the teachers hoped to avoid theproblem of stifling the pupils questioning byproducing and organising resources which wouldbe responsive to the learners enquiries.

During this period of negotiation the groupencountered the following problems, some ofwhich reduced its effectiveness.

Trusting Relationships were disturbed

Roger: I don't think the relationship between theteachers is in any way difficult, I don't feel that. But Ido feel that with the group we had, we would have saidwhat we thought. And we would have known who wastotally incapable of being convinced on a point and wewouldn't have wasted time trying. We knew who wascapable of being persuaded to see a point and wespent time arguing. But we pulled no punches, and wedidn't mess around, and we did have a pretty openhonest sort of relationship. I think what happened wasthat once people from outside the teaching professiondirectly come in exception being yourself, because youwere attempting to work with us and were very goodas a sparking plug, if you see what I mean, to themixture. But the mixture was right and this it has to beto ignite. What's happened now is that we're beingwatched. It's a bit like having a meeting with the head,you don't come clean, and are worried about whetherif you speak your mind, it'll count two black marks orcarry through for another three years - some of us feellike that and so we lose the honesty and the integritythat we had going before. Any time we have certain ofthe people there in on those meetings, we didn't shredany material, we had a philosophical discussion oneducational principles and methods. We'd already hadthat discussion a long time ago, we'd already agreedthat we didn't all see eye to eye, but that there wereno one right or no one wrong answer, and there can'tbe.

Jack: Why does this integrity go?

Roger: Because you're afraid, you're looking over yourshoulder all the time, you're wandering if I say that,will he think I'm a fool?

Jack: So the trust has been disturbed and one ofthe reasons that you give is that we are beingwatched.

Roger: Being watched in preparation for beingset upon a pedestal and I think that worried all ofthem, because we know full well that what we'redoing is nothing revolutionary, we're doing ourbest in a particular situation, that's all. Iunderstand why we are being watched.

Jack: Why?

Roger: Well, they're being watched in turn................

Jack: Do you mean being judged?

Roger: Yes we have been told that people allover the country are judging Wiltshire thisproject, Tom and Frank, and to a certain extentyourself As a result we must be careful that thewhole thing doesn't get out of hand.

Obtaining Resources

The support from the Schools Councils wastaking so long to formalise that only the efforts ofTom and Frank in supplying necessary paperresources allowed the groups to function. Afterthe initial support with secretarial assistance fromthe Science Centre at Bath the teachers wereable to have their materials typed and duplicatedwithin their schools. Tony Cole of Walcot Schoolwas especially fortunate in this respect as histechnician had typing expertise which she waswilling to use for the science department.

Jack had collected a bank of resources at theScience Centre in Bath from members of ILlSwhich were used extensively by the Groups. EricGreen, the co-ordinator of ILlS came down toSalisbury to give his support to the group. PatrickHoman Berry agreed to co-ordinate the SalisburyGroup and Jack, in his capacity as Chairman ofILlS arranged Patrick's secondment for one day aweek whilst supplying material resources in theform of workbooks, paper and plastic walletsfrom the mixed ability project. Don Foster,Science Editor of Avon Resources for LearningUnit, and at present Newsletter Editor for ILlSprovided small workbooks on air and electricityfor use in mixed ability groups.

9

10The Newsletter of ILlS has given VivienneBellamy, Tony Grant, Maggie Hannon andRoger Barrow the opportunity to convey theirviews to others.

TEACHERS LEAVING THE GROUP

As part of the Project two teachers were to beseconded for one day each week. Two teachers whohad produced resources and made an importantcontribution to the evaluation sessions were selectedby the group. Local Authority permission and HeadTeacher approval were sought for Paul Swanston'sand Roger Barrow's secondment. These were granted.Unfortunately for the Group, both teachers werepromoted before September 1975 and could no longerbe connected with the Project. Roger became a Headof a Science Department outside Wiltshire andPaul,Head of Lower School in Dorcan. Tony Colemoved from Walcot to Wootton Bassett School inSeptember 1975, continuing his activities but removingWalcot participation in the Project.

FACTORS INCREASING THE GROUP'SEFFECTIVENESS

A crucial time for the group was betweenSeptember and December 1974. The resourcesproduced in the previous term were tried out in Dorcan,Wootton Bassett and Walcot Schools. Theimprovements noted by the teachers in terms of thepupils' behaviour, organisation of resources and qualityof learners' work convinced the teachers that it wasworthwhile continuing.

In January 1975 the Schools Council formalised itssupport and other teachers in different schools beganto attend meetings and share their resources. Asecond group formed in Salisbury in April 1975 in thesame way that the Swindon Group formed in January1974. The initiative in forming both groups came frommembers of Independent Learning in Science and asone of the aims of the project was to develop a networkof support for teachers who are trying to improve theirscience curriculum it may be useful to show how thisnetwork is developing between ILlS, the AvonResources for Learning Unit, RFLDU and the SchoolsCouncil.

The aims and organisation of ILlS and the AvonResources for Learning Development Unit (RFLDU)are given in the Appendices 5 & 6 A central concernwhich is shared by the Mixed Ability Project, ILlS andRFLDU is the production and organisation of learningresources. Examples of the Resources produced byteachers in the mixed ability project will now beconsidered.

12

By September 1975 a number of workbooks had beendesigned, reproduced and used in mixed ability groupsin the following years and topics

First and Second Year

Topics

Classifying things SeparatingMixtures Forces HeatingSubstances ElectricityExamination of Hens' EggsFlower Structure EarthwormsMammals

Third Year

Topics

Electronics and IonsCommunities andPopulations MotionOptics Classifying Building BlocksAtoms, MoleculesOsmosis

The workbooks on Forces reproduced below ischaracteristic of the resources produced up toSeptember 1975. In these workbooks, writteninstructions aided by diagrams require the pupil to doexperiments following prescribed procedures. In theworkbook on Forces of 19 activities and experiments,17 have answers prespecified by the teacher. Of 50questions, 41 are closed in the sense that the answer isprespecified by the question. No experiments areencouraged to emerge from questions posed by pupils.An interim evaluation report produced for the teachersin September '75 shows that the teachers are aware ofthe limitations of this form of learning resource. Forexample:

Maggie Hannon

"We are still saying that there is a logical sequence tothe work and that we know what this sequence is. Wemight be kidding ourselves that we are getting awayfrom presenting the kids with set formulae. We mightsimply be doing what was done to us, only a differentway round."

Following the workbook on Forces, the attempts

of four teachers, Paul Hunt, Tony Cole, Maggie Hannonand Vivienne Bellamy to produce and organise enquirylearning situations will be considered.

13

14

15

Vivienne produced ten folders of material for January'76, two on each of five topics from the CombinedScience Course on: Forces and Movement, Patternsof Growth, Heating Things, Air and Electricity. Theresources were arranged in plastic folders whichopened into six sections with instruction cards,information sheets and experimental cards indifferent sections.

Monitoring effect of ResourcesVideo tapes made between January - April 1976show pupils entering the classroom andorganising their own work from the teachersselection and arrangement in the folders. Theimprovements noted by the teachers include:

*Fewer discipline problems*More care in the presentation of work*A greater quantity of work done*A greater degree of co-operative activity*More opportunities for pupils to try out theirideas and develop their own lines of enquiry*More questioning from the pupils

In the above process of curriculum innovation, theteachers were continuously evaluating their ownrelations and the resources they produced with theaid of information collected through interviews andvideo tapes. The importance of the process ofevaluation to the project will now be considered.

16

From September to December 1975, six teachers infour schools discussed the problems of moving fromphase I of the project into phase II, that is into enquirylearning. Two teachers decided to stay in phase I, asthey felt that there was still a lot of work needed toincrease the range of structured resource materialwith closed questions. The following four teachers inthree schools agreed to try to move into phase II inJanuary 1976.

TONY COLE (AND MAGGIE HANNON)WOOUON BASSETT

"After Christmas (1976), we are hoping to puttogether five,topics in such a way that children canfind their way through a particular topic and alsoanswer questions, posed by themselves in thesetopics which may not actually be part of the subjectmaterial. Until they ask you a question you don'treally know what you have communicated to thepupils. You may think you've had a good lessonbecause everythings gone to plan but you don't reallyknow until they ask a question."

Maggie and Tony have organised a class of 24pupils for enquiry learning from January '76. InMarch '76, they stated that there has been animprovement in the quality of the pupilsrelationships, activities and products.

PAUL HUNT: DORCAN SCHOOL

"I am still bound by my image of myself as a scienceteacher. Given the scientific framework which isalready established in terms of chemicals, apparatusand ways of going about things inside a room. I find itdifficult to make the transition into opening up thesituation in which the children feel secure to exploretheir own ideas."

Paul has allowed small groups of 3 or 4 pupils at atime to explore their ideas whilst the main body of theclass were doing prescribed work. Paul has taped,transcribed and evaluated his dialogue with the fourgirls as they were exploring their own ideas. Part ofthis transcript has been included in the process ofevaluation which follows, and shows enquiry learningin action in the classroom.

VIVIENNE BELLAMY: DUNWORTH SCHOOL

"If the children ask questions when, for example,they are heating things, I want them to be able topursue their questions. At the moment, they wouldn'tbecause of the way 1 structure their learning."

17

18"This will be a co-operative activity between learners,teachers, lecturers, scientists and industrialists. Theteachers will express their intentions verbally, in writingand with practical examples. The learners will be inter-viewed and video-taped whilst working to detect the stateof their scientific activity. The view will be taken thatlanguage is inadequate to express a person engaged inscientific activity, it is the kind of phenomena which canonly be shown. The evaluation sessions will be dialoguesbetween the above people as they attempt to makeavailable to each other their interpretations of theteachers' intentions and the learners' activities, and theassumptions on which they are based. Records willinclude written statements, transcripts of interviews andevaluation sessions and video tapes of the learners'activities."

The teachers, in open interviews with Mr. JackWhitehead, expressed;• their fundamental goals as educators, their

intentions for their own classroom situations, theway in which these intentions could be realisedwith support from the project, how the pupilsresponded to: traditional learning situations, i.e.situations seen as problematic by the teacher,new forms of learning situation initiated within theproject,

*their own reaction to the project.

The learners were also interviewed andexpressed:

*their understanding of particular scientificactivities,

*their reaction to different classroom situationsinitiated during the project.

*their own preferences for particular learningsituations. In addition to written statements,transcripts of interviews and videotapes of pupilsscientific

activities, the teachers have manifested theirintentions of the resources produced for theirlearners and in their particular classroomorganization.The basic value of the evaluation process was togather information about the intentions, activities andinterpretations of pupils, teachers, lecturers andadvisers, to make this information freely available andto aid development of the means by which theintentions of the teachers might be realised and bywhich expressed problems might be overcome.

THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVEMENTTHROUGH EVALUATION

The following two examples illustrate how theprocess of evaluation provides a basis forimprovement:

ROGER BARROW: WOOTTON BASSETTStatement of intentions:

Roger: Well, I was concerned with the fact thatmost of my teaching was being pitched in themiddle of the ability range and I wasn't reallycatering for individuals. I also had the problem ofdesigning courses for teachers who are notspecialists in particular fields. In the first instance Ifeel we must produce good work schemes whichincrease the teachers and pupils confidence. Whenwe have built up our understanding of this situationwe can then move on to the second phase ofresponding to the learners questions.

Jack: You see the vital thing as getting thekids to ask questions?

Roger: I'm not sure everybody agrees. I feel that somuch of what has happened in Science Teachinghas been a dull simulation, jumping through hoopsat the appropriate moment at the command of theteacher or the examiner. I've come to realize over aperiod of time that we were chaining anycreativeness and inventiveness in science. I knowsomeone has to work through all the permutationsand combinations but I think we have got to openout the possibilities for originality. I think so muchof what we do in science, is forced on us by examsyllabuses and kills all expression of opinion ordevelopment of ideas.

Jack: I can see what you are getting at but I'mcurious how you came to these ideas and how youare going to create the situation to make it possiblefor your pupils.

19

Roger: I came from a very rigid grammar school whereI was very dissatisfied with what was happening. I wentinto the comprehensive system in the hope that I wouldfind greater freedom and a greater concentration onthe needs of the individual. The first step in creating thelearning situation I believe in was to move over to thismore individual approach because then you canrespond to the kids and if they ask a question you cansay, 'go on and try it'

Jack: Have I understood, when you are face to facewith your pupils you are struggling in your relationshipwith them to help them be creative in the sense thatthey can ask questions and you must try and showthem resources which can help in their enquiries.

Roger: Yes, that's right. The individual teacher is avital part of the process. Recently we had four teacherson the same scheme. I suppose because I had a largehand in writing the scheme I somehow got a betterrelationship with my class. I don't know what it is butit's a different relationship to some of the others whowere struggling with the materials.

Contradictions between Intentions and Practice

Data of the following type was evaluated byRoger and a modification in the pupilsresponses occurred.

One of Rogers pupils was interviewed by JackWhitehead:

Jack: What kind of things did you do yourself?

Paul: Well, we got all the apparatus and put it upourselves and poured in the mixtures ourselves andwe did, Mr. Barrow, just helped us a little bit, if wewere stuck.

Jack: Really, yes. Did you ask any questionsabout the way you were doing this?

Paul: No.

Jack: You didn't. You just did it?

Paul: Yes.

Jack: But where did you get your ideas from then,if it didn't come from you?

Paul: Well, Mr. Barrow had a little talk with usin the beginning and then he got all our stuffout for us and we put it up and we went to go and getit and then we did our experiments.

Jack: I see. As you were doing the experiments didyou have any ideas of your own that you wanted totest?

Paul: No.

Jack: I see. And if you've got questions of your own,like when I put that in front of you, you said, you know,I've tried to separate it, is that because when you'regiven substances like this, you were told how toseparate it or not?

Paul: Mr. Barrow helped us a little bit.

Jack: Yes.

Paul: And he told us if we were doing things wrongIf we did we started it again.

Jack: Yes. The thing I want to try to find out is doyou have any ideas of your own that you'd really liketo think about and test out?

Paul: No not really.

Jack: You don't?

Paul: No.

Jack: What do you think scientists do? Do you think alltheir problems are always given to them or do you thinkthat some scientists really try to think out ideas of theirown.

Paul: Yes.

Jack: Which one do you think?

Paul: That they try to think it out themselves. Tryingto make things that can help people, medicines orsomething

Roger interviewed one of his own pupils.

Roger and Tracey:

Roger: You remember that, and you had to try tosave water yourself didn't you? Yes?

Tracey: Yes.

Roger: Well, what did you do to stop itevaporating away?

Tracey: We put a dish on the top of a beaker withwater in it, and put ice in it.

Roger: Oh, yes. Why did you get that idea?

Tracey: I'm not quite sure.

20Roger: You're not quite sure. Did you see other peopledoing that?

Tracey: No.

Roger: Or did you work it out for yourself?

Tracey: No.

Roger: How did you get it then? You just don'tremember.

Tracey: You told me.

Roger: I told you! Deary me. That's the second personwho's said I told them, been splitting obviously. Whatwas the ice doing then?

The process of evaluation has highlighted to RogerBarrow the gap between his goals and his actualclassroom practice. Roger began to encourage hispupils to express and pursue their own enquiries, withthe following result.

Roger: Now what I want to do is just ask you one ortwo questions about what we've been doing in sciencethis term. First of all did you, what were you expectingwhen you discovered that you'd got science on yourtimetables? Did you have any idea what you woulddo?

Boy: No, not much. Well, some that we did in our otherschool was very different.

Roger: I see, what was different about it?

Boy: Well, it was more set, you know, they did morefor you instead of now you have to do more foryourself

Roger: You feel you've had to do more for yourself?

Boy: Yes.

Roger: Have you enjoyed doing more for yourself'?

Boy: Yes. It's the independence of it ....

Roger: The independence of it you enjoy?

Boy: Yes. Discovering the actual thing with nobodytelling you what's going to happen.

Roger: You really enjoyed that did you?Boy: Yes, that's what I liked about it.

Roger: You really liked that? Oh, splendid.

Finally Roger Barrow attempts, in dialogue to makesense of his experiences.

Jack: How far do you think that the basic ideas that weare working with are unfeasible?

Roger: Well, I think the questions pupils ask fall intothree categories, there are those who are asking ashallow, trivial question for the sake of asking aquestion, or because 'Sir' said they were to think aboutsome questions on the topic; there are those who aska question quite seriously but are totally lacking in theability to follow through their question with any sort ofmature thought about it because the questions they'veasked require some kind of thought and therefore theyneed guidance. This is where they need a resource,something you can put into their hand, at least to startthem. This is the biggest problem with any project,

getting them going. Once you've started the lesson off,or particularly the project overall off, then one canspend time in individual groups, one can then helpthem. Now the third group asks serious questions andare capable of following them through. Like Ian andGary with that plastic stuff They asked the questions,they attempted to find the answers. They were capableof a very mature level of thinking and 'the way theyfaced up to the problems they met en route wasexceedingly encouraging.

The above example shows how the evaluation processhas helped a teacher to appreciate the varyingreactions of children to learning situations, andtherefore to a modification of their behaviour in adirection which is most likely to lead to the practicalrealization of their intentions.

The following example shows how the evaluationprocess allows an in depth understanding of thelearners problems. It also opens up possibilities forindividual and small group tuition.

Paul H: What have you been doing in the last fewweeks?

Gary: Cubic centimetres and that.

Paul H: Do you understand them?

Gary: Not really.

Paul H: What do you find difficult about them?

Gary: When you have to write the number and

21then put the little two at the top. -

2(Notation 2 sq. cm. can be written 2cm).

Paul H: Yeah, you're confused about that areyou?

Gary: I don't know what I do.

Paul H: Can you work out the numbers? Do you knowwhat the numbers mean?

Gary: (Indistinguishable) - I think I do anyway.

I presented him with the first problem and he repliedcorrectly "4 sq. cm." immediately. I asked him to write itdown. Without hesitation he wrote "4 sq. cm.".

This is what happened then.

Paul H: Lovely - that's right - now, do you know anotherway of writing it?

Gary: (looking uncomfortable) No.

Paul H: Go on have ago - see if you get it right. If youget it wrong I'll show you how to do it afterwards.

Gary: (writing) 4 cm. He then hesitated -knowing itwasn't complete.

Paul H: Yes, good that's right. Come on, one morething to do. 2Gary: (completing it) 4 cm

Paul H: Good - very good.

It is becoming clear that individual and small groupwork as exemplified in the above evaluation processcan lead to a dialogue which encourages theformulation of problems, questions and ideas which canbe exploited by the provision of suitable resources. Theresources can be designed with a thoughtfulunderstanding of the real problems with which learnersare faced and with a realistic appreciation of stimulusmaterial responsive to their ideas and imaginations.The possibility of change has been shown to originatein the process of evaluation. The following extractsclearly demonstrated how learning has actually takenplace in a small group situation within a classroomsituation, where all children were working on a circus ofexperiments highly structured by worksheets.

The majority of the class could continue their activitieswith a minimum of supervision from the teacher. Thisallowed the teacher the opportunity of fulfilling the roleof 'consultant, advisor or tutor'.

It allowed the process of self evaluation to occur indialogue between teacher and small groups oflearners.

Four second year girls were measuring the acidity oralkalinity of lead monoxide (a fine orange powder) byadding drops of indicator (a green liquid) into a mixtureof the powder and water. One pair obtained anorangy-red liquid indicating an acid and the other pairobtained a blue liquid indicating an alkali. They went tothe teacher, formulated the problem, "We got differentcolours", and received permission to continue work tosolve their problem.

By the end of a double lesson they succeeded, afterthree failures involving highly creative work, to obtainthe same blue colour indicating that lead monoxide isalkaline.

Teacher: What was important about what you weredoing? Tracer?

Tracey: It's just that, well, when we got differentanswers, we couldn't see why, we got differentanswers and so we wanted to get them so that theywere the same.

Judith: We were excited... It would have been better ifwe'd had longer.

Teacher: I mean, why was what you did so valuable?What was its value to you?

Judith: I suppose it was our own little discovery.

Denise: We achieved something . . . we don't normallyget so interested in lessons, but this time we just gotinterested because we wanted to find out the answer toit.

Teacher: Was it the answer, the so-called answer thatwas important or was it something else?Tracey: Well, we was very pleased when we got theright answer, but I don't know . . . well, every otherexperiment that I do is normally a complete flop and,well, this one seemed to be going quite well and so Igot really interested in it.

22Teacher: But for someone coming into the room,your experiment would have seemed more of aflop than the normal. Do you understand that?They would have seen one of you with a bluecolour and one of you with an orange colour andsaid 'well, something has gone wrong... do itagain . . it's not right.' In fact, it would haveseemed a complete flop.

Tracey: Well, it came out of a . . . well, it wasn't

exactly a flop, but it was more or less, but thereason was . . . it started off with a flop and wegot it to a good experiment. Well, I thought itwas.

Teacher: What do you feel you created in thisroom?

Sandra: Noise!!

Judith: I suppose, you know, the atmospherewas, we were just getting more excited after itdidn't work twice, so, you know, we just kinda,well when the teacher come into the room andsaw it as a flop, I don't think I could have seen itas a flop, because it was, you know, just adiscovery which you wanted to take further. So ifthey saw it as a flop then I can't see why.

And subsequently: -

Judith: Well, I suppose really it was that we weredoing an experiment off our own bats, and it wasworking was the most important thing because itwas our achievement and not prompted by theteacher and it wasn't what everybody else wasdoing, so it was different and so we enjoyed itmore than we would have before.

Teacher: Are there any questions that you wantto ask me?

Judith: Well, in the next lesson, can we carryon?

Sandra: Yes, 'cos we didn't find out why. All wedid was we finished the experiment, you know,just got the result the same, but we didn't findout why!!

Teacher: Right! Yes. That's what you want todo. That would be good, you know, to find outwhat it was that made the lead monoxide go, onthe one hand blue and on the other hand red.The dialogue shows how the evaluation processhas encouraged the formulation of a newquestion a sudden realization that anotherproblem had

arisen to which they were personally committed.

This personal commitment to the solution of a questionwhich they had formulated produces a huge leap in theirunderstanding of the concepts of acids and bases.

They continue their investigation:

Teacher: Denise, can you tell me about the experimentyou are doing today?

Denise: Well, I get two test tubes, but I don't fill them upwith the same amount of water and I measure up thesame amount of lead monoxide, one spatula ful, and 7drops of indicator. Tracey uses dirty test tubes, Sandrauses exactly the same amount of water and indicatorbut different amounts of indicator but the same amountof water and lead monoxide.

They say that the results might have been wrong thefirst week, for one of four reasons:

They used different amounts of water.

They used different amounts of lead monoxide.

They used different amounts of indicator.

They used dirty tubes.

The experiments they devise use a sophisticatedtechnique called 'a controlled experiment' where onevariable (i.e. amount of water) is altered while all otherfactors are kept constant. This concept is notoriouslydifficult for a major proportion of children at this agewhen taught in the more conventional ways.

They obtained their results.

Teacher: Now you've said "It's nothing to do with theamount of water, it's nothing to do with the amount oflead monoxide, or with dirty tubes, or the amount ofindicator. In fact it doesn't seem to be to do withanything that you've tested.

Sandra: No.

Teacher: Now what do you think was different about theexperiment that you did last week which makes itdifferent to the experiment you did this week?

Tracey: Well I suppose what we could try, Sir, is that wecould have say, different amounts of water in the testtubes and different amounts of

lead monoxide and dirty test tubes and see whether itwas all four of them.

They are saying "It wasn't one factor on its own thatmade the difference but it could have been caused byall these factors acting together".

Teacher: Yes, that is certainly true. It could have been.What about this idea. The lead monoxide should turnindicator a blue colour, but last week you had one tubethat went red. Could it have been a dirty test tubewhich had had acid in it?

Tracey: Wouldn't it go neutral, because a certainamount of acid and a certain amount of alkali in there .. . shouldn't it turn neutral, but we didn't. We got a verystrong acid and one got a very strong alkali.

Teacher: You think about that.

Sandra: I don't get what you mean.

Tracey: I thought about it before I asked you!

Teacher: Well, think about it again. Sandra, you don'tunderstand what we are driving at, do you?

Sandra: No.

Teacher: The mistake might have occurred last weekbecause you had a dirty test tube and it had acid in italready. Now what would happen if you did all this in atest which was dirty to begin with, with a bit of acid.What might happen?

Sandra: What . . . what, you mean if we did anordinary experiment and it turned acid and then wetipped it out without washing it, do you mean?

Teacher: Mm.

Judith: Well, then it would turn acid wouldn't it.

Tracey: Well not, it wouldn't. If you have got leadmonoxide and that's, well we found out it was a verystrong alkali. A strong alkali and a strong acid is goingto make neutral isn't it?

Teacher: Well it depends.

Sandra: You've got to have virtually the samehaven't you.

Tracey Yes it's a balance isn't it.

Teacher: Mm.

Sandra: Tracey said "if you had a strong acid and astrong alkali it would make a neutral, but how is Traceygoing to know how much acid is in there to ad?1 thesame amount of alkali?

Teacher: Good point.

Judith: If we use a syringe, then we could put exactlythe same in, so we know that it's balancing, or we knowif it's stronger or weaker.

Sandra: But we don't know how much acid is in there.

A minute ago Sandra didn't understand the problem theother girls were raising. She has now grasped the ideaof 'acids cancelling out alkalis' and of her own accord isappreciating the idea of balancing out differentquantities of acids and alkalis whose 'strength' isunknown. A giant leap.

THE VALUE OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS

The process of evaluation:

Stimulates interest.Encourages questions which can be followed up.Provides a concrete base on which relationships can beformed and sustained.Consolidates past learning.Encourages formulation of ideas.Encourages the pupils to become active learners.

In section B of this report "Teachers Problems andpossible Solutions" 4 main areas of concern were given.

Relationships.Learning Resources.The Nature of Science.The Process of Evaluation.

The evaluation process has consistently shown itselfappropriate to the solution of 3 of these problems,namely:

Relationships:

Evidence has accumulated to the effect that

24

effective and valuable relationships are formedbetween teachers and pupils.

Certainly many teachers note a marked reduction indiscipline problems and a greater degree ofco-operative activity.

Pupils do experience greater freedom and securityand feel encouraged to explore their own ideas.

The Nature of Scientific Enquiry:

Evidence has been cited supporting the notion that itis possible to create a learning situation in which thepupils become familiar with working according to thescientific method.

These attitudes of controlled rigorous observation andthe use of logic are shown to exist in harmony with theimagination and originality which the learners bring tobear upon their problems.

The Process of Evaluation:

The judging of the pupils progress in a relationship oftrust and security has been both informative andconducive to learning for all parties involved.

Such a form of communication can become selfsustaining because the dialogue encourages theasking of questions, the confidence to solve theproblems and the commitment to provide informationand criteria to judge the learning which takes place.

There remains the one outstanding problem ofproducing resources which are of personal interestand of social value. How far the process of evaluationhas increased the effectiveness of resourcesselection, design and production is unsure. Mostteachers, however, have begun to express acommitment toward one form of resource organisationor another. These forms are manifold and include:

Class sets of highly structured materials -usually oflow reprographic quality. Individual packs of highlystructured materials of a high quality. Individual packsof non-structured materials of high quality withsuggestions for pupil activity.They exist together in our classrooms and are notmutually exclusive. Such a mix may provide atransition from structured class lessons toward anindividualised enquiry approach by a means leaststressful for the teacher.

The process of evaluation is thus justified:

As a general research strategy for the collection ofinformation. As an aid to improving learning throughdialogue. As an integral part of the development ofthe curriculum. As a model of democratic evaluation.(see p.22).

The Implications of the above process of innovationand evaluation will now be considered in relation to

a) models of curriculum innovationb) models of evaluationc) In-service Educationd) Educational Research

For any model to adequately characterise the humanprocess of curriculum innovation, it should accountfor part of the process in terms of the values,intentions and actions of the individuals in theprocess. In the mixed ability project the processes ofinnovation and evaluation will now be consideredand related to the values, intentions and actions ofthe individual participating in the project.

25

26MODELS OFCURRICULUM INNOVATION

At least four models of curriculum innovation can bedistinguished in recent projects. These models havebeen defined in terms of: Diffusion, ResearchDevelopment and Dissemination, Problem Solving andCreativity. These characteristics are given in appendix3. In the mixed ability project the innovation wascharacterised as a living process which synthesised thefour models in the following way.

The Diffusion Model:

In the process of innovation some information onresources and organisation have percolated through tothe teachers through the National Press, The SchoolsCouncils Dialogue and Educational Suppliersnewsletters and catalogues. This information made theteachers aware that others were experiencing similarproblems.

The Research Development and Dissemination Model:

From a concern to solve their problems a small groupof teachers had gathered themselves together,supported by an adviser, warden and lecturer, andnegotiated funds and time from The Schools Counciland L.E.A. to develop their curriculum.

The Problem Solving Model:

In the formation and operation of the Workshop Groupa central theme for analysis and continuousquestioning was why the curriculum was in need ofimprovement. Through seeing that the changes wererelevant and important to their situation the teachersattempted to improve the curriculum.

The Creativity Model:

The operation and funding of the working group hasbeen described in a previous section. This was anexample of how teachers, a warden, lecturer aridadviser attempted to create the circumstances andprovide the support which would enable effectiveinnovation to be generated, sustained and carriedforward in the schools by the teachers directlyconcerned with the problem.

It is difficult using the above models to define theprocess of curriculum innovation in the mixed abilityproject. A new view of the curriculum was implicit in theway the teachers selected and arranged the resources.The teachers selected topic areas and arranged

resources which contained the conceptual frameworksof the disciplines within the scientific form of knowledgeas one set of possible interpretations amongst manyothers. The key notion was that the curriculum wasviewed in terms of the conceptual framework whichemerged from the questions educator and pupil agreeare likely to be in the pupil's personal and social interestto pursue. This view of the curriculum differed frompreviously held views that the curriculum of a school is abody of knowledge independent of the pupil and there tobe mastered.

The Approach to Innovation in the MixedAbility Project

The above change in view occurred in the interactionsof the teachers in their classrooms. The following fourvalues and five activities could be distinguished in thelives of the teachers through participant observation inthe classrooms.

Four Values

1. Concern with improving learning situations forpupils.

2. Commitment to work with others, in a climate oftrust and critical dialogue, to solve sharedproblems.

3. Faith in each others capacities to evaluate theirown activities relations and products.

4. Determination to gather and evaluateinformation on the areas of concern from peoplein local regional and national institutions.

Five Activities

1. Organise meetings for teachers with similarproblems.

2. Encourage the formulation of teachersproblems.

3. Work with the teachers to solve the problems.4. Gather and evaluate, with teachers, information

on the changing situation.5. Disseminate information to other interested

individuals.

MODELS OF EVALUATION

Implications for the Structure of Evaluation

Six models of evaluation can be distinguished in theeducational literature. Three attempt to characteriseevaluation in terms of democratic, bureaucratic andautocratic forms of social control (Appendix 4). Threecharacterise the

27

process in terms of norm, criteria and illuminativeforms of psychological testing procedures.

Norm referenced assessments are used by the GCEboards. They are concerned with obtainingstandardised objective measures of achievement inorder to provide information to the selection agencieswhich influence opportunities for jobs and highereducation.

Criteria referenced assessments are used by CSEboards are designed to detect mastery of a set ofintellectual skills, ability and knowledge. They areusually based on a set of behavioural and cognitiveobjectives and may contain an attitude scale.

Illuminative procedures have rarely been used in thiscountry's structure of evaluation. They are designed tohelp the learners improve the quality of their productsby providing information and criteria on which thequality may be judged.

The democratic evaluation study (Appendix 4) is anemerging model, not yet substantially realised but onewhich embodies some recent theoretical and practicaltrends. The criteria which distinguish this form ofevaluation are:

1)The evaluator acts as a broker in exchanges ofinformation between groups who want knowledge ofeach other.(2)The evaluators main task is the collection ofdefinition of and reactions to the programme.(3) Key concepts are confidentiability, negotiation,accessibility and the right to know.

The form of social control used in the above processof evaluation fulfils criteria 1 and 2 and the keyconcept the right to know.

The structure of Evaluation which is emergingfrom the Mixed Ability Project.

1) A democratic form of control in the evaluationprocess.

In the process of evaluation the key issue was thecreation of a climate of trust in which the teachers andlearners experienced the freedom and security toexpress their intentions and interpretations. Jackgathered information about the intentions, activitiesand interpretations of learners and teachers whoagreed that this information should be freely available.The

techniques of data gathering included video tape andopen unstructured interviews.

2) The Illuminative Evaluation Procedure

This procedure rested upon the climate of trust beingestablished between a network of teachers, lecturersand advisers. The primary purpose of establishingthis network was to improve the quality of thelearners' relations, activities and products. This wasachieved through a series of evaluation reports com-piled from the data given in the body of this report.An expression of faith between participants in eachothers capacity to evaluate these reports in terms ofimproving ones own practice was essential to thisprocedure.

3) Criteria Referenced Assessment.

It is suggested that this form of assessment shouldbe related to the intrinsic qualities of the subject. Forscience, the following 4 categories are suggestedwhich, with a 5 point scale and a matrix of workdone, will provide important feedback on progress toteachers and parents and future employers.

1. Creativity

e.g. having ideas asking questions finding patterns forming hypotheses forming problems

2. Experimentation

Observation Recording Manipulation

28

3. Evaluation

Self criticismResponse tocriticism ofothers

4. Communication

Talking Writing Other media

An alternative view of educational research has beenpresented. In this view, research is an approach to thesolution of problems encountered in practice, and theconstruction of plausible and useful interpretations ofeducational phenomena which are directly related tothe lives, language and relations of those involved inthe process.

The present methods of educational researchtransform human relations in logical or empiricalrelations. They also represent the immediately livedexperience and behaviour of a human being innumerical scales or category systems. In the dominantview of educational research, explanations ofeducational processes, which involve networks ofhuman relations, are given as sets of determinantrelations between variables in the process andmeasured student outcomes. A valid explanation of aphenomena, must, however, relate directly to thenature of the phenomena under investigation, which isin this case, a network of human relations.

The limitations in the above methods can beexperienced directly in reflection on ones own natureas a human being. In my nature as a person 1experience myself as completely different from adependent or independent variable in a set ofdeterminate relations. My experience of reason,freedom, creativity, moral and social responsibilitycannot be represented in numerical scales or categorysystems.

1 encounter educational phenomena as consciousawareness which are sources of meaning. It isprecisely as teachers have immediately lived andexperienced their relations in classrooms, in theirquality of being educational phenomena that create,reveal or at least carry meaning, that provides the basefor the alternative view of educational researchpresented here.

A scientific enquiry begins with the creation of apossible world, a world which we invent, criticise andmodify as we live so that it ends as nearly as we canmake it a story of real life.

The account in this research report started with theimmediately experienced problems of teachers in theirclassrooms. It continued by following the teachersthrough their project to improve their own situations.The data on the lives, language and relations of theteachers and their pupil has been presented as aninterpretive commentary on a living process, a storyabout real life which began with the creation of apossible world in the teachers' intentions.

It is suggested that the 4 categories be equallyweighted.

4) Norm-referenced assessments

The Universities are most anxious that some agreedand applied criteria be established fornorm-referenced assessments. This could be doneefficiently and cheaply by isolating the key conceptswithin the forms of knowledge (agreed by theUniversities as important) and applying the well-triedtechniques of developing standardised objectivemeasures for examination.

It is suggested that the balance of financial resourcesshould shift from emphasising norm and criteriareferenced assessments to an emphasis onilluminative evaluation procedures which aredesigned to improve the quality of the learner'sproducts.EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Implications for Educational Research

There is no serious dispute that educational researchis seen as an attempt to construct a set of logical orempirical relations between a set of variables andmeasured student outcomes.

The mixed ability research project has raised seriousquestions about the appropriateness of this definitionfor answering questions of the form: How areeducational standards improved within secondaryschools?

Implications for In-service Education

A central function of in-service education is to improveeducational standards within schools. There are,however, few case studies which show how particularforms of in-service support have influencedimprovements in classroom practice. The studypresented here describes how the in-service supportfrom Bath University Science Centre influencedimprovements in learning for 11-14 year olds in mixedability science groups.

This form of in-service support was based upon thefollowing 4 assumptions.

Teachers could isolate the problems they experiencedwhen they were not living their intentions in practice.

Scientific thinking could be resolved into two episodes,the imaginative and critical which alternate and interact.The generative acts were outside logic and involved theasking of questions, forming hypotheses, or havingideas.

Teachers needed easy access to resources whichwould help solve their problems.

Teachers could evaluate the contradictions betweenintentions and practice when presented with objectiveevidence. Evaluate, that is in terms of the relationsinvolved in the transformation of intentions into practice.

From exploring these assumptions a network ofin-service support has been created which involvescontributions from Bath University, Wiltshire LEA, TheSchools Council, Avon Resources for LearningDevelopment Unit, Independent Learning in Science,The Association for Science Education and TheDepartment of Education and Science.

This form of support has emerged from theassumptions related to teachers isolating their ownproblems, enquiry learning, the self-evaluation ofintentions and practice and easy access to resources.These resources include the objective evidence onwhich the teachers can evaluate the contradictionbetween their intentions and classroom practice

The in-service education above was not offered as ablueprint for improvements in classroom practice.Improvements have occurred through the creativepower of individual teachers to transform their ownsituation.

29

The implications in the above project are thatteacher trainers and others have a social res-ponsibility to remove constraints which mayprevent teachers creating and being critical of theirown local curriculum developments.

30

APPENDICES

a) ROUND I PROPOSALJune 1974

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTPROGRAMME

1 Description of the purposes of the projectThis is an attempt at local level to respond to theneeds of teachers faced with the problems of teachingscience to 11-14 year olds of wide ability ranges,individually and in small groups. Teachers from fiveschools are attempting to solve their problems byforming workshop groups to reorganise existingresources from the Nuffield and Schools CouncilProjects and creating additional resources to meetspecific needs.

The outcome of this general attempt to look at whatthe children and teachers are doing in science will be aco-ordinator's report, which will describe and evaluatethe curriculum developments.

2 Originated by Teachers working as a groupat Swindon Curriculum Study Centre, Swindon

3 To be conducted by A Group of Teachers co-ordinated by Mr Jack Whitehead, Bath

University School of Education.

4 Approximate duration and desirable startingdate2 years - September 1974. (Changed in

January 1975 to 1 year, and to finish in August1976.)

5 Approximate Total Cost£7,000 (Changed in January P1975 to£6,000)

6 Discussed/Approved by the followingCommittees

7 Numbers of any relevant papers

8 Existing relevant Council Projects

APPENDIX 1

b) ROUND II PROPOSALDecember 1974

MIXED ABILITY PROJECT

I OriginThe proposal originated from a group of scienceteachers who formed a workshop group to solve theirproblems of organising a learning situation for 11-14year olds, in mixed ability groups, to engage inscientific activity.

BackgroundIn November 1973 a request was made by JackWhitehead of the University of Bath for £1,000 tosupport teachers who were producing independentlearning schemes for children of all ages and abilities.The Science Adviser to the Council, Dr. Burdett,replied that the procedural lines for local developmentproposals would be clarified in the new year.

Early in January 1974 a course was organised at theSwindon Curriculum Development Centre for teacherswho had problems with their third year scienceteaching. The course dealt with the teachers'intentions, forms of assessment and the range ofscience resources available, for teachers and 11-16year olds, from the Nuffield Foundation and SchoolsCouncil Projects. Following this course teachers in fivecomprehensive schools decided to form a workshopgroup to design, produce, organise and evaluate anindividualised learning situation for 11-14 year olds inmixed ability groups. In the light of Schools Council'sconcern with local curriculum developments, theteachers decided in April 1974 to request financial aidfrom the Council. The Round I proposal was submittedwith the approval and support of the Chief EducationOfficer and in June the proposal was placed in the Bcategory.

The L E A has recognised that the work of the projectis well under way and are anxious to ensure that it isnot hindered during any waiting period which mayoccur. Limited funds have been made available for theproject and these fundsare administered by theCurriculum Development Centre.

APPENDIX 2

RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT ANDDISSEMINATION

The Research Development and Dissemination modelassumes that one must gather together a small numberof people who are actively improving their curriculum.They must be given funds and time to be able todevelop this curriculum and then actively engage in thedissemination process.

The Present SituationThe teachers concerned in the project possess awealth of experience in the use of modern sourcematerials in science, developed for the 11-14 agerange. They and many of their colleagues in the localityare involved in the teaching of mixed ability groups inscience. They have progressed through a number ofstages, beginning with the implementation of the mod-ern schemes as they stand, NCS and SCISP,proceeding to adaptations of these schemes for themixed ability situation and have now reached thesignificant stage of writing material of their own, usingthe feedback of the experience of earlier stages.

The project has reached the point when normal schoolresources cannot meet the heavy demands of adevelopment programme of this kind; when supportfrom a Centre of Higher Education must be on a regularand systematic basis; when reprographic facilities mustbe enhanced and when skilled evaluation methods areneeded.

The initiation of the project by this local group coincideshappily with the wishes of the L E A and SchoolsCouncil to provide support for school generatedcurriculum development and thus support was granted.

AIMS

11 The Aims of the Project fall under two headings: -

1 Educational Aims

The main concern of the teachers is to provide for theirpupils meaningful and enjoyable scientific situationswhich are relevant in the best educational sense. Theyfeel that the best learning situations occur when pupilsare encouraged to devise solutions to their ownquestions.

The educational aims of the project correspondprecisely with those of individualised learning ingeneral, namely:

1 to place the pupil in an active learningsituation;

2 to allow the pupil to operate in an atmosphere ofsuccess and reward, derived from his ownoperations;

3 to enrich the natural development processesof children;

4 to promote a situation of pleasing and motivatinginterpersonal relationships involving pupils andteachers;

and, in addition

5 to use the particular qualities of science, itsempiricism, its discipline and its imaginativethinking to complete the whole education ofchildren.

The mixed ability situation is often seen as one whichcreates insoluble problems and yet is a situationwhich draws attention to learning methods whichmight well have been used in any class grouping andwhich have not only been neglected in traditionalteaching to a great extent but are also highly efficientand productive.

2 Strategic Aims

1 To establish a network of mutual support betweenteachers, lecturers, advisers, scientists andindustrialists.

This aim has been achieved in fact, in Wiltshire,where a contract is already in being between WiltshireL E A and the University of Bath, to enable lecturersto promote individualised learning in Wiltshireschools. In the project locality, there are extensiveconnections between schools and local industry andthe locality has very strong associations withtechnological education. There is already veryeffective co-ordination from the CurriculumDevelopment Centre which has considerableadministrative potential.This particular project is seen as a specimendevelopment, based in schools, but embodying thekind of relationships envisaged in the concept of aProfessional Centre.

2 To establish a resources retrieval system.

The concept of group development implies growthand proliferation. The resources produced are atangible means of demonstrating the value of groupdevelopment in both the processes and the endproduct.

31

32

Objectives in terms of proposed outcomes

1 The design, production, organisation and evaluationof resources in the learning situation, which areresponsive to individuals' enquiries in mixed abilitygroups.

2 The formulation, expression and criticism oflearners' questions about physical phenomena.

The importance of this outcome rests upon the view thatthe generative act of scientific reasoning is the asking ofa question, the creation of an idea or the formulation ofan hypothesis. It is assumed that this process is outsidelogic but that once an opinion is formed and expressedit can be exposed to criticism. This criticism involves theempirical testing of the logical consequences of thebeliefs usually through experimentation.

3 A network of relationships between teachers,lecturers, advisors, scientists and industrialists whichare responsive to solving the teachers' problems inthe provision of dialogue and material resources.

This outcome has partly been achieved betweenteachers, lecturers and advisors in Wiltshire and ismanifested in the contract negotiated between theWiltshire Authority and the University of Bath to enablelecturers to promote, individualised learning in severalWiltshire schools. Scientists and industrialists are alsobeing requested to comment on the content andrelevance of the materials and will help to evaluate theteachers' intentions and learners' scientific activities.These outcomes are being achieved in two phases. Inphase I the teachers facing mixed ability groups havechanged their classroom organisation for individual andsmall group teaching. This has included the productionof a variety of worksheets with most of the problems"given" to the pupils.The outcome of phase II will be the learning situationdescribed in 1, 2 and 3 above and will include aresource retrieval system which, with the teacher, willbe responsive to the learners' enquiries.

III The Proposed Pattern of Organisation andOperation

The pattern of organisation is centred on the activity ofteachers in the workshop group, designing, producing,organising and evaluating the individualised learningschemes for their pupils. These activities are beingco-ordinated by a lecturer from the University of Bath.This

co-ordination involves the development of closerrelationships between advisers, lecturers, scientistsand industrialists for the criticism and evaluation ofpupils' scientific activity. Meetings are being held atfortnightly intervals in the schools for an on-goingdialogue on fundamental goals and criticism ofresource materials. The latter are modified andreproduced at the schools or local teachers centres.

IV Evaluation

This will be a co-operative activity between learners,teachers, lecturers, scientists and industrialists. Theteachers will express their intentions verbally, in writingand with practical examples. The learners will beinterviewed and video-taped whilst working to detectthe state of their scientific activity. The view will betaken that language is inadequate to express a personengaged in scientific activity, it is the kind ofphenomena which can only be shown. The evaluationsessions will be dialogues between the above peopleas they attempt to make available to each other theirinterpretations of the teachers' intentions and thelearners' activities, and the assumptions on which theyare based. Records will include written statements,transcripts of interviews and evaluation sessions andvideo tapes of the learner's activities.

APPENDIX 3

MODELS OF CURRICULUM INNOVATION

Three models of curriculum innovation, the SocialInteraction or Diffusion, the Research Developmentand Dissemination and Problem Solving model havebeen characterised as follows.

DIFFUSION

The diffusion model rests on the assumption thatimproved curricula will be seen as self evident byteachers and their advisers and will percolate throughthe system with little intention on the part of advisers,teachers or Schools Council to disseminate thecurriculum developments.

The Motivation of the Groups

The range of teachers from whom this proposalemanated are convinced of the value of the sourcematerial in modern science teaching schemes. At thesame time they recognise that these schemes, withone exception, are science centred in structural andorganisational terms. They wish to relate the science tothe child, to teach individuals and to enrich theirexperience, whilst maintaining the integrity of thediscipline of science. They realise that groupdevelopment is necessary as well as desirable. Theyare aware of shortcomings in expertise and inresources and have thus sought professional andfinancial support.PROBLEM SOLVING

The problem solving model emphasises the need tochange teachers' attitudes. The primary problem isseen not so much in terms of producing materialresources but as changing teachers to begin to seewhy the curricula is being improved. It is believed that ifteachers see that the changes are relevant andimportant to their situation then they will attempt toimprove the curricula.

CREATIVITY

The model suggested by U N E S C 0 is characterisedin terms of the "Creativity of the School". By this ismeant the power of a school to evaluate, accept orreject and institutionalize innovation. The task is tocreate the circumstances and provide the supportwhich will enable effective innovation to be generated,sustained, and carried forward in the institution by thepeople directly concerned with the problem.

APPENDIX 4

MODELS OF EVALUATION

BUREAUCRATIC EVALUATION

Bureaucratic evaluation is an unconditional service tothose government agencies which have major controlover the allocation of educational resources. Theevaluator accepts the values of those who hold office,and offers information which will help them toaccomplish their policy objectives. He acts as amanagement consultant, and his criterion of success isclient satisfaction. His techniques of study must becredible to the policy-makers and not lay them open topublic criticism. He has no independence, no control

over the use that is made of his information, and nocourt of appeal. The report is owned by thebureaucracy and lodged in its files. The key conceptsof bureaucratic evaluation are 'service', 'utility' and'efficiency'. Its key justificatory concept is 'the realityof power'.

AUTOCRATIC EVALUATION

Autocratic evaluation is a conditional service to thosegovernment agencies which have major control overthe allocation of educational resources. It offersexternal validation of policy in exchange forcompliance with its recommendations. Its values arederived from the evaluator's perception of theconstitutional and moral obligation of thebureaucracy. He focuses upon issues of educationalmerit, and acts as expert adviser. His techniques ofstudy must yield scientific proofs, because his powerbase in the academic research community. Hiscontractual arrangements guarantee noninterferenceby the client, and he retains ownership of the study.His report is lodged in the files of the bureaucracy, butis also published in academic journals. If his recom-mendations are rejected, policy is not validated. Hiscourt of appeal.is the research community, and highlevels in the bureaucracy. The key concepts of theautocratic evaluator are 'principle' and 'objectivity'. Hiskey justificatory concept is 'the responsibility of office'.

DEMOCRATIC EVALUATION

Democratic evaluation is an information service to thewhole community about the characteristics of aneducational programme. Sponsorship of theevaluation study does not in itself confer a specialclaim upon this service. The democratic evaluatorrecognizes value pluralism and seeks to represent arange of interests in his issue formulation. The basicvalue is an informed citizenry, and the evaluator actsas broker in exchanges of information betweengroups who want knowledge of each other. Histechniques of data-gathering and presentation mustbe accessible to non-specialist audiences. His mainactivity is the collection of definitions of, and reactionsto, the programme. He offers confidentiality toinformants and gives them control over his use of theinformation they provide. The report isnon-recommendatory, and the evaluator has noconcept of information misuse. He engages inperiodic negotiation of his relationships with sponsorsand programme participants. The criterion of successis the range of audiences served. The report aspiresto 'best-seller' status. The key

33

34concepts of democratic evaluation and 'confidentiality','negotiation' and 'accessibility'. The key justificatoryconcept is 'the right to know'.

APPENDIX 5

A FIVE-YEAR SUPPORT PROGRAMME FORINDEPENDENT LEARNING IN SCIENCE (I.L.I.S.)

INTRODUCTION

This proposal represents a development of the currentILlS model of localised curriculum development, basedon a felt need by teachers to set up independent learningas a viable alternative to traditional class teaching. Thegrowth of independent learning in science has occurredbecause of the realisation that independent learning is aneffective response to the needs of the individual,whatever the method of grouping students. The fact thatit is a clear and meaningful alternative in mixed abilitygroups has accelerated this growth. The proposal isintended to aid the development and extension ofmethods of independent learning per se, the teachersseeking methods and materials suitable for work withmixed ability classes.

HISTORY AND AIMS

In April 1973, a conference was held at CountesthorpeCollege on "Individual and Small Group Methods in theTeaching of Science", School and University teachers,lecturers from Colleges of Education and representativesfrom the Inspectorate, Industry and Commerce took partand the outcome was the setting up of the organisationILlS.

Its present membership, nearing 400 reflects theinterests at that conference and the involvement of aboutthe same number of schools. The membership continuesto grow and interest from overseas is considerable.There is a central Executive Group comprising of aChairman, Co-ordinator, two Newsletter Editors and aTreasurer.

Initially, Leicestershire Education Committee provided theCo-ordinator, Mr. E.L. Green, with part-time secretarialhelp, and further assisted the work of the organisation byproviding him with a year's part-time secondment1975-76.

The-Schools Council granted the ILlS organisation £5900for the year 1975-76 to provide

for some teacher secondment, secretarial assistanceto the Co-ordinator and general financial support toenable the organisation to continue its work.

AIM I To provide co-ordination of thought andenterprise in establishing methods ofindependent learning in science, the maininterest at present being in the secondaryschool, but growing involvement wit similarwork at the primary and tertiary levels isapparent.

AIM II To provide for co-ordinated development toprepare and disseminate ideas andresources, primarily through workshops andresource centres.

PATTERN OF CURRENT WORK

The two aims stated above determine the pattern ofwork of the CENTRAL ORGANISATION of ILlS andthe WORKSHOP! RESOURCE CENTRES which itseeks to create.

CENTRAL ORGANISATION,

The work of the organisation so far has clearlydemonstrated the need for a service to scienceteachers which enables them to understand and planfor schemes of independent learning.The central co-ordinating organisation is responsiblefor dissemination of information, establishing anddeveloping contacts between interested teachers,advisers, inspectors, commercial and industrialinterests, and publishers, as well as taking initiative inextending the work of ILlS through exhibitions,conferences, and negonating grants to theorganisation, and by visiting individual and smallgroups of science teachers with the intention ofenabling them to set up local workshops/resourcecentres. Most of this work is the responsibility of theCOORDINATOR, but the other officers of the ILlSorganisation play an important part in this process. (Aninterim report on this work for the year 1975/76 hasbeen supplied to the Science Adviser and FinanceOfficer of the Schools Council, and will be followed inJanuary 1977 by a final report on that work).

The work of the Co-ordinator is supplemented by thefollowing publications.

35

THE NEWSLETTER. This publication has now becomean important journal of independent learning in science.It is published each term with a print of 600 copies. It isintended for members but some copies are sent toteachers and others expressing an interest in the workof ILlS. The current editors are Mr. Don Foster and Mrs.Vivien Bellamy.THE DIRECTORY. This is supplied to members onlyand gives details of all those known to ILlS who areinvolved in independent learning schemes in science. Itenables teachers to make contact with others doing thesame work as themselves, leading in some cases to theestablishment of a workshop/resource centre. Thisdocument is prepared by the Co-ordinator and up-datedannually.THE CATALOGUE. This is supplied to members onlyand gives details of independent learning materialscurrently available. This document is prepared by theCo-ordinator and up-dated annually. "I.L.I.S." This is adescriptive leaflet outlining the purposes of theorganisation and giving details of its structure.

WORKSHOP/RESOURCE CENTRES

From the start of the ILlS organisation its members havesought to establish such centres which will provide:

A MEETING GROUND for teachers on a localisedbasis, so that they can discuss and facilitateindependent learning in the science departments of theirschools.

A RESOURCE BANK of materials for independentlearning, together with facilities for copying the materialspertinent to the work in the schools from which theteachers come.

A WORKSHOP for the development of new materialsrelevant to the needs of the teachers in the locality,produced and evaluated by them. There is little wish todevelop new content or courses, the main emphasisbeing on taking such developments made over the pastten years or so and devising methods and materialswhich make those developments suitable forindependent learning.

A SUITABLE STAFF for this work to be coordinatedand developed. There is a need here for secondment ofsome of the local teachers to provide the necessarystaffing. Such requirements will vary from centre tocentre.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CENTRALORGANISATION TO THE LOCAL CENTRES

The relationship is one which exists to promote aprocess, clearly stated in the Schools Council WorkingPaper No.10 (1967), of which the essential elementsare as follows:

The careful examination, drawing on all availablesources of knowledge and informed judgement, of theobjectives of teaching ...... The object is to help asmany teachers as possible to define, co-operatively,and from personal conviction, these objectives.

The development and trial use in schools, of thosemethods and materials which are judged most likely toachieve the objectives which teachers agree upon.(Taken from para 1 Working Paper No. 10)

The relationship also gives expression to the "twobasic principles on which, in the Council's view,progress on curriculum development should be built:first, that the motive power should come primarily fromlocal groups of teachers accessible one to another;secondly, that there should be effective and closecollaboration between teachers and all those who areable to offer co-operation". (Taken from para 27Working Paper No.10.)

This relationship has also given expression to theSchools Council basis for curriculum development asgiven in paragraphs 6, 7 and 11 of Working Paper 10.The first basis on which development rests in the ILlSmodel is a keen interest on the part of teachers incurricular progress. Teachers, more and more aremeeting to discuss curriculum problems and localeducation authorities are doing all that is practicable toencourage such groups, and in particular help themwith accommodation, apparatus and secretarialassistance as may be necessary

We are encouraging local education authorities, eithersingly or in collaboration with neighbouring authorities,to consider ways of responding to the expressed wishof teachers to come together to conduct forthemselves curriculum development in order to helpthem to sharpen their judgements on objectives,improve their experimental procedures and play a fullpart in assessing the results of development work.

36The essence in the ILlS programme, of curricularreview and development is new thinking by theteachers themselves, as well as the appraisal of thethinking of others. This means that we create regularopportunities to meet together, both nationally andlocally, and that we look upon the initiation of thought,as well as the trial and assessment of new ideas andprocedures drawn from other sources, as an integralpart of our professional service to society.

Within this relationship the function of the local ILlSgroups is that described in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 ofWorking Paper 10.

The most important is to focus local interest and to giveteachers a setting within which new objectives can bediscussed and defined, and new ideas on content andmethods can be aired. The comments and criticism oflocal teachers shows very clearly whether an ideawhich works well in one school can succeed in another.Teachers working in these local ILlS groups seek awider forum by invoking the help of the local authorityor institute of education.

The schools in the area of the local group are usuallyamong those who give new materials their trial. Thelocal centre of interest will contribute to the evaluationof materials, providing feedback comments criticismsand suggestions for improvement. In this respect, therole gives nationally and locally initiated work a solidfoundation in widespread teacher experience andjudgement.

The local ILlS groups are kept informed about researchand development in progress elsewhere. This is theprimary function of the ILlS Newsletter and the work ofthe Co-ordinator.

ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE

The foregoing relationship between the centralorganisation of ILlS and the members in local groupshas resulted in a number of major projects. It is thoughtthat without the stimulus of the work of the centralorganisation these groups would either not have comeinto being at all or would have been very limited inachievement.

GROUPS FUNDED DIRECTLY BY THE ILlSCENTRAL ORGANISATION. The funding in each ofthese cases consists in financing the part-timesecondment of three teachers, one in each group.

Mr. Peter Herbert. Elliott School, ILEA, for the 'QuestProject'. The project involved the Elliott School and theChristopher Wren School in the ILEA, the writers ofthe materials used being Peter Herbert, Head ofScience at Elliott, John Merrigna Head of Science atChristopher Wren and John Lewis ILEA advisoryteacher. 'Quest' provides materials for first and secondyear pupils working in mixed ability groups in science.

Mr. Patrick Homan-Berry established a Salisburyworkship/resource centre for independent learning inscience. The work has lead to the development of amajor proposal to the Schools Council which ispresently being considered.

Mr. Peter Ashworth who is establishing a localworkshop/resource centre in Cornwall with some 50local science teachers involved. This work will begin inOctober 1976, as it was not possible for him toarrange the secondment for the current year.Extension of the ILlS project to cover this is awaitingratification by the Schools Council.

£2500 of the £5900 granted by the Schools Council toILlS was set aside for the above secondments.

GROUPS FORMED BY DIRECT ASSOCIATIONWITH THE WORK OF ILlS. The following groups arecompletely autonomous, having received no financialaid from the ILlS central organisation, butnevertheless inspired and assisted by the contact withthe organisation.

Workshop on Medium Term Independent Learning inPhysics for Northern Ireland G C E 0 level Syllabus.Organised by David J. McCullough at BelfastTeachers' Centre who with the N.I.Schools CurriculumCommittee are providing the funding.

Workshop on Computer Assisted Management ofLearning in Physics. Dr. Martin Brown of MethodistCollege, Belfast is the organiser. The NationalDevelopment Programme in Computer Assistedlearning has established at the Education Centre, NewUniversity of Ulster, a development project in theComputer assisted Management of Learning inSecondary and Tertiary Education. As one element ofthe project, during the period 1975-79 the physicsdepartment of the Methodist College will introduce asystem of computer assisted management of theirA-level physics course.

37

Workshop "11- 14 Mixed Ability Project in Science", atthe Swindon Curriculum Development Centre.Organiser, Mr Jack Whitehead, Chairman of ILlS1974-1976. This workshop was funded by the SchoolsCouncil.

PROJECTED GROUPS FORMED BY DIRECTASSOCIATION WITH ILlS. It is intended that a numberof ILlS Workshops will make a direct approach to theSchools Council for funding through the ScienceAdviser. The following are in the process of makingsuch an approach.

ILlS Workshop/ Resource Centre in Stockport fromSeptember 1977. This proposal has been initiated byMr Andrew Firman, Mr John Onslow and Mr JohnThompson of the Reddish Vale Science Department,and has the support of Mr H. Peters, headmaster of theschool, as well as R. West, Education Adviser, and MrB.L. Harmon the Director of Education for theMetropolitan Borough of Stockport.

'Trent Science Education Unit', concerned with thedevelopment of teacher skills for individualised learningin science. Proposed by J.K. Tollyfield, A. Jones and D.Briggs of the Trent Polytechnic - Clifton, Nottingham. Itwas intended at one stage that ILlS would negotiate onbehalf of these members but after consideration at theILlS Members General Meeting at Bath University onJune 12th 1976, it was decided that negotiation shouldbe decided following consultation with the SchoolCouncil Science Adviser.

SPECIFIC AIMS OF THIS PROPOSAL

It is considered that the funding of the centralorganisation of ILlS is vital to the continuation of thepattern of curriculum development as outlined. It ishoped that the intimate connection of the work of thecentral organisation to that of the local workshops isapparent, and its importance understood.

Broadly it is hoped to further strengthen the work of theILlS organisation. This would be done by:

allowing for the employment over a fiveyear period of afull-time Co-ordinator,

allowing for the employment over the same period of afull-time secretary to the Co-ordinator,

making financial provision for:

rental and other general expenses of establishing anational centre for ILlS, a national ILlS resource bank,together with a catalogue of materials, and facilities forcopying such materials as members require, continuingthe production of publications such as those described.

COSTING OF THE PROPOSAL

SETTING UP THE NATIONAL CENTRE.Negotiations on this matter are tentative at the moment,but are ongoing with Bath University and LeicestershireEducation Committee. Clearly the final costs will dependon the location.

For furniture, telephone installation, addressingmachine, office materials, electrical fittings etc.

ANNUAL COSTS OF THE NATIONAL CENTRESalary of Co-ordinator £7281-£7905

Secretary to Co-ordinator £3000

Postage £500

Telephone £300

Travelling Expenses £500

Stationery and printing costs £600Rental for accommodation £500

Contingencies £300

TOTAL ANNUAL COST £13,300

on average

3)a) REPORT ON THE SCIENCE CONFERENCEHELD ON 6th MAY 1975

INTRODUCTION

The Director outlined the essential characteristics of theorganisation. Basically the Resources for LearningDevelopment Unit is a teachers' co-operative, planned,managed and operated by teachers for teachers. Inpractical terms the Unit is aiming to produce anorganisation to promote independent resource-basedlearning in Avon secondary schools - not to do away withthe teacher, but to help them by making available tothem a wider selection of resources than they could hopeto produce individually for themselves. All the Unit staffcome straight from schools so the practical approach tothe classroom situation is uppermost in their minds. Andaccordingly material produced must be the materialneeded by Science teachers in the area. The purpose ofthe meeting is therefore not only to provide informationon the Unit for those interested teachers attending, butalso to elect from them an Editorial Board to assimilateand express the wishes of Science teachers in the area,and as their representatives to formulate the basicpolicies on which materials will be produced. The Editor'sfunction is to implement those policies which comethrough to him from the Editorial Board. Meanwhileteacher/authors, critical readers and testers fromamongst those interested are all essential to the successof the operation.

The Unit has a budget of £8,000 p.a. per subject and byco-operation we are able to offer much more for themoney and effort expended than could be achieved bydividing this money equally between all the schools in theCounty. There is a charge to schools purchasing thematerials produced, but it is subsidized by the LocalAuthority so is small compared with the actual productioncosts.

POINTS RAISED DURING QUESTION! ANSWERSESSIONS

1. What can the Unit offer which is not alreadycatered for by other courses?

The Unit is not proposing to produce another text bookcourse, or dictate an authoritarian style of teaching, butto produce a bank of materials for teachers to use in anindependent learning situation as desired - a provision ofthe opportunity to evolve their own style, content and useof materials where the need arises. We were set up onthe Nuffield

Foundation's recommendation with the support of theD.E.S. and the Local Authority as an experimental unit,experimenting in the co-operative production ofresourcebased learning materials - these appearing tothem to be the solution to most teachers' problems inthe large, mixed-ability classroom situation. However, itis not what the Unit suggests that will dictate the natureof the materials produced, their scope or their content,but what teachers express the need for. Materialsproduced in other subjects have tended to be inaddition to styles of teaching and courses already inuse, but the decision on their scope and content is thatof the Editorial Board in the subject.

2. How long will it take for pupils to workthrough the whole bank?

Since the difficulties involved in trying to produce asuccessful whole course in one year are obvious, andthere are anyway so many good science coursesalready in use, this material is probably better thoughtof as auxiliary, enrichment or extension material whichcan be incorporated with courses already in use, asindividual teachers choose. But it is up to the Scienceteachers involved, via the Editorial Board, to decide justhow much material is needed and in what areas.

3. What ability range is aimed at?

The mixed-ability situation in many Avon Schoolsmeans that a vast range of ability has to be catered forby many teachers. Some conference members felt thatthere was a lack of work for low ability ranges inScience at present. It was up to the Editorial Board withconsultation with Conference members to decidewhether to cater for the whole range, on two or threeability levels, or merely to rely on supplementary helpsuch as tapes to support units produced, for the lowerability children.

4. Are we restricted to printed materials?

No - there is an excellent facility for printed material.However, there is also an audio studio for tapedinstructions and information, and tape duplication atvery reasonable prices, and a designer on thepermanent staff for advising and arranging graphicillustration and photography, film strips, educationalgames, etc. TV and films have so far been considered

too expensive to tackle. We can however bulk buypublished materials for use in individual units at a goodeducational discount, where we know we can use thematerials widely.

5. Who produces the material?

The Editorial Board members, following the policiesexpressed by conference members, decide with theEditor on the type and range of material to beproduced. The Editors in the three subjects already inprogress this year began the writing, on set topicssuggested, themselves but teacher/authors (includingBEd students, heads, college lecturers, advisers, etc)now contribute the bulk of the work, either individuallyor writing in working groups where they benefit fromone anothers experience, suggestions, criticism etc.Much of the 1st Year bank in these three subjects infact consists of redesigned worksheets already used byteachers in local schools for independent learning -most valuable as they are already tried and tested. Asmall payment is made to teacher/authors offeringassistance in writing or contributing their own work. TheEditorial Boards so far have been grateful for allcontributions which they have incorporated into thebank if they have been able to see a place for it.

6. Must one buy the whole bank of materials?

It is possible to buy individual units, but the LocalAuthority subsidy is not so good in this case, as we aretrying to promote the use of this type of material, andwhole banks in schools provide a much better basis fora successful experiment.

7. Cost of Materials to Schools

The whole bank of materials in each subject presentlycosts £48 per bank, which includes multiple (around 6)copies of about 40 topics and all the relevant extrassuch as tapes, film strips, etc. e.g. approximately 200resource packages for £48. A 10% replacement factoris included in the costing, so that materials can beserviced or replaced, or revised if necessary, once inschools. The Unit is very conscious of costs to schoolsand is negotiating bulk buying of suitable asette playersat under £11 each.

8. Editorial Board Commitment

The commitment is to one or two afterschool meetingsper term on average. In the

first place the Editorial Boards are concerned withdevising the headings under which resources are to beproduced. Gradually they may wish to become involvedin the writing itself, or in direction of the writing of mater-ials by individuals or working groups in their areas.Eventually there will be a need to devise ways to helpteachers keen on using the material to introduce theminto the classroom situation. We are very conscious ofthe heavy commitment of teachers' time alreadyhowever,and their principle role is to support and guidethe Editor. None of the Social Studies Board forinstance have in fact done any actual writing, while allof the Maths Board have chosen to.

PRELIMINARY POINTS RAISED BY CONFERENCEMEMBERS FOR ATTENTION BY THE EDITORIALBOARD

a) Science for remedial children with basic languagedifficulties is neglected and needs particular attentionin compiling a bank of resource based materials.

b) There is a need for background readers supportingstandard courses already in use.

c) In mixed ability situations where low ability childrenneed supervision in practical work, there is a need forenrichment material for higher ability children.

d) It must be possible to evaluate the ability level andthe workability of the materials -they must thereforebe tested thoroughly before being produced.

e) The Editorial Board were going to have to solve theproblems of where the greatest needs forresource-based learning materials lay - whethersolely with high and low ability children or with alarge amount of good materials at varied levels whichwould enable the teacher to cope with individualmembers of the class while others workedindependently, regardless of which standard coursewas in use.

The Director suggested that with the Conference'sapproval questionnaires would be sent to everyoneconcerned, and information gained from them by theEditorial Board would then hopefully provide a verycomplete picture of the state of play in the subjectthroughout the County - the schemes of work alreadyoperated, the sort of resources needed and the mainproblems teachers have to contend with. This would

To provide support to teachers in taking decisions onhow to match content, style of resources, methods oforganisation and evaluation to their particular pupils toproduce the most effective learning.

CLIENTELE

Science Teachers.

SUGGESTED PROGRAMME

The course will start and end with a weekendconference with 14 meetings in 12 months. The 14meetings will be made up of (a) 2 in-service days fixedby the L.E.A., (b) 8 x 31/2 hour late afternoon, earlyevening sessions, (c) 4 x 31/2 evaluation meetings.

Apart from the weekend conference, the meetings willtake place in individual schools and local teacherscentres, to support the teacher in the classroom and cutdown travelling expenses. Separate arrangements willbe made for Avon and Wiltshire teachers to reducetravelling costs.

OPENING CONFERENCE

A Friday The problems of organi-December 1976 sing mixed ability groups6.30-9.30 in Science for 11-14

year olds.Teachers Panel Don Foster: Avon

Resources for LearningUnit.Vivien Bellamy: Dun-worth School, Tisbury.Tony Cole: WoottonBassett School.Paul Hunt: DorcanSchool

Display of Resources The ILlS and ASEcollection

Saturday 10-11 Resource Based Learn-ing: Philip Waterhouse.

11.30-12.30 The Organisation ofMixed Ability Groups:Jack Whitehead.

14.00-15.30 Discussion Groups orga-nised for teachers withsimilar problems in easytravelling distance.

16.00-17.30 The formation of Work-shop groups.AimsProgramme

provide a very sound basis for their policies with regardto material produced, and useful information to act as. aguide to them for the first few months of next year.

The Director emphasised that the Unit would keep allConference members in touch with the Unit'sdevelopment on the Science side, and hoped that theywould get in touch whenever they wished.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS ELECTED FROMTHE CONFERENCE

Woodspring AreaBrian Griffiths - Nausea SchoolRussel Lewis - Broadoak School

Bath & Wansdyke AreaGraham Whitfield - Culverhay SchoolMichael Greenslade - Norton Hill School

North Bristol AreaNina Sulley - Henbury SchoolNigel Darby - Lawrence Weston

SchoolSouth Bristol Area

Lena Rust - Hartcliffe SchoolRalph Giles - Bedminster Down

SchoolNorthavon Area -

Terry Barker - King Edmunds SchoolJeremy Gunter - Marlwood School

(Castle School inSeptember)

East Bristol & Kingswood AreaGraham Mathews - St George SchoolGeorge Everard - Speedwell School

APPENDIX 7

OUTLINE FOR AN ATO/DES COURSE ENTITLED"THE IMPROVEMENT OF LEARNING IN MIXEDABILITY GROUPS FOR 11-14 YEARS IN SCIENCE".

AIMS OF THE COURSE

To illustrate the variety of approaches being used byteachers of mixed ability groups.

To analyse the Resources produced by the AvonResources for Learning Unit.

To study the forms of organisation adopted by Wiltshireteachers in mixed ability groups.

42

19.30-21.30 Commitment to Action.Programme of activitiesfor the Spring Term tobe produced includingvenues and dates.

THE 14 WORKSHOP AND EVALUATIONSESSIONS - 58 HOURS

To promote local curriculum development, thefollowing venues are suggested:

THE TWO LEA IN- SERVICE DAYS - 2x 8 hours

Wiltshire teachers: Swindon Curriculum Deve-lopment Centre.

Avon teachers: Resources for LearningDevelopment Unit.

THE 8 x 31/2 HOURS WORKSHOPMEETINGS

Individual Schools of members of the Workshopgroup.

THE 4 x 31/2 HOUR EVALUATION SESSION

Wiltshire teachers: Swindon CurriculumDevelopments Centre.

Avon teachers: Resources for LearningDevelopment Unit.

THE CONTENT

IN-SERVICE DAYS:

Lecture by senior LEA advisor on the authoritiesorganisation and resources to meet the teachersproblems.

Lecture by a teacher on the problems emerging fromthe classroom.

Display of resources and apparatus.

WORKSHOP MEETINGS

Starting with the resources being used within theschools, the workshops will focus upon improving thequality of their organisation and content. Existingresources from The Schools Council and othersources will be used to create new resources or tomodify the existing ones. Some of these resources willbe produced with the University Facilities and fundedby the DES. Some of the Resources will bereproduced in the individual schools and LEAreprographic Units. The main focus of workshop willbe the criticism and improvement of the resources inuse. Resources, when tried, will be further criticisedand modified as

necessary.

EVALUATION SESSIONS 4 x 3 hour meetingsAs part of the process of evaluation the lecturers willmake available their own intentions and encourage theexpression of the teachers intentions in tapedconversations. These conversations will be transcribedand copies given to members of the groups.

Once a term the lecturer will video tape and interviewseveral pupils in two schools to detect the form oforganisation of the resources, the learnersinterpretation of the changes and a description of whatthe pupils have produced. This description may includethe results of norm and criterion referencedassessments.

One meeting each term will be devoted to a discussionof the similarities, differences and contradictions whichinvariably emerge when intentions are compared withthe information collected from within the classroom.

THE FINAL CONFERENCESaturdayDecember 197710-12.30 Display of pupils work.

Teachers Panel to evaluate the course

2-4.30 Future Strategy.

Total Time about 80 hours

Support: Specific support has been given bythe Science adviser for Wiltshire,Dr. P. Biggs, the Science Editorof Avon Resources for LearningUnit, teachers in the Wiltshireand Avon Schools.

Fees: The cost of lecturers fees, travel-ling expenses and resources willnot exceed £600.

43

The following teachers are improving their science curricula for their pupils and would welcome. contact with you.

Tony Grant Durrington School

Durrington

Salisbury tel. 0980/52467

David James Dorcan School Head of Science

Paul Hunt St. Pauls Drive A special thanks for help with

Swindon. tel. 0793/25231 the process of evaluation

Paul Swanston Head of Lower School

John Sheard Wootton Bassett School Head of Science

Bryan Entwistle. Lime Kiln.

Margaret Hannon Wootton Bassett 0793 370/2121

Tony Cole (Margaret and Tony have probably the most experience of organisinglearning in mixed ability science groups).

Colin Dodds Sheldon School Head of Science

Hardenhuish Lane

Chippenham 96/51216

Don Foster Avon Resources for Learning Science Editor

Development Unit

Redcross Street

Bristol. tel. 559491

Vivienne Bellamy Dunworth School

Weaveland Road

Tisbury 074 787/480

Martyn Hyman Hreod Burna School Martin is one of the Hreod

14-18 Comprehensive Burna Science Team who have

Akers Way organised independent learning

Swindon 0793/21335 for mode 111 Science Groups

Tom Philips Wiltshire Curriculum Tom is coordinating in-service

Development Centre provision in Wiltshire

Sanford Street

Swindon

Dr. Peter Biggs Science Adviser

County Hall

Trowb ridge

Frank Hodgson Senior Adviser (Secondary)

County Hall

Trowbridge

Jack Whitehead Bath University School of Education I.L.I.S. The ASE/ILIS resource

Claverton Down collection of independent learn-Bath 0225 6941 ing resources can be obtained on

loan from the Bath Centre.