Modificado - Lawrence Stenhouse - An Introduction To Curriculum Research and Development-Heinemann Educational (1975)

CONTENTS
A cknow ledgem ents vi

F orew o rd vii
I D efining the Curriculum Problem 1
2 T h e C ontent of Education 6
3 T ea ch in g 24
4 K now ledge, Teaching, and the School as an In stitu tio n 40
5 B ehavioural Objectives and Curriculum D ev elo p m en t 52
6 A C ritiq u e of the Objectives Model 70
7 A Process Model 84
8 T h e Evaluation of C urriculum 98
9 T o w ard s a Research M odel 123
IO T h e T eacher as Researcher 142
i i T h e School and Innovation 166
12 S u p p o rt for Schools 181
13 M ovem ents and Institutions in C urriculum D evelopm ent 193
H P roblem s in the U tilization of C urriculum R esearch and
D evelopm ent * 209
B ibliography 224
In d e x 241
FOREW ORD
In the last fifteen years or so a major curriculum reform has taken

place in the field of educational studies in colleges and university
schools of education in Britain. The teaching of education as an
undifferentiated field has been largely su p p lan ted by the teaching of
c o n stitu en t disciplines. Philosophy, psychology and sociology are
virtu ally everywhere represented: history and com parative education
have been only partly successful in establishing their claims.
This change in curriculum has increased the rigour and the
intellectual tone of education courses. It has done little for their
relevance to the problem of improving the practice of teaching.
W hen the revision of the education curriculum was initiated, one of
its p roponents, R. S. Peters, spoke of the need for ‘m esh’. In my view
th a t m esh has not been achieved and relevance to practice depends
upon it. I see a possibility of its achievement through the close study
of curriculum and teaching, and that is why this book has been written.
A m ajor problem of m ounting courses o f study in curriculum and
teach in g has been the lack of a satisfactory B ritish text-book. There
are A m erican text-books, but they do not suit o u r needs. Text-books
are useful because they define the field and its problem s for both stafT
a n d students.
A good text-book would need to be w ritten by someone who was
able to com bine practical experience of research and development in
c u rricu lu m and teaching with an extensive knowledge both of the
lite ra tu re and of research and development projects in which he or she
h ad not participated. I am not equipped for this task in the extent of
my read in g or my knowledge of the work of the m any projects carried
out in recent years. But it may be that no one is.
A ccordingly, I have written this ‘book instead o f a text-book’ in the
hope th at it will serve until an adequate text-book can be written.
T h is attem p t falls short in that if offers a highly personal view. I
believe th at a text-book should present a thesis about the field it
covers; but one which takes account of a w ider range of work and
experience than I have been able to master. T h is book looks outwards
from the work of my colleagues and m yself consequently its over-
rep resen tatio n tends to over-estimate its im portance, by implication if
not by intention.
vin Foreword
Nevertheless, it has, I hope, to a greater or lesser extent, three

attributes which are necessary in a text-book. It has a reasonably
extensive coverage of issues and problems. It has a reasonably
adequate initial bibliography to guide reading. And it dem ands
additional reading and teaching if it is to be adequately understood.
I hope that it will be o f use both to those who wish to mount courses
in curriculum and teaching and to anyone who is interested in
introducing himself or h erself to this im portant area of research and
developm ent.
Lawrence Stenhouse
Bintree
1975
I
D E F I N I N G THE
C U R R IC U L U M PROBLEM
Definitions of th e w ord curriculum do not solve curricular p ro b le m s;

b u t they do suggest persp ectiv es from w hich to view them .
In this chapter I shall exam ine some definitions and th en a tte m p t
to make clear th e persp ectiv e from w hich th e present book is w ritte n
by suggesting w hat a c u rric u lu m ought to do.
T h e Shorter O xford D ictionary defines curriculum as a ‘c o u rse ;
especially a regular c o u rse o f study as at a school or u n iv ersity ’. I t
records its use since th e seventeenth century, and this p e rh a p s
m arks the beginning in th is country of system atic and self-conscious
attem pts to regularize courses of study.
T h e dictionary offers, am ong others, th e following definitions o f
regular:
Having a form, structure or arrangement which follows, or is reducible
to, some rule or principle; characterized by harmony or proper corres-
pondence between the various parts or elements; marked by steadiness
or uniformity of action, procedure or occurrence; conformable to some
accepted or adopted rule or standard.
I f we do not in te rp re t th ese attrib u tes too mechanically, I th in k
th ey represent in a general way what we m ay ask of a c u rricu lu m .
How are we to create curricula w hich have this quality o f fo rm ,
principle, harm ony, steadiness and conform ity to standards? T h e r e
is a classic, though very u n -B ritish , answ er to this question.
O n my desk before m e is a book of 350 pages. It is called M o n ster-
plan fo r Grunnskolen - literally, M odel Plan fo r the Foundation Sch o ol
(1971). I was able to b u y it in a bookshop in Oslo. It is the c u rric u lu m
of the Norwegian com prehensive school. It lays down the g ro u n d to
be covered and to som e e x te n t the m ethods to be used for each su b je c t
in each year of th e school. I t also makes statem ents about aim s. S u c h a
docum ent is not u ntypical o f centralized school systems; a n d it is th e
response of such system s to th e problem of ensuring regularity in th e
curriculum . O ne m ight call it a specification.
2 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
T o the B ritish teach er such an approach to the c u rricu lu m is quite
novel. But in som e countries the first thing that comes to m in d w hen
mention is m ade o f th e curriculum is a book of instructions to teachers.
‘Could you please pass me the curriculum ,' one m ig h t alm ost
say.
Such a view eq u ates th e curriculum with a w ritten p resc rip tio n of
what it is in tended should happen in schools.
Some, how ever, equate th e curriculum less with th e in te n tio n s of
the school than w ith its perform ance. ‘Basically the c u rricu lu m is w hat
happens to ch ild ren in school as a result of what tea c h e rs do. It
includes all of th e experiences of children for which th e school should
accept responsibility.' (K ansas 1958). (The clarity of th is position
is weakened by la te r statem ents in the same docum ent.)
For such a cu rricu lu m one does not look at a book b u t a t th e school.
If curriculum is defined in this way, then the study o f c u rric u lu m can
be reduced to th e em pirical study of schools. T h e c u rric u lu m is not
the intention o r p rescrip tio n b u t w hat happens in real situ atio n s. I t is
not the aspiration, b u t th e achievem ent. The problem o f specifying
the curriculum is one o f perceiving, understanding a n d describing
what is actually going on in school and classroom.
C urriculum s tu d y based on this position presum ably also leads
to the w riting o f books. So again, as in the case of th e N orw egian
Mensterplan, we find out about the curriculum by tu rn in g to a book.
In this case, how ever, th e book is not a statem ent o f th e intended
curriculum , b u t an anthropological or sociological analysis of the
school as an agency of teaching and learning, based on th e in te rp re -
tation of careful observation. C urriculum study is case stu d y .
We appear to be confronted by tw o different views o f th e c u rric u -
lum. On the one han d th e curriculum is seen as an in te n tio n , plan
or prescription, an idea about w hat one would like to h a p p e n in
schools. O n th e o th e r it is seen as the existing state of affairs in schools,
what does in fact happen. A nd since neither intentions n o r h ap p en in g s
can be discussed u n til they are described or otherw ise c o m m u n i-
cated, cu rricu lu m stu d y rests on how we talk or write a b o u t th ese two
ideas of cu rricu lu m .
In essence it seem s to m e th at curriculum study is co n c ern e d w ith
the relationship betw een th e two views of curriculum —as in ten tio n
and as reality. I believe th a t o ur educational realities seld o m conform
to our educational intentions. W e cannot put our policies in to p rac -
tice. W e should n o t regard this as a failure peculiar to schools and
teachers. W e have only to look around us to confirm th a t it is p a rt of
the hum an lot. B ut, as K arl Popper has observed, im p ro v e m e n t is
I O
THE TEACHER
AS R E S E A R C H E R
For me th is c h a p te r is of central importance. In it I shall try to out-

line w hat I believe to be the m ajor implication for th e betterm en t
of schools em erging from curriculum research a n d developm ent.
Stated briefly, th is is th at curriculum research and dev elo p m en t ought
to belong to th e teacher and th at there are prospects o f m aking this
good in p ractice. I concede th at it will require a g e n e ra tio n o f work,
and if th e m ajority of teachers - rath er than only th e e n th u sistic few -
are to possess th is field of research, that the te a c h e r’s professional
self-im age a n d conditions of work will have to change.
L et m e review som e strands in the argument.
First, I have argued that educational ideas expressed in books are
not easily tak e n into possession by teachers, w hereas th e expression
of ideas as c u rricu lar specifications exposes th em to testing by
teachers a n d hence establishes an equality of disco u rse betw een the
proposer a n d those who assess his proposal. T h e idea is th a t of an
educational science in which each classroom is a lab o rato ry , each
teacher a m e m b e r of the scientific community. T h e re is, o f course, no
im plication as to th e origins of the proposal o r h y p o th esis being
tested. T h e o riginator may be a classroom teacher, a policy-m aker or
an educational research worker. T h e crucial point is th a t th e proposal
is not to b e regarded as an unqualified recom m endation b u t rather
as a provisional specification claiming no m ore th a n to be worth
p u tting to th e test of practice. Such proposals claim to be intelligent
rather th a n correct.
Second, in my definition of the curricular problem in C h a p te r i, I
have identified a curriculum as a particular form o f specification
about th e practice of teaching and not as a package o f m aterials or a
syllabus o f g ro u n d to be covered. It is a way of tra n sla tin g any educa-
tional idea into a hypothesis testable in practice. It invites critical
testing r a th e r th a n acceptance.
Finally, in the previous chapter I have reached to w a rd s a research
The Teacher as Researcher *43
design based upon these ideas, im plying that a c u rric u lu m is a m eans
of studying th e problem s and effects of im plem enting any defined line
of teaching. A n d although, because of my own location in th e educa-
tion in d u stry , I have draw n m y example from a natio n al project
co-ordinating and studying the w ork of many teachers, I believe th at
a sim ilar design could be adopted by an individual school as p a rt of its
developm ent plan. I have argued, however, th at th e u n iq u en ess of
each classroom setting implies th a t any proposal - even at school
level - needs to be tested and verified and adapted by each teacher
in his ow n classroom . T h e ideal is that the c u rricu la r specification
should feed a teach er’s personal research and d ev elo p m en t p ro -
gram m e th ro u g h w hich he is progressively increasing his u n d e r-
standing o f his own w ork and hence bettering his teach in g .
T o su m m arize the im plications of this position, all w ell-founded
curriculum research and developm ent, whether th e w ork o f an indi-
vidual teach er, of a school, of a group working in a te a c h e rs ’ centre
or of a g ro u p w orking w ithin th e co-ordinating fram ew o rk of a
national p ro ject, is based on the stu d y of classrooms. I t th u s rests on
the w ork o f teachers.
It is n o t eno u g h th a t teachers’ w ork should be s tu d ie d : th ey need
to study it them selves. M y them e in this chapter is th e ro le o f the
teacher as a researcher in his ow n teaching situ atio n . W h a t does
this co n cep tio n o f curriculum developm ent imply for him ? >
Hoyle has attem p ted to catch the implications o f curricu lu m
developm ent fo r teachers in the concept of extended professionalism
as opposed to restricted professionalism .
The restricted professional can be hypothesized as having these charac-
teristics amongst others:
A high level of classroom competence;
Child-centredness (or sometimes subject-centredness);
A high degree of skill in understanding and handling children;
Derives high satisfaction from personal relationships w ith pupils;
Evaluates performance in terms of his own perceptions of changes in
pupil behaviour and achievement;
Attends short courses of a practical nature.
The extended professional has the qualities attributed to the restricted
professional but has certain skills, perspectives and involvements in
addition. His characteristics include the following:
Views work in the wider context of school, community and society;
Participates in a wide range o f professional activities, e.g. subject
panels, teachers’ centres, conferences;
Has a concern to link theory and practice;
Has a com m itm ent to some form of curriculum theory and mode of
evaluation.
(Hoyle 1972a)
I am sceptical a b o u t some of this. W hy ch ild -cen tred n ess, for
example? A nd su re ly theories should be the objects of e x p e rim e n tal
testing, not of c o m m itm en t. T h e extended professional a p p e a rs to
fall short of a u to n o m y and this is confirmed elsewhere in H o y le’s
w riting:
This does not mean that we are underestimating the significance of the
teacher in the innovation process. T h e teacher is im portant in three
respects:
(a) He can be independently innovative at the classroom level;
(b) He can act as a ‘champion* of an innovation among his colleagues;
(c) Ultimately, it is the teacher who has to operationalize on innova-
tion at the classroom level.
(Hoyle 1972c, 24)
I don’t th in k th is lim ited role and limited autonom y is a satisfac-
tory basis for ed u catio n al advance. T h e critical characteristics o f th a t
extended p rofessionalism which is essential for w e ll-fo u n d ed c u r-
riculum research a n d developm ent seem to me to b e:
The co m m itm en t to system atic questioning of o ne’s o w n teach in g
as a basis fo r d ev elopm en t;
T he c o m m itm en t an d th e skills to study one’s ow n te a c h in g ;
T he concern to q u estio n and to test theory in practice b y th e use
of those skills.
T o these m ay b e a d d e d as highly desirable, th o u g h p e rh a p s n o t
essential, a rea d in ess to allow o th er teachers to observe o n e ’s w ork -
directly or th ro u g h recordings - an d to discuss it w ith th e m on an
open and h o n e st basis.
In short, th e o u tsta n d in g characteristics of the e x te n d e d p ro fe s-
sional is a c ap acity for autonom ous professional se lf-d e v e lo p m e n t
through sy stem atic self-study, th ro u g h the study o f th e w ork of
other teachers an d th ro u g h the testin g of ideas by classro o m research
procedures.
W hat te c h n iq u e s o f classroom stu d y are available to th e teacher
who takes th is position?
Probably th e b est-know n tech n iq u e is that of in te ra c tio n analysis,
which has in o ne form or an o th er a long history, th o u g h m o d ern
developm ents are often seen as descendents from B ales’ w ork in
studying small groups (Bales 1950). Flanders is the best-know n figure
in this field, having been the centre o f a group in the U nited States
which has developed interaction analysis methods for the study of
teaching and for teacher training. (See for example, Am idon and
Hunter 1966; Amidon and Hough 1967; Flanders 1970)
Flanders has defined classroom interaction analysis in the follow -
ing terms:
Classroom interaction analysis refers not to one system, but to many
systems for coding spontaneous verbal communication, arranging the
data into a useful display, and then analysing the results in order to
study patterns of teaching and learning.
(Flanders 1970, 28-29)
It is in fact a method o f organizing data from the observation of
classrooms. T h e problem, as Flanders sees it, is
. . . to decide how teachers and college students can explore various
patterns of interaction and discover for themselves which patterns they
can use in order to improve instruction.
(Flanders 1970, 17)
An observer sits in the classroom or views a video-sound playback, or
just listens to a voice recording and keeps a record of the flow of events
on an observation form. . . . He is trained to use a set of categories. He
decides which category best represents each event and then writes >iown
the code symbol of that category.
(Flanders 1970, 5)
F landers’ ow n category system , F .I.A .C . (F landers In te ra c tio n
Analysis C ategories), w hich is show n in Figure 4 on th e follow ing
page (F lan d ers 1970, 34) can serve as an example.
Interaction analysis o f this kind is a useful b u t an ex trem ely
limited in stru m e n t.
Hamilton and Delam ont (1974, 3) suggest that
interaction analysis techniques are an efficient way of discovering the
norms of teacher and pupil behaviour. Thus, a particular teacher’s
‘score’ from an interaction analysis study will ‘place’ her in relation to
her colleagues; but it will supply very little other information about her
as an individual.
The authors suggest (3- 5) a number of factors w hich impose
restrictions upon the use o f interaction analysis:
1) Most interaction analysis systems ignore the context in which the
data are collected. They make no provision for data concerning, for
example, the lay-out of the classroom or the equipment being used.
1^6 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
Fig. 4 F lan d ers’ Interaction A nalysis Categories* (F .I.A .C .)
1. Accepts feeling. Accepts and clarifies an

attitude or the feeling tone o f a p u p il in a n o n -
threatening m anner. Feelings m ay be p o sitiv e or
negative. Predicting and recalling feelin g s are
included.
2. Praises or encourages. Praises or en cou rages
p up il action or behaviour. Jokes that release
tension, b ut n o t at the exp en se o f another
R esp o n se . individual ; n odd ing head, or saying ‘U m hm?* or
‘go on* are included.
3. Accepts or uses ideas of pu pils. C larifyin g,
b uilding, or developing ideas su g g ested b y a
pupil. T each er extensions o f p u p il id eas are
in cluded but as the teacher b rings m ore o f his
ow n ideas into play, shift to category five.
Teacher 4. Asks questions. Asking a q u estio n about

Talk con ten t or procedure, based on teach er ideas,
w ith the in tent that a pupil w ill an sw er.
5. Lecturing. G iving facts or o p in io n s ab out
con ten t or procedures; expressing his own ideas,
givin g his ozvn explanation, or citin g an authority
other than a p upil.
6. G iving directions. D irections, co m m an d s, or
In itia tio n orders to w h ich a pupil is exp ected to com p ly.
7. C riticizin g or justifying a u th o rity . S ta tem en ts
intended to change pupil b eh aviour from n o n -
acceptable p attern ; bawling som eon e o u t ; stating
w hy the teacher is doing w h at he is d oin g ;
extrem e self-reference.
8. P u pil-talk - response. T alk b y p u p ils in re-
R esp o n se sponse to teacher. Teacher initiates th e con tact or
solicits p up il statem ent or stru ctures th e situ a-
tion. Freedom to express ow n ideas is lim ited .
Pupil T alk
9. P u pil-T alk-in itiation . T alk b y p u p ils w h ich
they initiate. Expressing ow n id eas; in itiatin g a
new topic; freedom to develop o p in io n s and a
In itiation lin e o f thou ght, like asking th o u g h tfu l q u estio n s;
goin g beyond th e existing structure.
10. Silence or confusion. Pauses, sh o rt p eriods o f
Silence silence and periods of confusion in w h ich co m -
m unication cannot be u nderstood b y the ob -
server.
• T h e r e is v o s c a l e i m p l i e d b y t h e s e n u m b e r s . K a c h n u m b e r is c l a s s i f i c a t o r y ; it d e s i g n a t e s a
p a r t ic u la r k in d o f ' c o r n m u n i c a t i o n e v e n t . T o w r it e t h e s e n u m b e r s d o w n d u r i n g o b s e r v a t i o n
is to e n u m e r a t e , n o t t o j u d g e a p o s i t i o n o n a s c a le .
2) Interaction analysis systems are usually concerned only with overt,
observable behaviour. They take no account of the intentions which lie
behind such behaviour.
3) Interaction analysis systems are expressly concerned with ‘what can
be categorized and measured’. (Simon and Boyer 1970, 1) But, by using
crude measurement techniques, or ill-defined category boundaries, the
systems may well obscure, distort or ignore the qualitative features they
claim to be investigating.
4) Interaction analysis systems focus on ‘small bits of action or behaviour
rather than global concepts’ (Simon and Boyer 1970, 1). Inevitably,
therefore, they generate a super-abundance of data. Yet, to interpret
such data it has to be linked to a set of descriptive concepts - typically
the categories themselves - or to a small number of global concepts
built up from the categories.
5) By definition, the systems utilize pre-specified categories. If the
systems are intended to assist explanations, then the explanations may
be tautologous.
6) Finally, by placing firm boundaries on continuous phenomena, the
systems create a bias from which it is hard to escape. Reality - frozen in
this way - is often difficult to liberate from its static representation.
The authors note that some of these limitations have been acknowl-
edged by the originators of the systems. In particular, the first three
have been clearly defined by Flanders (1970, Chapter 2).
Adelman a n d W alker (1973) in a critical comment on th e F .I.A .C .
system suggest th a t ‘th e m ost significant weakness in th e theoretical
basis of the te c h n iq u e is in its naive conception of “ ta lk ” as a m eans
of hum an c o m m u n ic a tio n ’. In th eir own study of classroom s they
found th at th e talk did not fit the categories available fo r coding it.
The suggestion is th at Flanders* analytic categories are based on
classrooms w hich are instructional and where talk is in a public
dialogue form . I t ‘m akes little sense when applied to som e o f those
intimate conversations betw een teachers and children w here b o th are
talking b u t w h ere the only questions th at are being asked are those
asked by the children*. In short, F .I.A .C . - and for th a t m a tte r other
available in te rac tio n system s - does not fit open classroom s in which
talk is not as stereo ty p ed and lim ited in range and tone as it ten d s to
be in the teach er-d o m in ated instructional classroom. A delm an and
Walker make th is observation in th e ir summary.
Flanders* system for the analysis of classroom interaction is limited by
its inherent conception of talk. T his limits it to seeing teacher-student
interaction in term s of the transmission of information - sometimes one-
way, sometimes two-way. It does not concern itself with talk as the
expression and negotiation of meanings; as the medium through which
people see themselves as others see them. The underlying concept is
simply one of information-exchange, it does not touch on the relation-
ships between talk and knowledge, between talk and identity, both for
oneself and for others. In short, it sees talk as transmission, not as
communication.
This finding confirm s th e experience of Elliott and M a cD o n a ld
who attem pted to p ro d u ce an interaction analysis system on classic
lines to m onitor discussion in the classroom and found them selves
unable to devise a lim ited category system which caught th e im p o rta n t
distinctions th ey w ere able to draw in qualitative analysis.
M y conclusion is th a t interaction analysis is a tech n iq u e o f very
lim ited use to th e te a c h e r in researching his own classroom . I t can be
used if he is engaged in basically instructional class teach in g , to
obtain a crude descrip tiv e im pression of some aspects of his verbal
behaviour in classroom situations; and it provides a basis for q u a n ti-
tative com parison o f his behaviour w ith that of other teach ers. In
research term s, how ever, I believe it is a cul-de-sac. A nd m an y of its
weaknesses com e from th e attem p t to provide quantitative d a ta w hich
will support generalizations, an attem p t not of central im p o rta n c e to
the teacher seeking an und erstan d in g o f the unique as well as th e
generalizable elem en ts in his own work. Interaction analysis system s
provide M irrors o f Behaviour (Sim on and Boyer 1967, 1970), b u t
they are d isto rtin g m irrors.
An alternative a p p ro ach to th e stu d y of classrooms w hich is avail-
able in the research litera tu re pays m uch m ore attention to th e c o n te n t
of teaching th a n does interaction analysis. T his approach is co n cern ed
with the logic o f teaching.
T h e lead in th is ty p e o f work was given by B. O. S m ith and his
colleagues at th e U niversity of Illinois. They w orked from th e
transcripts o f eighty-five tape recordings made in five h ig h schools,
and successively ad o p ted two different category system s for th e ir
analysis.
In th eir late r w ork th ey distinguished logical sequences o f teach in g
which they called ventures, and classified according to th e ir objectives.
T hus, for exam ple, causal ventures had as their c o n ten t objective
‘a cause-effect relationship betw een particular events o r betw een
classes of e v e n ts’, w hile conceptual ventures had as th e ir objective
learning ‘a se t o f con d itio n s either governing, or im plied by, th e use
of a te rm ’. (25) T h e y distinguished and exemplified eig h t types of
ventures.
W ithin th e logical stru c tu re of th e venture, they d istin g u ish ed
strategies.
Pedagogically, strategy refers to a set of verbal actions that serves to
attain certain results and to guard against others. From a general stand
point, strategies may serve to induce students to engage in verbal
exchange, to ensure that certain points in the discourse will be made
clear, and to reduce the num ber of irrelevant or wrong responses as the
students participate in discussion, and so on.
(Smith, Meux et al. 1967, 49)
One dim ension of strategy is identified in the various k in d s o f
verbal m anipulation of th e content of teaching. These S m ith a n d his
colleagues call ‘moves*. A n d a consecutive sequence of m oves o f th e
same type is called a play.
It will be clear th at S m ith ’s categories rest more on logic th a n do
those of the in teractio n analysts, b u t the ‘strategy’, as defined above,
distinguishes te a c h e r control moves in interaction w ith th e pu p ils.
Even more th an th e interaction analysts Sm ith is tea c h e r-c en tred —
he sees the crucial elem en t in th e classroom as teacher u tte ran c e s -
and the eighty-five classroom sequences he and others have stu d ie d
and analysed over ten years are exam ples o f extremely form al teach in g.
As W alker (1971) com m en ts:
What is significant about Sm ith’s wrork is that he is able to use this highly
restricted approach to classroom activity and to realize a m eaningful
picture of life in at least some classrooms. Obviously, the fact th at he is
able to do this means that in the sample of classrooms he studied the
semantic aspects of the public verbal behaviour of the teacher constitute
the major communication system, and the social structure of the class is
geared to this restricted channel of communication.
(60)
And after su rv ey in g the work not only of Smith but also o f N u th a ll
and Laurence (1965) and of Bcllack (1966), and K licb ard (1966),
the same au th o r concludes:
Perhaps the m ost valuable thing to be learned from all these studies is
that among the m any possible ways that a teacher might function if his
sole concern was the presentation of knowledge, only a narrow range of
options is taken up in practice by the teacher. The main reason for this
seems to be that the teacher operates primarily in terms of roles other
than his concern with the presentation of knowledge. He acts as if his
main task was that of establishing and maintaining a certain social
structure within the classroom group. T h e main feature of this social
structure is the thing that Bcllack and Smith both assume - form ality in
verbal communication, and given this overriding concern of m aintaining
formality it is not surprising that teachers tend to dominate verbal out-
put, to give a large part of lesson content over to such arbitrary things
J 5° A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
as routine and management, and to rely heavily on description rather
than on higher cognitive operations. It is simply easier to manage a
formal context in this way.
The question that needs to be kept in mind through all this research
is, How docs the teacher manage knowledge in other contexts? In other
words, What happens in the ‘open’ classroom? and just what is the role
of private verbal communication in the classroom?
These are cru cial questions in the present context for c u rric u lu m
innovation often involves changing conceptions of the relatio n sh ip s
between know ledge an d teachers and learners and these changes are
of critical significance for the social structure of the classroom . N ew
curricula often involve th e teacher in abandoning the role w hich is
studied in m o st interactional and logical analyses of th e classroom .
We must n e ith e r m inim ize the usefulness, limited th o u g h it be, of
interactional a n d logical analysis nor assume that fu rth e r dev elo p -
ment of these ap p ro ach es will not capture a wider ap p licab ility . It
remains tru e th a t wc m u st look tow ards other approaches m o re able
to face the co m p lex ity of the classroom.
T he alternative app roach which has been most a ttra c tiv e to re -
search w orkers m ay be called ‘social anthropological*. I t ‘h as used
direct observation of classroom events as a starting p o in t in the
development o f th e o ry [and] . . . it rath er shies away fro m q u a n ti-
fication and uses only detailed field notes as a m eans o f recording*.
(Walker 1971, 83). In th is it resem bles the approach of th e a n th ro -
pologist who stu d ie s a com m unity or of the stu d e n t o f anim al
behaviour. T h e o ry is gradually built up from the ex am in atio n of
accum ulated observ atio n s. It is partial and fragm entary. A b o v e all it
attem pts not m erely generalization b u t also the characterizatio n o f the
uniqueness of p a rtic u la r situations.
For the observer who chooses to use an anthropological style of obser-

vation there can be no clear cut results. The aim here is to uncover
concepts that classify different classroom situations in a m eaningful way,
and so the observer is programmed, not with explicit, unam biguous and
closely defined categories, but with broad, general theories and expec-
tations. If the observer is to look for the unexpected and the unusual
event in the classroom then he must have some idea, some prediction
of what m ight happen, or what should happen. Most classroom events
are relatively trivial and untraumatic and to raise them to the level of
interest and observation the observer must have some fundam ental
theory at the back of his mind. T he secret of good observation is to
create the unusual from out of the commonplace.
(W alker 1971, 87)
The Teacher as Researcher I 5i
This may so u n d elusive. A t the theoretical level the ap p ro a c h is a
complex one, m ethodology is subtle and debatable, gen eralization
and sum m ary are difficult. But the p ro d u ct, the study w hich em erges
and is presented to the reader is vivid and generally speaks very
directly to teachers.
This makes th e problem of characterizing the approach ad eq u ately
in a brief sum m ary of the kind appropriate here an in tra cta b le
one.
Walker (1971) offers an excellent critical survey of th e stu d ie s of
Henry (1955a; 1955b; 1957; 1959; i9 6 0 ; 1966); Sm ith and G eoffrey
(1968); Jackson (1964 ; 1965; 1966; 1968); Kounin and his associates
(Kounin 1970; K o u nin, Friesen and N o rto n 1966; K ounin a n d G u m p
1958; K ounin, G u m p and Ryan 1961).
Walker him self built his own study on this review of the w ork in th e
field which he concludes w ith the following judgem ent :
My overall impression of this literature is that where it is precise and
reliable, that is to say where it attempts to measure; it is generally narrow
and limited. T h e definitions of ‘teaching* that it imposes on the realities
of the classroom are narrower than the varieties of experience that are
actually found there. . . . T he choice that the available research m ethods
provide is between being precise and simple-minded, or being vague and
inaccurate.
(Walker 1971, 142^-143)
Accordingly, W alker sets about developing ‘a descriptive language
within w hich to fram e som e of the variables involved in ed u catio n al
innovation*. (144) H e w orked by observing two classroom s closely,
strengthening his observation by tape recordings. He sought a k in d o f
observation and descriptive language w hich should have th e q u ality
of ‘variable sen sitiv ity ’ ; ‘in other w ords it m ust be capable o f looking
sim ultaneously at w hat happens in the, classroom both in te rm s o f
great detail, and in considerable generality - it requires th e c o n c ep tu a l
equivalent of a zoom lens’. (143)
In the nature o f the case, th e language he evolved is too extensive
to report here in a way th a t w ould be meaningful for the read er.
He distinguishes the ‘context* and ‘c o n ten t’ of classroom activities,
assimilating to context those concepts w hich provide a m eans
of describing classroom activity in a way that is content-free, and it is
done by looking at the way in which verbal messages are communicated.
[And he stresses that] the categories are used primarily to show how
changes arc m ade between different states of activity, rather than as
essential descriptions of individual forms. In this way they are rather
1^2 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
different from the term s ‘authoritarian*, ‘teacher-centred*, ‘direct*, etc.
that are traditionally used in this kind of research.
(180)
He is concerned to catch the dynamics of the classroom process
rather than to h ard en off into a necessarily static categorization of
styles in term s of role analysis. And he takes account of p u pil in te r-
action, not m erely teach er-p u p il interaction.
In his analysis of co n ten t, W alker’s work com plem ents th a t of
Bernstein, Y oung and E sland (Y oung 1971a). His term s are often
clearer and th ey generally have better empirical anchorage.
He uses th e te rm definition to refer to ‘the level of generality o f the
teacher’s control on c o n te n t’ (185), and distinguishes th re e o th er
dim ensions:
'The Particular-General Dimension: ‘The observation of this dimension
simply involves scanning content for moves from statements about
general objects or events to particular examples, or vice versa*.
(190)
The Personal-Objective Dimension: ‘Here content has to be watched
for moves by cither the pupils or the teacher to personalize public
information. One of the commonest ways of doing this is in the telling
of an anecdote*.
(1 9 0
Content Open - C ontent Closed: ‘A sequence may start from a single
statement, from which successive statements are generated by either
logical or associational processes, to form a kind of branching pattern.
'Phis pattern indicates that there has been some divergence in content
and so content is described as “ open” . . . . Alternatively, a sequence of
statements may be directed towards the construction of some over-
arching them e or explanation, so that there is an overall narrowing in the
range of content. W hen content is closed the sequence of statem ents
invariably converges on a target statement to complete the sequence.’
( i93)
These four dim ensions are interrelated through the diagnosis of
observed classroom transactions and reveal ‘certain patterns in the
sequences by which knowledge is organized and transm itted’. (195)
At this stage Walker claim ed no more than to have found a way of
presenting an understanding of his own limited observations.
This work seem s to me to catch some important aspects of the
reality of classroom s. It requires sensitivity and judgem ent on the
part of the observer, but it is capable of contributing to a public
tradition supportive o f such sensitivity and judgement.
Subsequently W alker a n d A delm an undertook a study of a w id er
range of classroom s an d faced m ore squarely the problem s of o b se rv -
ing and describing open a n d flexible styles of teaching. In th is later
work they adopted B e rn ste in ’s concepts, ‘classification* and ‘fra m in g ’,
though they found th e n a tu re of teachers* ‘codes’ more difficult to
diagnose than m ig h t at first be expected. F or example, they fo u n d a
case where teaching w ith stro n g classification and fram ing w as so
overlaid with th e h u m o u r a n d intim acy of a likeable teacher th a t th e
underlying code was in effect camouflaged. (Walker and A d elm an
They paid p a rticu la r a tte n tio n to ‘transitions’ which ‘occur in th e

process when th e tea c h e r (usually) has to change or progress to a
fresh aspect of th e task*. T h e y distinguish six interrelated tra n sitio n a l
aspects of classroom action, w hich are carefully defined and stu d ie d .
T his concentration on th e p o in t of change from sequence to seq u en ce
in the classroom p rocess is profitable because the intentions, c o n tro l
strategies and back g ro u n d assum ptions of the teacher are th ro w n into
relief at such p o in ts.
I find their w ork at th is stage (W alker and Adelman 1972) c o n -
ceptually dense at tim es a n d also think th at in some of th eir th e o re t-
ical wrestling th ey are stru g g lin g w ith problem s most readers will
feel less keenly th a n they do. N evertheless, they are able to th ro w in to
vivid relief m any aspects o f th e classroom which are recognized as
soon as they are n o tic e d ; a n d they pick up th e role of jokes an d a llu -
sions of a kind th a t have escaped m ost observers.
Another aspect o f their work is the use of stop-frame film with
synchronized sound recording in order to supplement their own field
notes and highlight elem ents o f classroom activity which they were
missing in direct observation. (Adelman and Walker 1974) T h is
provides the zoom lens effect which Walker earlier asked of his con-
cepts (see page 151), and they make strong claims for the technique:
Having incorporated the technique into our repertoire of skills, we find
that what we arc doing is no longer strictly ‘participant observation*.
At the time of observation what we do is not too dissimilar from regular
participant observation, but outside the immediate situation we have
available material which is qualitatively quite different to the usual
observational record. It is not only more reliable, but also more flexible
and more vivid, and this opens up opportunities for research that have
been little explored in the past.
(Walker and Adelman 1972, 21)
Hamilton (1973) used more conventional techniques of classroom
observation supplem ented by questionnaires, but like Walker and
I 54 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
Adelman associated his work closely with innovations in teaching.
Whereas th ey stu d ie d teachers whose innovative style d e riv e d from
an interest in ‘o p en education* of one sort or another, H a m ilto n ’s
teachers w ere w orking w ithin a ‘public innovation’ — S c o ttish In te -
grated Science. In th is context his work is more assim ilable to c u r-
riculum ev alu atio n th an is theirs, and indeed he suggests th a t class-
room analysis o f th e kind he is undertaking is n ecessary for an
understanding b o th of curricular reform s and of seco n d ary school
reorganization.
In the m o st su b stan tial part of his empirical work H a m ilto n is
studying a te a m o f four teachers - a physicist, a ch e m ist a n d two
biologists — w ho are engaged in teaching integrated science. T h e
teacher’s su b je c t ideologies are in tension with th e d e m a n d for
integration a n d th e observation ‘shows the Scottish sc h em e ful-
filling objectives directly opposed to those originally in te n d e d by the
curriculum p la n n e rs ’. (H am ilton 1973, vi)
H am ilton offers eight propositions which are of in te rest to all who
are concerned to observe teaching, and are therefore w o rth p re -
senting h e r e :
I. Within the classroom context students and teachers never learn

nothing. (Equally nothing never happens.)
II. Students (or for that matter teachers) are never ignorant or know
nothing.
III. Taken all together the occupants of a classroon comprise an inter-
active social nexus.
IV. As knowledge is unevenly distributed (and redistributed) in the
classroom, classroom life is inherently unstable.
V. Within the classroom context, the relationship between teacher and
taught is best understood as a refracting rather than a transm itting
medium. (T hus, for example, different individuals learn different things
from the same event.)
VI The learning milieu is not a pre-ordained setting, but, instead, is
socially constructed.
VII. W ithin the classroom context time is a potent influence suffusing
all that takes place.
VIII. W ithin the classroom context communication is not merely
verbal. Both participants and objects are transmitters of a range of
additional ‘messages’.
(Hamilton 1973, 177 et seq.)
Of p a rticu la r in te rest here is H am ilton’s discussion of his role as an

observer. H e o b serv ed in two sessions and tow ards th e e n d o f the
first also ta u g h t fo r a sh o rt tim e in th e classes he had b e e n observing.
The Teacher as Researcher 155
In one case in p a rticu la r he experienced some problem s in shifting
role from observer to teacher. O n th e other hand he felt th a t his
teaching validated him w ith th e teachers he was observing. H a r-
greaves (1966) and Lacey (1970) also report tensions betw een th e
role of teacher and th a t of participant observer.
This issue is clearly of crucial im portance if we are to co n sid er the
teacher as researcher into his own work. Hamilton m akes an im p o r-
tant point w hich I th in k has a bearing on this.
At a more general level, I would argue that in a school situation where
(as Hargreaves puts it) ‘any adult not dressed as a workman usually has
some strong connection with the teaching profession* (1966; p. 201) a
researcher is unable to define himself in the eyes of the children except
in relationship to the teaching figures they are accustomed to. (In short,
there is no such thing as an ‘objective* observer role.) T h e observer’s
relationship with children is strongly influenced by his relationship with
the teacher. Before he can effectively establish his own role, an adult
observer must first recognize and understand the teacher’s role. T hus,
while it is possible and relatively easy for an observer to have an ‘open*
relationship with children in an ‘open* classroom, it is not so easy, as
Hargreaves found in a problem secondary modern school, to establish
a similar research relationship in a ‘closed* setting.
(Hamilton 1973, 190-191)
Considered in this light, it seem s probable that a teacher can assum e
the role of a researcher, b u t th at th is will be possible only in an ‘open*
classroom. T h e p a rticu la r characteristic of the ‘open’ classroom (the
term is not a precise one) w hich is relevant here is th a t o f o pen
negotiation and hence definition of th e teacher’s role. S u ch a d efinition
is of course a gradual and progressive definition because it is learn ed
by the p articipants in the classroom situation. Now, in o rd e r to be an
observcr/rcsearcher, th e teacher needs to teach th at d efinition o f
himself to the pupils. In m y experience, this is quite p o ssib le p ro -
vided he m akes it clear th at the reason he is playing th e role of
researcher is to im prove his teaching and make things b e tte r fo r them .
I shall look at th is situation m ore closely later. For the m o m e n t it is
enough to state it clearly.
A teacher who wishes to take a research and developm ent stance
to his own teaching m ay profit at certain stages in the d ev elo p m en t o f
his research by th e presence of an observer in his classroom . In th e
project on teaching about race relations reported in th e last c h ap ter,
there have been several instances of teachers working in p airs teach in g
and observing by tu rn s. In one school, members of th e social studies
departm ent have acted as observers for a drama teach er. T h e se
arrangements have been fruitful, b u t they imply staffing d ep lo y m en t
likely to be secu red in p resen t circum stances only in th e v alidating
context of a natio n al project.
Another possibility is th at a research-oriented teacher m ay train
a student in a tra d itio n of observation by observing the s tu d e n t and
inviting the s tu d e n t to observe him . A t the moment, w h ere this
occurs, it is so m eth in g of a breakthrough. And it dem ands u n u su al
sensitivity and good personal relationships on both sides. I f we
could get general acceptance of the proposition th at all teachers
should be learners and create a public research m ethodology and
accepted professional ethic covering this situation, we w ould have a
basis for observing th e teaching of colleagues which greatly red u ced
the element o f th re a t in the situation.
Most of the w ork done in th is area has relied on observers w ho are
research w orkers ra th e r th an teachers. And, generally speaking, these
workers have b een m ore interested in building a theory o f teach in g
and reporting observations in a form addressed mainly to th e research
community, th a n in im proving th e classrooms they have stu d ied .
T his is not tru e o f all th e work reported, but there are alm ost always
traces of the sep aratio n of the research worker from th e tea c h e r.
Hamilton (1973) advises particip an t observers: ‘R ecognize th a t
research relations are facilitated if th e observer can find so m e way to
“ give” as well as to “ take” . Ju st taking an interest in a school and
being a sy m p ath etic listener may well be enough.’ (203)
The stren g th o f assum ptions in th e research trad itio n , a n d the
limited openness h e negotiated w ith th e teachers he was observing ,
conspired to h id e from him the obvious point that his o b servations
might have been u sed to develop and improve the te a c h in g in a
very direct w ay. I n fact th e observer/teacher duo can define th e
situation to th e p u p ils in these term s ju st as the tea c h e r/re se a rc h e r
can. Classroom research is about bettering classroom experience.
T he main b a rrie r to p u p ils’ understan d in g this is our h av in g ta u g h t
them that th e te a c h e r is always right. T h is elevates p ersonal w isdom
at the expense o f professional skill.
Let us now tak e stock.
I began th is c h a p te r by arguing th at effective curriculum d ev elo p-
m ent of the h ig h est quality depends upon the capacity o f teachers
to take a research stance to th eir ow n teaching. By a rese a rc h stance
I mean a disp o sitio n to exam ine o n e’s own practice critically and
systematically. I have reviewed th e tradition of classroom research
which professional research w orkers have built and trie d to explore
the possibility a n d th e problem s of teachers casting th em selv es in the
role of researchers. G iven th a t th ey can define themselves in this way,
what theoretical an d m ethodological problem s do they face?
It is im portant to m ake th e point th at th e teacher in this situ a tio n is
concerned to u n d e rsta n d b e tte r his own classroom. C o n seq u en tly,
he is not faced w ith th e problem s of generalizing beyond his ex p eri-
ence. In his context, th eo ry is sim ply a systematic stru ctu rin g o f his
understanding of .his w ork.
Concepts w hich are carefully related to one another arc n eed ed
both to capture a n d to express th a t understanding. T h e ad equacy
of such concepts sh o u ld be treated as provisional. T h e u tility a n d
appropriateness o f th e theoretical fram ew ork of concepts sh o u ld be
testable; and th e th eo ry should be rich enough to throw u p new a n d
profitable questions.
Each classroom sh o u ld n o t be an island. Teachers w orking in su ch
a tradition need to com m unicate w ith one another. T h ey sh o u ld re-
p o rt their work. T h u s a com m on vocabulary of concepts an d a sy n tax
of theory need to be developed. W here th a t language proves in ad e -
quate, teachers w ould n eed to propose new concepts and new th eo ry .
T he first level o f generalization is th u s the developm ent o f a
general theoretical language. In this, professional research w orkers
should be able to help.
If teachers re p o rt th e ir ow n w ork in such a tradition, Case stu d ies
will accum ulate, ju s t as th ey do in m edicine. Professional research
workers will have to m aster this m aterial and scrutinize it for general
trends. I t is o u t o f this synth etic task th at general propositional th eo ry
can be developed.
But what o f th e m ethodological problem s? If I leave aside p ro b -
lems in the econom y of tim e w hich probably exclude all b u t th e m o st
energetic teachers from such work, given present staffing a n d
organization in schools, th ere are tw o m ain areas in w hich m eth o d o -
logical problem s occur. F irst, th ere is th e problem o f objectivity.
Second, there is th e problem of securing data.
T he problem o f objectivity seem s to m e a false one. A ny research
into classrooms m u st aim to im prove teaching. T hus any research
m ust be applied b y teachers, so th at th e most clinically objective
research can only feed in to practice through an interested acto r in th e
situation. T h e re is no escaping th e fact th a t it is the tea c h e r’s s u b -
jective perception w hich is crucial for practice since he is in a p o sitio n
to control th e classroom .
Accordingly we a re concerned w ith th e development o f a sensitive
and self-critical subjective perspective an d not with an asp iratio n
towards an u n attain ab le objectivity. T h is is difficult enough. Illu sio n ,
assumption and h a b it m u st be continually tested. Illusion m ay be
destroyed w hen disclosed. Assum ptions and habits will be changed.
The problem is one of awareness. W alker (1971), w riting from the
point of view of a classroom observer, says: ‘You also need to th in k
at a level of detail th a t is below the threshold of aw areness of th e
teacher, and at a level roughly approxim ate to the level of conscious
teacher strategies*. Conscious study can lower the th resh o ld of
awareness and help th e teacher to be m ore perceptive. B ut he can
never escape from th e process within which he m ust resp o n d as he
does his work. I believe th at m uch teaching must be h ab itu al in th e
way that playing ten n is is: it is a question of cultivating h ab its I can
defend and justify. A nd note that the good player often im proves his
performance by becom ing self-conscious. At practice he is co n vertin g
deliberate aw areness into reliable habit.
How do we get th e data on which to do this?
A games player often uses a coach, who is in effect a co n su ltan t
observer. Sim ilarly, a teacher may, as I have suggested, invite an
observer into his classroom . In this case, the data may be g ath ered in
the light of the p articip a n t observer research tradition I have rep o rted
in this chapter. Som e adjustm ent is necessary because w ith in th e
tradition the tea c h e r is usually seen as the object of the observation,
and not as a co-w orker w ith the researcher. T h u s L o u is S m ith
‘explained his presence in the school . . . by saying, “ In a way it*s
kind of like M a rg a ret M ead, the anthropologist, who w en t to the
South Seas to observe the natives.** T o which the teachers invariably
responded, “ A n d we are the natives.*’ * (Walker 1971, 83)
In Sm ith an d G eoffrey’s work, however, there was a research
partnership betw een observer and teacher.
. . . they worked out a research design which involved Louis Smith
spending as much time as possible sitting in the back of Geoffrey’s
seventh grade classroom as an observer, while Geoffrey him self made
notes when he could. T he two observers, one ‘inside’ and the other
‘outside* the system, then compared notes at various times, and in the
final analysis of the material used each other as checks and sources.
(W alker 1971, 99)
W alker and A delm an also worked coliaboratively w ith teachers,

but it is n o tew o rth y th a t they wrote the reports w hereas S m ith and
Geoffrey p u b lish e d th e ir work as co-authors.
W here it is not possible for a teacher to have th e services of an
observer, an obvious recourse is to some form of reco rd in g . V ideo-
tape is costly and as a rule requires assistance. T h e sto p -fram e
photography tec h n iq u e em ployed by W alker and Adelm an involves
expensive equipm ent, th o u g h there are ways of photographing o n e’s
own classroom w ith an ordinary camera. O n the whole, how ever, th e
most accessible m eans o f gathering data is audio-tape. T h is too is
limited by acoustic problem s, but w ithin these lim itations it is o f
great value. W alker and oth ers have criticized its use on its ow n on th e
grounds that the incom plete record it gives is difficult to in te rp re t
reliably; but th ey w rite from the point of view of outside observers,
and I do not th in k th a t th e objection applies nearly so m u ch to th e
situation of th e tea c h e r studying his own classroom. T h e tea c h e r is
more able to in te rp re t a tap e than a stranger is, given an ad eq u ate
degree of self-critical awareness.
A further possibility is to gather perceptions of th e classroom
situation from th e pupils. T h is strategy has exciting possibilities an d
progress in it has b een m ade by Elliott and Adelman w hose w ork is
reported at the e n d of th is chapter.
I conclude th a t th e m ain barriers to teachers’ assuming th e role of
researchers stu d y in g th e ir ow n teaching in order to im prove it, are
psychological a n d social. T h e close exam ination of one’s p rofessional
performance is personally threatening; and the social clim ate in
which teachers w ork generally offers little support to those w ho m igh t
be disposed to face th a t th reat. Hence for the moment the b e s t way
forward is p ro b ab ly th ro u g h a m utually supportive co-operative
research in w hich teachers and full-tim e research teams work to g eth e r.
T he situations in w hich th is becomes possible are m ost likely to be
created within research a n d developm ent projects in c u rricu lu m and
teaching, and in th e rem ain d er of this chapter I want to review som e
work of this sort.
First, a very sim ple and elem entary example. In the classic cu r-
riculum project th e im pulse tow ards m onitoring one’s own p e rfo rm -
ance in the classroom arises from the need to verify w h eth er one is
in fact succeeding in im plem enting the pedagogy of th e cu rricu lu m .
T hus in M an: A Course o f Stu d y, in which pedagogic or process aim s
(see page 92) are im p o rtan t, the teacher is offered a very sim ple
observation schedule stru c tu re d on continua between poles (F ig . 5).
This schedule is a cru d e device, but w ithin limits it is an effective one,
though it can scarcely be regarded as a research in stru m e n t as it
stands.
The H um anities C urricu lu m Project w ent farther th an th is. F irst,
it defined its pedagogy in term s of principles - the aimr and th e con-
cept of neutral chairm an. T h e n it suggested variables likely to be of
importance in relation to th a t aim and concept and invited teach ers
Fig- 5 Classroom Observation Checklist
Evaluation of the lesson
Factual questions :-------:---- Opinion questions
Short answer :-------:---- -Lengthy response
Questions mostly from Questions mostly from
teacher :-------:---- -students
Exchanges largely student Exchanges largely student
to teacher :-------:---- -to student
Teacher sets and controls Students initiate topics of
agenda :-------:---- -discussion
Teacher's role: Teacher’s role:
authority :---------:-- -non-participant
Students have no clear Students have clear sense
sense of purpose :---------:-- -of purpose
Less than i /3 student Almost all students
participation :-------- :-- -participate
Student interest low :---------:-- -Student interest high
Class is quiet :---------:-- -Class is noisy
General teacher style
Teacher's stance: apart Physically close to
from students :-------- :-- -students
Practically no teacher Much teacher
movement :-------- :-- -movement
Teacher doesn't draw out Teacher makes efforts to
students :-------- :-- -draw out students
Teacher is strict with Teacher is
regard to student behavior------:-------: — -permissive
Teacher ‘talks down’ to Teacher ‘talks dow n’ to
students - much :-------- :-- -students - none
Teacher dominates the Teacher and students work
class :-------- :-- -together co-operatively
to evolve their ow n ‘neutral chairman role’ by testing the operation

of these variables, and of course any others whose influence they
detected. There was a considerable problem in communicating this
research stance. Curriculum projects were expected by teachers to tell
them what to do rather than to invite them to undertake research.
Dale (1973) has described this communication problem at the first
experimental stage o f the project.I
I do not think that at any stage during the first months with the project
did we feel that we had either the authority or any of the basic skills to
research into our own teaching effectiveness. Research into teaching
involves special techniques and an expertise that is normally found only
in university departm ents. . . . It was therefore not surprising th at we
left all comment about our classroom performaces to the central team ,
and were somewhat frustrated when little in the way of such com m ent
was forthcoming. But it established the pattern of dependence on the
central team as the experts, the authority on whether we in th e schools
were ‘doing the Project’ correctly. No m atter how often they attem pted
to reject this dependence and to reiterate the statement about being
partners in the development of the Project, and how often they assured
us that they needed to learn from the trial schools, we in those schools
did not accept this. We could not believe that the central team were really
in this position, and that they really did not have answers to our never-
ending classroom problems. As teachers we expected to come to the
fountain head, and to receive reassurance. And I do not yet see how the
fallibility of the project director or the central team can be appreciated
by the trial schools. All the traditions of teacher training militate against
it, all teachers* expectations militate against it, and the position of the
central team as the focal point of the development militates against it. . . .
It is all too easy for exploratory ideas and suggestions from the central
team to become authoritative statements in the eyes of the trial schools.
When we were presented with what the central team saw as a series of
hypotheses to be explored in the classroom, they became in our hands no
longer hypotheses but m atters of H.C.P. policy or a series of rules to be
obeyed at all costs. Failure to adhere to them implied a failure to operate
the project. W e had neither the confidence to challenge these hypotheses
nor the belief that we were able, as part of our brief, to explore and
investigate them in the classroom situation and so test their validity.
The problems o f research co-operation between teachers and re-
search teams could not be put more clearly. In the present clim ate it
is extremely difficult to overcome them. Nevertheless, in spite o f
Dale’s pessimism, I believe progress has been made. T here is cer-
tainly evidence that som e groups of teachers have taken the research
role in the dissem ination stage o f the Humanities Project. Consider
the following report o f a course for Humanities Project teachers
organized by the I.L .E .A . (I.L .E.A . 1973):
To begin with we tried to decide what criteria we considered when we
talked about improvem ent and progress within discussion. W e decided
on the following:
Interchange between group members: this includes such thing as the
students taking the initiative instead of the chairman (as in the Bishop
Thomas G rant tape - after the second reading on the second tape there
is no lead-in by the chairman, the boys start straight away). W e agreed
that this interchange is the responsibility of the chairman. In the F urther
Education tape, for example, the chairman (a student) is totally recessive
-this has resulted in lack of direction and the result is a poor level of discus-
sion, lacking depth, from a group of students who appeared very articu-
late. In the school tapes the chairman often used short questions to clarify
and reinforce answers, to guide discussion and to maintain relevance.The
discussion, we felt, was very much the same at the beginning and at the
end - it had neither progressed nor developed. We saw on all three school
tapes at some tim e or another certain points of interaction between
teacher and one pupil - we would consider progress in discussion had
taken place if there was direct interaction, i.e. pupils questioning each
other and not looking at the chairman but to the group when talking.
Pupil questioning did not really occur significantly on any of the
video-tapes. However, talking to the group as a whole, instead of the
chairman, was achieved by most groups by the end of the taped sessions.
This links up with group sensitivity and understanding of each other -
for instance in the Bishop Thomas G rant tape: support for M aureen
when she cannot express what she wants to say is shown when the
group wait for her and let her finish. We also looked under the heading
of group interchange at the tolerance or discipline of discussion and
opinions, leading not to blind acceptance but greater understanding,
while still having a divergent point of view. All tapes had examples of
slight points of agreement and disagreement but nothing truly extreme.
The Bishop T hom as Grant tape probably revealed most divergence and
we felt that the discussion was growing towards being ‘disciplined* and
points of view were respected.
The second heading really considers the content and development of
discussion. M ost of the discussion at the beginning of the tapes was
personal, relating to direct experiences, and throughout the discussion
language rem ained expressive whatever the content. What is talked about
tends to be known and concrete. We considered a marked development
had taken place when students started dealing with and considering
hypothetical (and therefore to them abstract) situations. W e felt that this
had developed in the discussion on Peckham’s first tape with Ron: for
example his insight into children who say ‘yes sir, no sir’, for the sake of
peace and quiet, and his later comment on the situation of teachers - if
there were no case ‘he’d be in a box by himself’. In the second Peckham
tape the lads were trying to make positive suggestions and criticising
each other while considering the problem of the disruptive boy. They
were putting themselves in the position of thinking about problems of
the teacher. Flashes of insight were apparent - for instance, ‘By walking
out on a teacher you’re not really getting to know him.' T h e students in
all school tapes followed the discussion well, and we felt there was little
that was irrelevant. I
I believe th a t fru itfu l developm ent in the field of c u rric u lu m and

teaching d e p e n d s u p o n evolving styles of co-operative research by
teachers an d u sin g full-tim e researchers to sup p o rt th e te a c h e rs’
work. T h is p ro b a b ly m eans th at research reports and hy p o th eses
must be ad d re sse d to teachers, th at is, they m ust invite classroom
research responses ra th e r th an laboratory research responses. I t m ay
also involve research -train ed personnel in- taking co n su ltan cy roles
in teacher g ro u p s, an d sup p o rt roles in schools and classroom s.
These are th e prem ises on which th e project on th e p ro b le m s and
effects of teaching a b o u t race relations is founded, and th e re is evi-
dence that it has com e m u ch nearer to communicating th e research
position than, on D ale’s witness, the Humanities Project did. F or
example, m ost schools are w riting their own reports on th e w ork;
and conference dialogue has been across schools rather th a n betw een
schools and the central team .
What the ‘race project* is attem pting at one level an d in one
context, the F o rd T e a ch in g Project, directed by Jo h n E llio tt, is
attem pting at another. I t is w orking at a greater level of detail and
depth of p en etratio n into classroom s.
In the F ord T e a ch in g Project, E lliott and Adelman have been
working closely w ith teach ers and advisers with the following aim s:
1. To help teachers already attempting to implement In q u iry /D is-
covery methods, but aware of a gap between attempt and achievement,
to narrow this gap in their situation.
2. To help teachers by fostering an action-research orientation towards
classroom problems.
(Elliott and Adelman 1973a, 10)
They took th e position th a t ‘action, and reflection on actio n , are

the joint responsibilities of th e teachers’ (12). They thus c o m b in ed in
a team teachers from different schools, prim ary and secondary, and
from a range of subjects.
One of the th e ir im p o rtan t roles as outside researchers w as to
interview pupils in o rd e r to com pare th e teachers’ and th e p u p ils’
perceptions of p a rticu la r sequences o f teaching. W ith th e pupils*
permission, tapes of interview s were played back to th eir teach ers.
Substantial p ercep tu al disparities em erged. Teachers a n d p upils
were then able to discuss these and attem pt to resolve th e m , and in
many cases th e o utside researchers were able to withdraw fro m th e
task of pupil interview ing having helped teachers to establish an open
dialogue w ith th e ir pupils about th eir teaching.
In New Era (E lliott and A delm an 1973b; Rowe 1973; T h u rlo w
1973) the researchers and two teachers on the project rep o rted on th e
progress of th e research, one teacher w riting on ‘The cyclical s tru c -
ture of evaluatory schemes* (Rowe) and one on ‘E liciting p u p ils’
interpretations in the prim ary school’ (Thurlow), this latter re p o rtin g
the developm ent from th e pupil interview s described above.
The project is an excellent exam ple of teachers’ ad o p tin g a re -
search and developm ent stance to th eir work and of the d ev elo p m en t
of a researcher role w hich su p p o rts such a stance. M oreover, in in vesti-
gating inquiry- a n d discovery-based teaching it chose a line o f stu d y
which caught th e pedagogical im plications of a variety of new c u rri-
cular developm ents, a n d docum ented th e difficulty of im p lem en tin g
these in practice.
Cooper and E b b u tt (1974), two of th e teachers involved, have
published a p a p e r o n ‘Participation in A ction-Research as an In -
Service Experience’ in w hich they sum m arize their conclusions as
follows:
1. We have found th at it is possible to participate in action-research,
although the constraints of the day-to-day secondary school situation
tend to reduce its effectiveness.
2. So far the Project has made teachers here think deeply about their
methods and techniques. W e feel that this and the discussions which
have followed such thoughts have been very valuable.
3. The research has shown to us that the interpretation of interviews
with groups of pupils, w ith or without the teacher, must be treated with
great care.
4. There is some evidence to suggest that a teacher’s intentions may not
be achieved because:
(a) for some reason the class misinterpret his aims
(b) he chooses the wrong method to implement his aims
(c) his seemingly chance remarks counteract some of his aims.
5. We believe th at th e Project is going to prove extremely valuable for
in-service training, especially as it allows teachers to evaluate their own
performances, and to see and judge other teachers at work.
6. We feel th at teachers of a sensitive nature might not be suitable for
this type of research, or indeed for the subsequent in-service training
where similar techniques are to be used.
7. We believe that teachers taking part in a project of this nature need
careful and sym pathetic help as well as understanding, especially when
they are exposed for the first time to feedback on their own lessons. T his
care and help have been m uch in evidence in this research, but we feel
that others trying to emulate the techniques used may need to be
reminded that there are dangers. T his is especially true when outside
agencies come into the classroom situation.
8. Some of the teachers on the Project seem to have found it difficult
to stand back from the classroom situation and identify certain im por-
tant problems connected with their teaching. This research has helped
them to become m ore aware that such problems exist.
9. We are pleased th at this project has brought research workers into
the school - it seems to have helped them to understand our problems,
and helped us to understand theirs.
(Cooper and Ebbutt 1974, 70-71)
T his estim ate o f th e problem s of research-based teach in g is
perhaps a little o p tim istic , and there are som e signs of ten sio n be-
tween the roles of tea c h e r and researcher. I believe, however, th a t it
is worth facing these ten sio n s and attem pting to resolve th e m . F o r
in the end it is difficult to see how teaching can be im proved o r h ow
curricular proposals can be evaluated w ith o u t self-m onitoring on th e
part of teachers. A research trad itio n w hich is accessible to tea c h e rs
and which feeds teach in g m u st be created if education is to be
significantly im proved.
1 1
T H E SCHOOL
A N D INNOVATION
T h e power of th e individual teacher is limited. W ithout his stre n g th s

the betterm ent of schools can never be achieved; but th e stre n g th s of
individuals are n o t effective unless they are co-ordinated a n d s u p -
ported. T h e p rim a ry u n it of co-ordination and s u p p o rt is th e
school.
T h e school is th e basic organized com m unity in education, a n d it
is at school level th a t th e problem s and possibilities o f c u rric u lu m
innovation have to be negotiated. In this chapter I shall c o n sid er
some of the co n strain ts and problem s schools face in im p ro v in g
themselves and som e o f th e patterns o f leadership and m an ag em en t
in schools. Finally, I shall look at possible developments w h ich can
help the school to organize for im provem ent.
It is p ertin en t to ask how far a school is free to change, g iv en th e
context in w hich it is set. I am thinking at the m om ent o f th e p re s -
sures exerted on it from th e outside and not of its internal resistances.
A nd there seem to m e tw o m ajor restrictions on the school’s cap acity
to change.
T h e first co n stra in t u p o n the school’s capacity to change is re s tric -
tion of resources. Schools are underfinanced. Buildings o fte n set
intractable problem s, staffing is difficult, there is a shortage o f books
and m aterials. In particu lar, teachers are hard-pressed. A g o o d a d u lt
education tu to r o r university teacher will spend half an h o u r in
preparation im m ediately before teaching. T he school te a c h e r is in
virtually continuous contact w ith his pupils.
These are serious lim itations on change. However, it is possible
th at if change is radical enough conditions can be am eliorated. F o r
example, th e shift to flexible grouping and team tea c h in g help s
towards flexibility o f staffing. One possible response to p re ssu re is to
innovate.
T his is m ore easily w ritten th an done. A nd it requires s tro n g local
authority su p p o rt.
The School and Innovation i6 y
As I write, local au th o rities are faced w ith agonizing cuts in ex p e n -
diture which th re a te n to elim inate initiative resources.
A second lim itatio n on the school is parental and social opinion.
Traditionally, B ritish schools are rath er independent of p aren tal
opinion. M usgrove a n d T ay lo r (1969) have argued th a t th e y are too
independent. N ev erth eless, m iddle-class parents in p a rticu la r do
exert a pressure on schools. Exam ination results, sports p ro g ram m es
and uniform are valued an d schools are pushed towards th em .
At present m orale in B ritish schools is often low. T h is is b y no
means general. V isiting schools all over th e country, I find am azing
variation. But m an y o f th e schools m ost needing betterm ent are th o se
where morale is low est. I t is difficult to see how they can g a th e r th e ir
energies to change w ith o u t strong initiative and s u p p o rt from
outside.
All this p o in ts to th e difficulty of change; but it also p o in ts to th e
need for change. I th in k it fu rth er suggests that it is n o t a sim ple
change of heai^ th a t is need ed in schools. I t is a change of organiza-
tion and pedagogy w h ich is founded on a development o f th e p ro -
fessional skills and know ledge of teachers. Morale is fo u n d ed on
professionalism.
Given a c o m m itm en t to such a view as th e basis of b e tte rm e n t, a n d
given reasonable condition s, what barriers to change exist in th e
schools them selves?
I believe th a t th e m o st im portant b arrier is that of control.
Schools are - w ith th e possible exception of the arm ed forces in
war-time - th e only institu tio n s taking in a conscript p o p u latio n
covering th e w hole o f society. It follows that the school has a c o n -
siderable pro b lem o f m orale and control. In an earlier c h a p te r I
reviewed work w hich suggested th at th e knowledge ta u g h t by th e
school is d isto rte d by control problem s. If this is so, c u rricu la r
changes, in so far as th e y im ply changes in the nature of ed ucational
knowledge, th re a te n th e teach er’s control habits and th u s th re a te n
control.
More im p o rta n t still, curricular changes of real significance alm ost
always involve changes in m ethod and ways of working. T o a co n -
siderable extent the contro l elem ent in the relation of teach ers and
pupils rests on th e teachers* fulfilling the expectations th e p u p ils
have about how th ey will behave; and change also th re a te n s this.
Accordingly, any innovation at classroom level m u st face th e
problem of control, a n d too m any innovative proposals have given
insufficient a tte n tio n to this.
But the p ro b lem does no t stop there, for radical cu rriculum changes
involve changes in th e e n tire tone, code or ethos of the tea c h e r-p u p il
relationship. As Schools C ouncil Working Paper No. 2 has it: ‘I f
th e teacher em phasizes, in th e classroom , his common h um anity w ith
th e pupils, and his co m m o n uncertainty in the face of many p ro b lem s,
th e pupils will not tak e kindly to being dem oted to th e s ta tu s o f
children in other relatio n sh ip s w ithin the same institution.* (Schools
Council 1965, 22)
I believe th at change does th reaten control and order and th a t it is
perfectly reasonable th a t teach ers should be concerned about th is. M o st
teachers would assent to th e proposition th at ‘coercion . . . is p re fe r-
able to disorder*. (S h ip m a n 1968, 109) T h e professional satisfaction
and even the p ersonality o f th e teacher can be destroyed b y ‘d isci-
plinary problem s’. A n d th e re is m ore fear of disorder th an is c o m -
m only adm itted.
Disorder itself is epidem ic in a school. Teachers know well that certain
behaviour, once started, tends to go through the entire school, passing
from one room to another with little loss of time and none of intensity . . .
Such behaviour is that of pitching pennies, dropping shot on the floor,
throwing stink bombs, etc. W hen the school is located in a ramshackle
building, it is possible for students to shake it by small and alm ost
undetectable movements if these movements are properly synchronized;
when behaviour of this sort is once started it is very difficult to stop . . .
(Waller 1932, 173)
T he response to th is ev er-p resen t th reat runs through th e school
and shows itself b o th in staff sanctions against teachers w ho a re seen
as putting order at risk —th ro u g h incom petence or th ro u g h in n o v a -
tio n which tests th e ir co m p eten ce - and in institutional arran g em en ts.
. . . life is organized to contain the children within a system or order.
Staff learn where and at what times disorder is likely to break out. T hey
see the juniors into school, making sure they are seen in the corridors
and never leave the class alone in the room for any length of tim e. T hey
anticipate trouble at certain times of the day and year, and organize to
avoid it. They know who are the potential trouble-makers and ring-
leaders, and are quick to check or isolate trouble from these.
(Shipman 1968, 84)
In short, o rd er in schools is partly achieved by in stitu tio n a l
arrangements and in stitu tio n a l norm s. Any far-reaching in n o v atio n
which is likely to affect attain m en t or attitude is likely to n e e d to be
faced by the school as a w hole and to be im plem ented by policy. T h is
has often not been sufficiently recognized in secondary schools w h ere
departm ental au to n o m y is a strong tradition.
The School and Innovation i6 g
T hese observations do n ot im ply that effective change is n eces-
sarily based on consensus. C hange m ost often comes thro u g h c o n -
flict within a staff; bu t it is im p o rtan t for th e leadership of the school
to recognize squarely w h at is happening and to manage conflict
w ithin the school rath e r th a n to pretend th a t it does not exist.
Another barrier to chang e in th e school is closely related to th a t o f
order. I shall call it th e p ro b le m of justification. The school exercises
great power over its p u p il population and through these hostages
pow er over parents. T h e r e is th u s an acute need to justify th e w ay
th at power is used. As a consequence schools often assume a p o sitio n
o f rectitude.
M iles (1967) has called th is ‘m oralism ’, and he comments: ‘O u tsid e
observers often c o m m en t th a t people w orking in schools te n d to
invoke ideological, ju d g em e n ta l, or m oralistic bases for m ak in g
decisions. “ S h o u ld ” a n d “ o u g h t” seem to outweigh “ is” a n d
“ can” .’ (16) T h e sam e observation holds for much w riting a b o u t
education.
Moreover, society has com m only endorsed this stance historically
by demanding p a rticu la r m oral standards o f teachers. W aller (1932)
docum ents this am usingly. T eachers are supposed to be b e tte r th a n
others.
Given this, th e m oral a u th o rity of th e school may appear to b e
threatened if d o u b ts are cast on its p resen t practice and change is
advocated. I t is n o t easy for th e shool o r th e teacher to conced e
‘comm on uncertainty in th e face of m any problems’. (S ch o o ls’
Council 1965, 22)
T h e result of th is m oralism is th at it is difficult for the school to
question its m oral claim s an d if it does so, it often grasps fo r a n e w
m oral certainty. In n o v atio n o f quality needs to be experim ental,
provisional and ten tativ e. T h e need for certainty causes m any schools
to assert in m oral term s th e rightness of th e innovation they are a b o u t
to embark on. T h is lead s to cults and band-wagonning, n e ith e r
favourable to th e sp irit o f critical experim ent which would seem th e
appropriate tem p e r for innovation.
A further b a rrie r to inno v atio n in schools is the threat in n o v atio n
poses to the identity o f th e teacher and th e burdens it im poses o n
him . I wrote earlier o f th e teach er as a m an of learning skilled in
teaching. He identifies stro n g ly w ith his subject knowledge a n d h is
professional skills an d o fte n it is upon these th a t his professional se lf-
respect is based. M o st inn o v atio n changes both subject co n ten t a n d
m ethod. As innovators teach ers are asked to take on, initially a t
least, the burdens o f incom petence.

Modificado - Lawrence Stenhouse - An Introduction To Curriculum Research and Development-Heinemann Educational (1975)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modificado - Lawrence Stenhouse - An Introduction To Curriculum Research and Development-Heinemann Educational (1975)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTENTS

A cknow ledgem ents vi

In the last fifteen years or so a major curriculum reform has taken

Nevertheless, it has, I hope, to a greater or lesser extent, three

Definitions of th e w ord curriculum do not solve curricular p ro b le m s;

For me th is c h a p te r is of central importance. In it I shall try to out-

1. Accepts feeling. Accepts and clarifies an

Teacher 4. Asks questions. Asking a q u estio n about

For the observer who chooses to use an anthropological style of obser-

They paid p a rticu la r a tte n tio n to ‘transitions’ which ‘occur in th e

I. Within the classroom context students and teachers never learn

Of p a rticu la r in te rest here is H am ilton’s discussion of his role as an

W alker and A delm an also worked coliaboratively w ith teachers,

to evolve their ow n ‘neutral chairman role’ by testing the operation

I believe th a t fru itfu l developm ent in the field of c u rric u lu m and

They took th e position th a t ‘action, and reflection on actio n , are

T h e power of th e individual teacher is limited. W ithout his stre n g th s

You might also like