Journal of In-Service Education

ISSN: 0305-7631 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie18

The Teacher as Change Agent

Graham Badley

To cite this article: Graham Badley (1986) The Teacher as Change Agent, Journal of In-Service
Education, 12:3, 151-158, DOI: 10.1080/0305763860120305

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305763860120305

Published online: 12 Sep 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 34942

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie20
The Teacher as Change Agent

Graham Badley,
Essex Further Education Teachers' Centre

Introduction curriculum. The paper deals with three major

Teachers in schools and colleges are now en-
gaged in a major curriculum change — TVEI —
which 'burst upon an unsuspecting educational
world in November 1982' (Seckington 1985) and
which received an often hostile reception. The pur-
pose of this paper is to provide an outline for the
teacher of the change process and to examine
specifically the teacher's role as a TVEI change
agent. The current 'TRIST' Scheme (TVEl-Ralated
In-Service Training) also provides a useful case
study of the kind of training being provided for
teachers in schools and colleges as they prepare
for their roles as TVEI change agents, active prota-
gonists of technical and vocational relevance in the
elements in the process of change:
1. the proposed change or innovation
2. the context of change
3. the role of the change agent
These elements themselves interact and alter over
time so that the change process can also be ex-
amined in terms of three major stages:
1. analysis
2. implementation
3. evaluation

THE PROCESS OF CHANGE: A SIMPLE MODEL

CHANGE STAGES

Implementation

Analysis Evaluation

Change Agent Change Context

<-

Change/Innovation

CHANGE ELEMENTS
151
 Together the elements and stages of change pro-
vide a simple model of the change process.
The purpose of the model is to provide a focus
for understanding the main elements of concept in
the change process. It obviously emphasises the
role of the change agent as an innovator and it vir-
tually identifies change with innovation. It also ap-
pears to place the change agent outside the change
context (or, as it is sometimes called, 'the user
system') which is not especially apt when the agent
is a teacher and the immediate context of change
is that teacher's classroom or school or college. The
importance of the model is however that it stresses
interaction among the elements and it indicates that
the elements themselves are modified by each
other throughout the stages of analysis, implemen-
tation and evaluation. Change is therefore seen as
a process and not as a discrete event.
The Change/Innovation Itself
'Change' is, of course, a highly emotive term, a
flag or banner for reactionaries and ultra-
conservatives. 'Change' and 'innovation' are often
regarded as synonyms. Typically they are defined
as 'a deliberate attempt either to improve practice
in relation TO certain existing objectives, or to intro-
duce policies or functions related to new objectives'
(Dalin 1973).
Alternatively, if 'change' is simply regarded as
'any significant alteration in the status quo' the 'in-
novation' may be regarded as 'any change which
represents something new to the people being
changed' (Havelock, 1971).
Throughout this paper 'change' and 'innovation'
are understood in this latter pair of senses. Initially
someone (The Prime Minister?), some group (The
Manpower Services Commission?) senses that
something is wrong or a matter for concern (Bri-
tain's lack of international competitiveness? Bri-
tain's poor record of industrial training? a lack of
vocational relevance in the school curriculum? poor
technical education in the FE colleges?). In other
words a need for change is suggested and the pro-
cess of analysis is begun. At this initial stage in any
change process there is (or should be) an attempt
to discover appropriate facts, to share in fact-
finding, to diagnose problems, to identify major pro-
blems and to suggest possible solutions or changes
or innovations. In the case of TVEI (cunningly iden-
tified as an 'initiative' rather than as a change or
an innovation?) the problem as analysed certainly
had much to do with a lack of technical and voca-
tional relevance in the curriculum of 14-18 year
olds in our schools and colleges.
152
A second stage is then the implementation of the
change or innovation as part of a, hopefully, well-
managed process of change in action. In the case
of TVEI by 1983-84, 24 LEAs were involved in a
pilot scheme and by 1984-85 the scheme was ex-
tended to a further 46 LEAs.
The aims of TVEI are fairly well known and may
be briefly summarised as exploring and testing
ways of educating 14-18 year olds 'across the
ability range' so that
1) more will see and achieve qualifications/skills
directly valuable to them at work.
2) they are better equipped to enter the world of
employment.
3) they directly appreciate the practical applica-
tion of their qualifications and skills
4) they will use their skills and knowledge to solve
work problems.
5) more emphasis will be placed on developing in-
itiative, motivation, enterprise, problem-solving
skills and personal development.
6) they will have direct contact and training/work
experience with local employers in relevant
specialisms
7) there is close collaboration between LEAs and
industry/commerce/public services.
TVEI projects also have the following
characteristics:
1) equal opportunities for both sexes, normally
educated together
2) four-year curricula preparing students for par-
ticular aspects of employment and for adult life
in a time of change
3) clear and specific objectives including those en-
couraging initiative, problem-solving and per-
sonal development
4) a balanced programme of general, technical
and vocational elements
5) technical and vocational elements broadly
related to potential employment opportunities
6) appropriate work experience as an integral part
(from 1 5 onwards)
7) links with subsequent training/educational
opportunities
8) regular assessment and counselling
Both the aims and content of TVEI programmes
have, of course, been seriously criticised. Indeed
the implementation stage of any innovation or
change is one where the implications of change
should be thoroughly examined and where any
undesirable impact is minimised. TVEI had, in many
teacher's eyes, a bad start in that it was seen as
 vocational rather than liberal, dominated by train-
ing concepts rather than educational ones, practical
rather than theoretical, and stressing a process of
learning rather than an educational product.
Typically TVEI is regarded as narrowly voca-
tional, putting the interests of industry and the
economy ahead of those of the individual. In this
view 'it is not the quality of the educational en-
counter that is important but its economic function'
(Fowler, 1985). TVEI will accordingly reduce the
importance of personal development because 'in-
strumental concerns' will become paramount; the
school and the college may simply become 'trainee
establishments for industry' (Barrow, 1984)
A second major criticism of TVEI is that it allows
the curriculum to be dominated by training con-
cepts rather than educational issues. 'Training', it
is argued, is preparation for a specific task or job
whereas 'education' indicates a much broader,
more critically aware understanding of knowledge,
skills and attitudes. TVEI may (some say will) focus
narrowly on specific skills and thus will lead to an
impoverishment of the curriculum. The danger, ac-
cording to one critic, is that the school curriculum
will be broadly educational between 11-14 and that
it will then divide at 14 into an academic educa-
tion for an elite and vocational training for the rest:
education for the sheep, training for the goats
(Golby, 1985).
A related criticism is that TVEI will stress prac-
tical activity (for the less able) rather than theo-
retical understanding for all. TVEI will, in effect,
offer a watered down curriculum for those con-
sidered incapable of or unsuitable for sustained
cognitive and theoretical development. The TVEI
emphasis will be on 'learning through doing', prac-
tical applications of mathematics and science, of
CDT, art, drama and working in the community.
Such a practical emphasis will also act as a form
of social control; the practically-minded student will
be critically (and politically) quiescent, a passive,
less-demanding and lowly member of a hier-
archically-divided society.
It might also be argued that TVEI stresses the
process of learning itself rather than the acquisi-
tion of those highly valued products of knowledge
that schools have traditionally inculcated. To some
this is no bad thing; they would argue that school-
ing and our examination systems have for too long
stressed 'fact-gathering' rather than enquiry-based
learning.
Such, in crude summary, are the main arguments
used against TVEI. They are arguments which, to
one influential commentator at least, rest on a
series of false dualisms (Pring, 1985). Thus 'voca-
tional' and 'liberal' need not be regarded as
mutually incompatible; instead the notion of a
liberal education*itself often only vaguely concep-
tualised, may be thought to include an investiga-
tion of vocationalism as one of its central tasks.
Young people, certainly, ask about the vocational
relevance of their school and college curricula and
such a questioning cannot be dismissed contemp-
tuously as a narrow or inproper concern to be con-
trasted with a broader and proper interest in educa-
tion per se. This is not to argue for narrow voca-
tionalism or against a broad liberal education: it is
to suggest that the best liberal education will
always provide a form of broad vocational prepara-
tion for students. (The old grammar school liberal
education, if so it was, could also be regarded as
being broadly vocational for those entering profes-
sional life).
It may also be counter productive and false to
present 'education' and 'training' as if they were
irreconciliable. Conceptually the notion of educa-
tion is broader than that of training but it would be
wrong (i.e. logically wrong) to regard training as
being, in some way, inappropriate to educative
teaching. The more any training process involves
explanations, reasons, argument and evidence the
more it approaches a process of education. Train-
ing dogs and educating dogs are contradictions in
terms; but training students (or teachers) and
educating them are not. The training provided by
a TVEI programme may, indeed, should be, educa-
tional. The training can be so conducted (i.e. ra-
tionally, broadly, in perspective) that the student
is educated through it.
The distinction drawn betwen 'theoretical' and
'practical' aspects of learning often leads to a
divided curriculum: a practical curriculum for the
less able and a theoretical education for the
academic elite. 'This distinction has tended not only
to give low status to the practical but to distort the
role of intelligence in practical activities' (Pring,
1985). Indeed the way to understand theory in a
wide range of contexts is through reflection on
practical experience. TVEI may emphasise practical
activities and work experience but it will achieve
its stated aims only if teachers are encouraged to
help their students to develop their theoretical
understanding through practice.
TVEI also, at its best, stresses the importance
of learning through activity and enquiry rather than
simply through the acquisition of knowledge itself,
This is, again, not to decry or devalue knowledge.
It is rather to suggest that good teaching is more
153
to do with developing the learner as a learner. The
most important skills that a student can develop
as part of any curriculum are those which will fit
him for the future, adaptive learning. The most
liberal, educational, vocational, practical,
theoretical training any student can get is that
which enables him to analyse and meet his own
learning needs as an autonomous adult: learning
how to learn throughout life. And this is to value
the processes of acquiring and using knowledge as
much as the knowledge acquired itself. There is a
danger that the latter will become inert, but there
is the probability that the process of learning will
always be dynamic. The issue is not to oppose pro-
cess and product; the point is to see learning to
learn as a dynamic process which will enable the
student to review his knowledge, develop his skills
and re-examine his attitudes and values in an ever-
changing context.
If the first two stages in the change process —
the initial fact-finding, problem-ana/ys/s stage and
the second implementation stage — have been
identified there is now a need to examine briefly
a third stage in which the change or innovation is
stabilised and evaluated. The most obvious
features of this third stage are that attempts are
made to incorporate and legitimise the change
within the change context (e.g. within the LEA, col-
lege or school) and to reflect upon an evaluate the
impact, if any, of the change itself. This reflective
and evaluation stage is obviously of vital impor-
tance if the change is to have any chance of lasting
success.
Already some reflections upon the impact of
TVEI as a curriculum innovation have been briefly
discussed. Many of the initial reactions to TVEI
were hostile: there have also been objections to
TVEI as yet another example of the 'growing thrust
of centralism' (Seckington 1985), that increasing
tendency for decisions regarding content, peda-
gogy and evaluation to be made centrally by bodies
such as the Manpower Services Commission, the
fear that growing economic control of the curri-
culum through MSC-funding brings with it political
control and fear that the Department of Education
and Science has been by-passed, a centre for
educational initiatives by a body even less respon-
sive to the interests of schools, colleges, teachers
and students.
The national reaction to TVEI is being evaluated
through an NFER project begun in January 1985
and lasting until the end of 1988. The first year's
findings (Greig, 1985) have identified a number of
problems: the scepticism of staff, the pressure of
154
time and workload on TVEI school co-ordinators;
the patchy evolution of the project; the need to
serve several masters at once (MSC, LEA and
schools), each with a different set of aims and
priorities; the fear of some heads of invasion of their
traditional sovereignty.
All heads had experienced difficulty in mounting
TVEI: finding enough suitable teachers (especially
in business studies, computing, IT, technology);
late delivery of equipment; delays in building altera-
tions; liaison problems with other TVEI schools and
with FE. But TVEI was also seen positively: TVEI
had produced major curriculum innovation, signifi-
cant changes in teaching style and organisation,
flexibility in option schemes and timetables, in-
creased co-operation between staff, extra teacher
resources and, 'of greatest managerial signifi-
cance', the creation of the post of school co-
ordinator. Over 75% of heads said that school-to-
school links had improved 'quite a lot' or 'very
much', that TVEI had had a major impact on shared
in-service training, curriculum development, the
sharing of staff and sresources and the joint
reorganisation of work experience. Also for over
half the heads school — FE links had improved
because of TVEI. On the other hand school-industry
links remained 'an area of varying priority' even
though they had been given a general boost. Overall
TVEI seemed, in its first main year of operation, to
have made a positive impact on schools as organi-
sations particularly in the sphere of curriculum
change, staff training and improved teaching. It
may also be significant that the various problems
previously identified as possible objections to TVEI
— narrow vocationalism, the emphasis on training,
the practical approach and the process model —
together with fears about reinforcing social control
and the tendency towards centralising control of
the curriculum have not emerged in the NFER's in-
terim report.
The main fears have been that of heads, wary
about their sphere of influence being violated, and
of TVEI co-ordinators attempting 'to walk a tight-
rope of acceptability and to balance the need to
give direction with the need to give, for instance,
sufficient freedom to the schools to implement
TVEI as they wished' (Greig 1985). Other problems
will undoubtedly emerge during the TVEI evalua-
tions; but it does at least seem encouraging at this
early stage that TVEI has stimulated schools into
curriculum development, has supported changes in
teaching styles and modes of assessment, has pro-
moted staff development and has helped to develop
links between schools, between schools and col-
leges and between education and industry. There
is no doubt that evaluators should continue to be
aware of the dangers of social, economic and
political influence in the curriculum but no one, least
of all a professional teacher, should object to a cur-
riculum innovation which gives prominence to tech-
nology as a tool of communication and enquiry
(Pring 1985).
The Change Context
A second major element or factor in the process
of change is the context in which any particular
change or innovation is to be implemented and
evaluated. In the case of TVEI the immediate con-
text is that provided by the individual teacher, his
department and his school or college. These parti-
cular 'users' or 'clients' or 'adopters' of the innova-
tion are themselves part of a broader context pro-
vided by the local education authority and indeed
the national educational service itself. The change
context is therefore a complex system comprising
not just individuals but an array of groups, each of
which exerts its own influence and pressure as part
of the social and political discourse affecting any
proposed change or innovation. TVEI, for example,
will succeed or fail depending on how it is perceived
as a threat or as an opportunity (or as both!) by
students, parents, teachers, heads of departments,
deputy-heads, vice-principals, heads, principals,
LEA officers, governors, teaching unions and other
organisations (in industry and commerce for
example) which have views about the curriculum
for 14-18 year olds (and who doesn't?). It is parti-
cularly the case that an innovation such as TVE!
will fail to be accepted if the immediate change con-
text of the school or college (themselves complex
enough as social and political organisations) is not
sufficiently receptive to change: in effect schools
and colleges and teachers are expected to be non-
authoritarian, open-minded, highly-activated and
willing to participate in the process of innovation.
(Bolam 1975). A vital factor in the acceptance of
change is therefore the subjective, phenomeno-
logical world of the teacher and his colleagues
within the change context (Vanderberghe 1984).
And the teacher's perception of TVEI, say, will pro-
bably have a lot to do with how it is managed as
an innovation within the school or college. This
does not, however, diminish the importance of ex-
ternal support to be provided by LEA advisers,
teachers' centres and in-service training schemes
such as 'TRIST'.
Teachers and heads of departments particularly
have to be helped to develop their skills as agents
and managers of the change process. And, accord-
ing to the Chairman of the Manpower Services
Commission, 'Managing change is possibly the
most important educational and training skill of this
century' (Nicholson 1985).
The Change Agent
The change agent in any process of innovation
may be defined by the number of roles he is ex-
pected to fulfil. For example he may be regarded
as a 'trainer, consultant, counsellor or therapist'
(Chin and Benne 1976). Alternatively the change
agent may be simply defined as 'the helper, the per-
son or group who is attempting to effect change'
(Bennis 1976). Atypical list of roles for the change
agent engaged in a process of educational innova-
tion could be:
1. conveyor of ideas and information
2. consultant to the client group
3. trainer in specific skills
4. leader of a group of change agents
5. innovator creating new ideas and practices
6. know/edge builder developing knowledge for
the group
7. practitioner adopting new skills and practices
8. user using the new knowledge and ideas
(Bolam 1975)
These roles are, of course, overlapping and any
one change agent may play several at any one time.
Similarly, in any one innovation scheme such as
TVEI, there may be a number of change agents,
each of whom plays a variety of roles. Likely
change agents in the case of TVEI include those
who are internal to the school or college (teachers,
heads of department, deputy h'eads, vice-
principals) and those who are external to the imme-
diate change context (County, TVEI co-ordinators,
LEA advisers and inspectors, 'TRIST' co-ordinators
and other educationalists). Overall any change
agent whether internal or external, will be expected
to provide a certain amount of leadership for the
group promoting the innovation, to act as a catalyst
or facilitator of change, to be prepared to take risks
in implementing change and to play the part of a
communicator both within the change context and
outside it.
These role demands on the change agent bring
with them corresponding requirements for parti-
cular skills. To be successful a change agent would
need therefore a range of leadership, facilitator and
communication skills including:
155
 identifying and isolating problems and tasks
setting priorities
making plans and adjusting plans
allocting work and resources
deciding appropriate methods
evaluating performance and assessing change by
results
setting standards, building team spirit
encouraging, motivating, praising, recognising
listening
summarising
writing reports
making oral presentations
suggesting questions rather than answers
taking risks, going out on a limb
providing time for discussion
counselling rather than threatening
retraining
consulting
changing from the bottom-up
(Adair1973)
This demand for a range of skills to be displayed
and used by the change agent is, of course, a de-
mand for perfection. In the real world of the school
or college few teachers or heads of departments
possess all of the skills they need to act as agents
or managers of change. The task involves both
sharing success if there is success and accepting
criticism if there is failure. Hence the change agent
needs a realistic understanding that not everything
will go well, that if it does others will want to share
the glory ('victory has many fathers') and that if
it doesn't he needs to grow a thick skin ('defeat
is an orphan'). Any failure, of course, may will be
the result of other factors than the change agent's
own shortcomings. This is to say also that in order
to survive the change agent has to learn to cope
with the demands and stresses of his role — he has
to manage the stress of being a change agent.
Sources of stress include
1) problems of developing a new role as change
agent
— handling new concepts (e.g. in the TVEI
curriculum)
— the uncertainty of the new role (cf old role
as teacher)
— changed perceptions of the school or col-
lege as an organisation
— changed frame of reference (TVEI?)
- — communication problems (the language of
TVEI and change)
156
2) the outsider within the school or college
— a TRIST' project member, for example, may
become detached from existing relationships
and structures within the school or college and
hence may feel less secure, more of an
outsider.
— a change agent appears to attack existing
values, attitudes and practices, the existing
culture of the school or college
— a change agent may feel exposed and
isolated within the school or college
— a change agent may feel unrecognised
within the school or college or believe that he
lacks sufficient status or prestige to effect
change
— a change agent may feel stress because the
change itself (TVEI) lacks credibility within the
school or college
— a change agent may feel stress from hav-
ing, at the same time, to play other roles within
the school or college
— a change agent has to take risks to imple-
ment change — this may backfire within the
school or colllege and affect future prospects
(including promotion?)
3) Uncertainty about the actual task
— both the change agent, and his head of
department/head/principal will have, initially at
least, unclear expectations about the task in
hand
— the boundaries of the task will probably be
vague and will, equally probably, impinge on
the established responsibilities of others
— criteria for successful performance of the
task will be unclear
— the stimulation of change is an uncertain
task in itself, often doomed to failure
— the credit for successful change may be
(should be?) claimed by others; the blame for
difficulties and uncertainties may be attached
to the change agent
— the change/innovation itself may challenge
existing values, policies, practices and
management styles in the school or college
— the legitimacy of the change/innovation may
be attacked.
(Warmington 1975)
Given that the role of the change agent, stresses
and tensions notwithstanding, is to help implement
and manage change what major strategies are
available to him? That is to say, what main pro-
cedures or techniques may be used by the change
agent to reach the innovation's particular objec-
tives? Typical change strategies are often grouped
 according to three headings: rational strategies, re-
educative strategies and co-ercive strategies (Chin
and Benne 1976).
Rational strategies of change assume that men
are motivated by rational self-interest and hence
will adopt change if it can be rationally justified and
shown to be in their interest. The change agent has
to decide, therefore, whether the innovation (e.g.
TVEI) can be rationally justified and how he should
go about convincing his colleagues that it is
justifiable and that to adopt it would be in their in-
terest as teachers. Typical rational strategies
include
disseminating information about the change
selecting the right staff to implement change
clarifying language and concepts
applied research and evaluation
Re-educative strategies do not deny human
rationality as such but depend more on men chang-
ing their attitudes, values and skills as a result of
becoming committed to particular innovations.
Once men become committed to particular socio-
cultural norms then they will support change in
practice. To an extent therefore re-educative
strategies rely on change agents and upon a crude
theory of change fusing democratic and scientific
values. Such strategies emphasise involvement by
the client in working out programmes of change
seeing change in terms of altering attitudes, values,
norms and relationships rather than in terms of
knowledge
collaboration between a change agent and a client
experience-based learning, learning to learn, self-
directed change
openness of communication, trust, mutual respect,
lowering of status barriers
the creativity of the client fchange context/
effective conflict management
the important of linking persons as targets of
change
a Theory Y rather than a Theory X view of
management.
Typical re-educative strategies include
improving the problem-solving abilities of clients
fostering growth in the client group
Re-educative strategies rest on the assumption that
human problems (such as the introduction of or the
need for TVEI) are 'sociotechnical' and hence re-
quire strategies which are in tune wthhuman pro-
blems of relationship and morale as well as with
technical issues. They are therefore 'action-
research' or 'action-learning' strategies of change.
(Gay 1983)
Coercive strategies emphasise political and
economic sanctions in the exercise of power to
achieve change. They particularly include new laws
and rules and institutions to achieve change recom-
position and manipulation of power elites.
Typically power-coercive strategies tend to be
somewhat divisive and may be challenged by those
whose interests are most threatened.
Conclusion
The teacher as a change agent has to be aware
of the various elements and stages of change. A
simple model distinguishes three stages of analysis,
implementation and evaluation which should en-
sure that the change/innovation itself is conti-
nuously examined for its overall usefulness and im-
pact. The change/innovation itself is therefore sub-
ject to modification and alteration by both the
teacher himself as change agent and by his col-
leagues in the immediate change context, the
school or college.
The roles required of the teachers as a change
agent are both demanding and varied, entailing a
set of leadership, facilitator and communicator
skills which would impress any management con-
sultant. The strategies for change selected by the
teacher must, given the enterprise in which he is
engaged, reflect his interest in re-educative/rational
processes rather than in coercion or power
manipulation. This is not to argue that the teacher
should ignore the centres of power in his own
school or college (he would do so at his own peril)
or that innovations such as TVEI do not have a top-
down, politically-imposed component. Instead it is
to suggest that teachers as agents of change
should employ re-educative and rational strategies
if they are to be true to their vocations as
educators. To an extent the arrival of TVEI is an
example of a government inspired, power-coercive,
strategy to push schools and colleges into adopt-
ing a more technically and vocationally relevant cur-
riculum. That is not necessarily a bad thing if
teachers themselves, as agents of change within
the educational system, analyse the value of TVEI
for students and implement an innovation which
has a rational justification in terms of individual and
social needs. Finally, in order to avoid too much
stress as agents of change, teachers ought to take
heart from the understanding of at least one senior
LEA inspector who launched his County's 'TRIST'
scheme by urging his particular agents to work for
157
 change within manageable limits. He deliberately
and wisely counselled them against having too
great a set of expectations. Would that all teachers
as change agents were given the same advice.
158
References
Adair, John (1973) Action — Centred Leadership. McGraw
Hill, 1973.
Barrow, R. (1984) Giving Teaching Back to Teachers: A
Critical Introduction to Curriculum Theory. Wheatsheaf
Books, 1984, p.77
Bennis W.G., Benn K.F., Chin R., Corey K.E., (eds.) (1976)
The Planning of Change. Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, 1976
(3rd edition) p.37
Bolam, Ray (1975) The Management of Educational Change:
Towards a Conceptual Framework' pp.391-409 in Vin-
cent Houghton, Royston McHugh & Colin Morgan (eds.)
Management in Education — The Management of
Organisations and Individuals. Ward Lock/Open Univer-
sity Press 1975.
Chin, R. and Benne, K.D. 'General Strategies for Effecting
Changes in Human Systems' pp.22-45 in Bennis, W.G.
et al (1976).
Dalin, P. (1973) Case Studies of Educational Innovation IV:
Strategies for Innovation in Education. OCED, Paris, 1973
pp.36-37
Fowler, G. (1985) 'Whatis TVEI' Liberal Education pp.14-17,
Issue No. 54, Autumn 1985, p.15.
Gay, P. (1983) 'Action Learning and organisational change'
pp. 1 53-164 in Mike Pedler (ed.) Action Learning in Prac-
tice. Gower, Aldershot, 1983
Golby, M. (1985) 'The Coming Crisis at Fourteen Plus'.
Forum pp.88-89, Vol 127, No. 3, Summer 1985.
Greig, D. (1985) 'TVEIs effect on schools' Education. 20/27
Dec. 1985, p.561.
Havelock, R.G. (1971) 'Utilisation of eductional research and
development'. British Journal of Educational Technology,
Vol 2, No. 2, May 1971.
Nicholson, B. (1985) 'Managing Change in Education and
Training'. BACIE Journal, Mar/Apr 85, pp.31-32.
Pring, R. (1985) 'In Defence of TVEV. Forum, pp.14-17, Vol
28, No. 1, Autumn 1985.
Seckington, R. (1985) 'TVEI — defending the indefendable'.
Forum, pp.16-28, Vol 28, No. 1, Autumn 1985.
Vanderberghe, R. (1984) 'Teacher's Role in educational
change'. British Journal of In-service Education, Vol. 1 1 ,
No. 1, Autumn 84, pp.14-25.
Warmington, A. (1975) 'Stress in Management of Change'.
pp.133-150 in D. Gowler & K. Legge Managerial Stress.
Gower Press, Epping, 1975.
(Back copies of British Journal of In-Service Education are
available from Studies in Education Ltd, Wansford Road,
Driffield, N. Humberside at £4.00 post free)