An Introduction To Curriculum R

An Introduction
to
Curriculum Research
and
D evelopm en t
La w r e n c e S t e n h o u s e
HEINEMANN
EDUCATIONAL
H einem ann Educational Books L td
Halley Court, Jo rd a n Hill, O xford 0 X 2 8 e j
OXFORD LONDON EDINBURGH
MADRID ATHENS BOLOGNA PARIS
MELBOURNE SYDNEY AUCKLAND SINGAPORE TOKYO
IBADAN NAIROBI HARARE GABORONE
PORTSMOUTH NH (USA) *
ISBN 0 - 4 3 S - 6 0 f i 5 1 - b
© Lawrence Stenhouse 1975

First published 1975
9 5 2 4 23 22 21 20 19 18 17
Printed and Bound in Great B ritain by

A th en aeu m Press Ltd, Newcasde u p o n T y n e.
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 evelopm ent 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
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
T h is book could not have been written if I had not drawn on the
know ledge, advice and work of my immediate colleagues, past and
p resen t: the staff'of the Centre for Applied Research in Education; the
tea c h e rs w orking with them on research and developm ent projects;
those w ho worked on the Humanities C urriculum Project; and the
sta ff o f the Nuffield Foundation and the Schools C ouncil. Their names
are too num erous to mention.
T h e following have read all or part of the m anuscript and have
m ad e com m ents which have led me to rewrite: C lem Adelman, John
E llio tt, B arry M acDonald, Je a n Rudduck, H ugh Sockctt, Bob Stake,
G a je n d ra V erm a, Rob W alker and Bob Wild. T hey are accountable
n e ith e r for its inadequacies nor for my opinions.
Jo h n Bull gave me valuable information on his work in school-
based , in-service training.
M a rio n Pick helped me with typing.
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 supplanted 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 of 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 herself 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 the 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 these attributes 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 onster-
plan fo r Grunnskolen - literally, M odel Plan fo r the Foundation School
(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 the 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 of c u rric u lu m can
be reduced to th e em pirical study of schools. T he c u rric u lu m is not
the intention o r p rescrip tio n bu 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 of 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 hap 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 our 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
Defining the Curriculum Problem 3
possible if we are secure enough to face and study th e n a tu re of our
failures. T h e central problem of curriculum study is th e gap betw een
our ideas a n d aspirations and our attem pts to operationalize them .
C u rric u lu m developm ent is founded on curriculum stu d y , and is
its applied b ranch. Its object is the betterm ent of schools th ro u g h the
im provem ent o f teaching and learning. Its characteristic insistence is
that ideas sh o u ld encounter the discipline of practice a n d th a t practice
should be principled by ideas. T h e curriculum developm ent m ove
m ent is an attack on the separation of theory and practice.
In a classic book on curriculum , Ralph Tyler rests his w ork on four
fundam ental questions:
1. W hat educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. W hat educational experiences can be provided that are likely to
attain these purposes?
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?
(T yler 1949, 1)
W ith th e first of these questions I am only obliquely concerned
in this book. N o t th at it is u n im portant - far from it. I t is th e funda
m ental q u e stio n of educational policy. But how can we translate
purpose in to policy, and then test how far and why p ractice has fallen
short of hopes? Given an aspiration, how should we go a b o u t trying
to realize it? A nd w hat range of choice of aspirations is o pen to us?
T hese seem to me to be the fundam ental questions on w hich cu rri
culum research and developm ent can throw light.
Such a sta n d p o in t m ight seem barren and pessim istic w ere it not
that exciting educational proposals abound, w hereas practice th at
lives up to th e m is hard to find. Students in training often notice a gap
betw een th e educationalist and th e school not unlike th a t betw een
H aig’s h e a d q u arte rs and the m ud of Flanders. So m any seem elated
by the discussion of educational ideas: so few are encouraged by close
critical s c ru tin y of th eir own classrooms. T he gap betw een aspiration
and practice is a real and a frustrating one.
T h e gap can be closed only by adopting a research an d develop
m ent a p p ro a c h to one’s own teaching, whether alone o r in a group of
co-operating teachers. T h e fram ew ork of a national curriculum
project is som etim es helpful. T h is book can only aspire to provide a
foundation o n w hich to build.
I have trie d to define the role of curriculum developm ent and
curricu lu m stu d y in a general way, and also to form ulate a central
p ro b le m ; b u t I have not offered a definition of curriculum. I suppose I
ought to try .
H ere are th ree mainstream A m erican definitions :
Curriculum is ‘all of the planned experiences provided by the school to
assist the pupils in attaining the designated learning outcomes to the best
of their abilities.'
(Neagley and Evans 1967, 2)
Curriculum is the planned composite effort of any school to guide pupil
learning toward predetermined learning outcomes.
(Inlow 1966, 7)
In view of the shortcomings of the currently popular definition, it is here
stipulated that curriculum is a structured series of intended learning
outcomes. Curriculum prescribes (or at least anticipates) the results of
instruction.
(Johnson 1967, 130)
I n each of these, progressively m o re strongly in th e order in which I

p rin t them , is th e implication of a p a rtic u la r type of end-m eans model,
w hich until recently was alm ost u n iv ersally accepted in curriculum
stu d y . T h is m odel starts from a defin itio n of th e perform ance or
attain m en t w hich students should re a c h at the end of a course, and
proceeds to attem pt to design a c o u rse w hich will deliver th a t per-
m ance. E ducation is a means to an e n d w hich is expressed in term s of
stu d e n t attainm ent, using the te rm s intended learning outcome or
behavioural objective (i.e. the s tu d e n t beh av io u r aim ed at).
I w ant to treat that model as p ro b le m a tic : th at is, I w ant to leave
open th e question whether it is a good one. So I m ust find a definition
of curriculum which does not m ake so m any assum ptions.
T h e definition offered here is a ten ta tiv e one to get us on our
way.
A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles
and features o f an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to
critical scrutiny and capable o f effective translation into practice.
O f course, this definition reflects m y ow n perspective. A curriculum
is rath e r like a recipe in cookery. I t can be criticized on nutritional or
gastronom ic grounds - does it n o u rish th e students and does it taste
good? —and it can be criticized on th e grounds of practicality - we
c a n 't get hold of six dozen larks’ to n g u e s and the grocer c an 't find any
gro u n d unicorn horn! A cu rricu lu m , like th e recipe for a dish, is
first im agined as a possibility, th e n th e subject of experim ent. The
recipe offered publitly is in a sense a re p o rt on the experim ent. Simi
larly, a curriculum should be g ro u n d e d in practice. It is an attem pt
so to describe the work observed in classroom s that it is adequately
Defining the Curriculum Problem 5
com m unicated to teachers and o th ers. Finally, w ithin limits, a recipe
can be varied according to taste. So can a curriculum .
But analogies should be ab a n d o n ed before they cause indigestion.
A curriculum is the means by w hich th e experience of attempting to
put an educational proposal into practice is m ade publicly available. It
involves b o th content and m ethod, and in its w idest application takes
account of th e problem of im p lem en tatio n in the institutions of the
educational system.
As a m inim um , a curriculum sh o u ld provide a basis for planning a
course, studying it empirically a n d considering th e grounds of its
justification. It should offer:
A. In planning:
1. Principles for the selection o f co n ten t - w hat is to be learned and
taught.
2. Principles for the developm ent of a teaching strategy - how it is
to be learned and tau g h t.
3. Principles for the m aking o f decisions about sequence.
4. Principles on which to diagnose th e strengths and weaknesses
of individual students and differentiate the general principles 1,
2 and 3 above, to m eet in d iv id u al cases.
B. In em pirical study:
1. Principles on which to stu d y and evaluate the progress of
students.
2. Principles on which to stu d y and evaluate the progress of
teachers.
3. G uidance as to the feasibility o f im plem enting the curriculum
in varying school contexts, p u p il contexts, environm ents and
peer-group situations.
4. Inform ation about th e variability of effects in differing contexts
and on different pupils an d an un d erstan d in g of th e causes of the
variation.
C. In relation to justification:
A form ulation of the in ten tio n or aim of the curriculum which is
accessible to critical scrutiny.
In fact, when we apply these criteria, it is clear th at neither tradi
tional nor innovatory curricula sta n d up well u n d er close scrutiny.
Education is not in practice very sophisticated or efficient.
2
THE C O N T E N T
OF E D U C A T I O N
Prophets m ay teach private w isdom : teachers m ust deal in public

knowledge.
Although content and m ethod are inseparably interw oven in the
practice of education, it is useful to distinguish them for the purposes
of analysis. In this chapter I shall consider some of the problems and
issues in curriculum which are b est brought out by an approach
through content.
A teacher is a man of learning skilled in teaching. H e is qualified
by virtue of his education and his training. H e does not teach what
he alone knows, letting his p u p ils in on secrets. O n the contrary, his
task is to help his pupils gain e n try into a com m onw ealth of knowledge
and skills, to hand on to them so m eth in g w hich others already possess.
T he school has the task of m aking available to the young a selection
of society’s intellectual, em otional and technical capital. It is this
capital w hich I have ch aracterized as ‘public traditions*. In our
society, schools teach a variety o f p u blic traditions. Am ong the most
im portant are bodies of know ledge; a rts; skills; languages; conven
tions; and values. These tra d itio n s, seen from one point of view,
exist as social facts; and they are therefore subjects of study for the
social scientist.
T h e anthropologist and th e sociologist use the term culture to
designate w hat I have called above ‘public trad itio n s’. T h is is a useful
term for curriculum studies, b u t it needs to be explained and ex
plored.
As it is used here, culture does no t of course carry the meaning
caught in th e Oxford Dictionary definition: ‘the training and refine
m ent of m ind, tastes and m a n n e rs’, even though som e schools would
say that this is what they are about. F o r the social scientist the concept
of culture is intended to be value-free, denoting bad as well as good
public traditions.
Culture is a concept used by social scientists w hen they attempt to
The C ontent o f Education 7
explore the social s tru c tu re o f knowledge, skills, customs and beliefs
in ord er to understand how they came about, how they relate to
society and how society h an d les them .
T h e classic definition o f c u ltu re is that of E. B. Tylor, the n in e
teenth-century anthropologist. For him culture is ‘that com plex
whole which includes know ledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom
and other capabilities a c q u ire d by m an as a m ember of society’.
(T y lo r 1871, 1) This d efin itio n was forged in th e study of pre-literate
societies. Anthroplogists w an ted a word to describe the way of life
and thinking which was h a n d e d down from generation to generation
am ong the Zulu or th e D yaks.
T alco tt Parsons, a m o d e rn Am erican sociologist, stresses th re e
attrib u tes of culture: ‘first, th a t culture is transmitted, it constitutes a
heritage or a social tr a d itio n ; secondly, that it is leamedy it is n o t a
m anifestation, in p a rtic u la r content, of m an’s genetic constitution;
and third, that it is shared’. (Parsons 1952, 15) One can see th e
relevance of such a co n cep t fo r cu rricu lu m : the content of education is
transm itted, learned a n d sh a re d in this sense.
W e face difficulties, how ever, in applying th e concept of culture to
o u r own society because it is pluralist, that is to say, it contains m any
different and often logically incom patible traditions which are
transm itted, learned a n d sh a re d . It can be argued that it is an o v e r
simplification to talk o f th e c u ltu re of the Dyaks as if all Dyak^ sh a re d
exactly the same tra d itio n . In o u r society this difficulty of usage is
still greater. No doubt th e R olling Stones, M ary W hitehouse, Jerem y
T h o rp e , M att Busby, H e n ry M oore and Paul Raymond do in som e
sense share ‘British c u ltu r e ’. T h e y can all add up their shopping
bills, they all drive on th e left side of the road and recognize the tu n e
of ‘G od Save the Q u een ’. B u t th eir differences are much more in te r
esting than their sim ilarities.
A common way of tac k lin g such differences within a culture is to
term them sub-cultures. I do n o t think this is a helpful term in th e
present context. It te n d s to suggest a hierarchy of cultures, th e
higher order ones co n ta in in g th e lower order ones, as in a bran ch in g
tree pattern. O ur m u ltip le cu ltu res are m uch m ore fluid than th is,
and present many a ltern ativ es. A person participates in as m an y
cultures as the culturally different groups he mixes in. He carries th e
currency of these groups —th e ir com m on understandings and language
- rath e r as a traveller ca rrie s a pocket full of coins from each of th e
lands he has visited.
W e need a much m ore flexible and sinuous conception of cu ltu re to
do justice to the way in w h ich it is shared and distributed in a society
like ours w here groups form and dissolve, th e m em bers joining new
groups in pattern s of bewildering com plexity. T alcott Parsons
states th e situation in rather abstract te rm s. ‘C u ltu re . . . is on the one
hand th e p roduct of, on the other h an d a d eterm in an t of, system s of
social interaction.’ (Parsons 1952, 15) W e have to relate culture to
social interaction of a very fluid kind ra th e r th a n to group identity,
because in cultural term s one person in o u r society belongs to many
groups and th e p a tte rn of his affiliation is often surprising. T h e pro
fessor m ay be th e football fan, th e steelw o rk er the enthusiast for
opera.
In Parsons* term s culture is a p ro d u c t o f social interaction. Each
person learned each of the cultures to w h ich he has access in contact
w ith a social group, and the cultures w ere also created in groups. It is
by taking p a rt in th e communication sy stem of a group th at one learns
its culture. A school and a class are bo th g ro u p s in this sense. Each has
its own culture. B ut it is the peculiar fu n ctio n o f educational groups
to represent to th e ir members a cu ltu re w hich exists outside and is not
native to th e group. Education exists to give people access to cultural
groups outside th e ir own.
As well as being a product of social action, cu ltu re is also a deter
m in an t of it. I t determ ines who can talk to w hom about w hat. We
talk to one an o th er by virtue of w hat is com m on in the cultures we
have learned; we are unable to talk to one another w hen we lack
com m on experience.
I t is possible to view culture as ‘th e m edium th rough which
hum an m inds interact in com m unication*. (Stenhouse 1963, 120)
People w ho ‘can interact without m isu n d e rsta n d in g do so on the
consensus of m eanings manifested in linguistic usage and dependent
u p o n a deeper consensus of values a n d u n d e rsta n d in g s.’ (ibid. 122)
O u t o f com m unication systems of th is so rt, thinking system s are
constructed. T h e culture supports a language w hich is m ade acces
sible to th e individual and serves him as an instru m en t of thinking.
Once we have learned language, we have command of an instrument

which can be used not only for comm unicating with others but also for
communing with ourselves. Language supports our solitary reflection.
Given life in communication, it becomes the possession of the individual,
who can, as it were, carry it with him into his inner privacy and use it as
an instrument of thought.
(Stenhouse 1967, 31)
I n the concept o f culture we can catch th e idea of a m ultiplicity of
traditions, public in the sense th at we can learn them by joining the
The Content o f Education g
groups which share them . S uch c u ltu re is transm itted, learned and
shared and through the developm ent o f language it supports both
com m unication among m em bers a n d th in k in g on the p a rt of indivi
duals. In a sense, culture is an in tellectu al com m odity; and it is the
com m odity in which schools deal, and o u t of which they quarry the
co n ten t of education.
Schools make culture available by pro v id in g pupils w ith an oppor
tu n ity to take part in learning g ro u p s. T h e characteristic and the
difficulty of such educational g ro u p s is th a t they have th e task of
introducing th eir members to c u ltu re s w hich are not natural to them
and which often conflict in certain respects w ith the cultures of the
hom e and the peer group. T h e p ro b le m is how to get th e group to
interact co-operatively and richly in te rm s of the .cultures th e school
offers it so th at those cultures gain reality and offer satisfaction. The
alternative - to accept the discipline of learning what appears to be
useless for the present in the tr u s t th a t it will serve in the future -
appears likely to commend itself to only a sm all m inority of pupils.
T h is problem influences th e schools in th eir selection of culture.
T h e school cannot transm it th e e n tire cu ltu re of our society. As it
selects, is it to follow the principle o f relevance or interest and try, so
far as it can w ithin that principle, to guide pupils tow ards the ulti
m ately worthwhile? O r is it to choose th a t w hich is ju dged worthwhile
and attem pt to teach it so well th a t it evokes interest? Midjvinter
( I973) tends towards the first line. T h e alternative is well argued in
the chapters on ‘Criteria of E d u c a tio n ' and ‘W orth-w hile activities*
in R. S. Peters* Ethics and Education (1966). A lthough I am myself
m ore inclined to the second view , it is n o t my purpose to argue the
case here. T h e issue, which will raise itself from tim e to tim e through
out the book, cuts across m y m ain th re a d and purpose.
In practice, m ost schools te n d to em phasize in their curricula the
teaching of bodies of knowledge, a rts, skills, languages, conventions
and values; and I m ust tu rn now to review these as elements in
culture.
Any subject, as it is taught in schools, is likely to involve several
of these elem ents, but I think it is possible to make distinctions along
the lines of these categories even th o u g h they are a little rough-hewn.
M athem atics, science, history, geo g rap h y and social science can be
th o u g h t of as bodies of know ledge (as can m any university subjects
not tau g h t in schools). L iteratu re, m usic and visual art comprise the
arts. Reading and writing, com m ercial subjects, dom estic subjects,
technical subjects and games are p rim a rily concerned w ith skills or
traditions of craft. Languages too are skills in a sense, b u t their status
IO A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
and position in the curriculum ju stifies separate treatm ent. I shall
discuss conventions and values as th e y relate to the curriculum as a
whole.
W here do th e school subjects com e from ? A lthough they may be
transform ed to some degree by th e c u ltu re of the school - a possibility
to be considered later - they o riginate o u tside the school and have an
existence independent of it. T h e school is a d istributor of knowledge
rather th an a m anufacturer, and th is im plies reference points outside
the school for th e subjects it teach es. T h e se reference points lie
in cultures outside the school o n w h ich th e school subjects depend
and to w hich th ey refer.
T h e bodies o f knowledge can be called ‘academ ic disciplines’ or
‘disciplines o f knowledge’. In te rm s o f culture, w hat does this
mean?
T he disciplines of knowledge are not clearly described as areas of study
or of knowledge, but metaphorically as communities of scholars who
share a domain of intellectual inquiry or discourse. In essence these
societies of specialists are engaged in a variety of styles of human imagi
nation in which the spirit of inquiry is applied to defined domains of
human concern. Each group of intellectual discoursers has a heritage
and is striving to bring the developm ent of its domain or field to a con
tinually higher and more fruitful state of knowledge and meaning. The
body of intellectual discoursers in a field has one or more characteristic
ways of knowing - of warranting knowledge - or it may share modes of
inquiry with other disciplines. T h e group shares the precious resource
of a specialised language or other systems of symbols which makes
precision of definition and inquiry possible. T he body of discoursers
has a set of more or less well-related concepts. T he community has an
inheritance of books, articles and research reports, and a system for
communication among the m em bership. Members of the community
share affective as well as cognitive links, with the excitement of discovery
and the pleasure of sharing w ith colleagues as common characteristics.
T he work of the community emphasizes style and the search for truth.
Further, the community has either an explicit or a tacit conception of
man. Finally, the discipline is an instructive community.
(King and Brownell 1966, 68)
T h is is p erh ap s a somewhat idealized view of the academic com
m unity in th e picture it draws o f h u m a n beings. M usgrove (1968, 101)
is rath er m o re astringent ab o u t social relationships within disci
plines.
. . . subjects are communities of people, competing and collaborating
with one another, defining and defending their boundaries, demanding
The Content o f Education IT
allegiance from their members and conferring a sense of identity upon

them. They are bureaucracies, hierarchically organized, determining
conditions of senior membership, establishing criteria for recruitment to
different levels, disciplining their members through marks of recognition
like honorary fellowships and admission to exclusive inner councils.
W hatever the merits of th ese tw o accounts as likenesses, it is clear
that they identify academic su b c u ltu re s as the creators and curators
of those disciplines of know ledge w hich find expression in the school
as the group of academic su b jects. D isciplines of knowledge have a
social existence and are located in g roups of scholars, typically in our
society working in universities, ex ten d in g th eir disciplines by research
and teaching them to stu d e n ts.
In th e arts the situation is ra th e r different. Visual art, music and
literature are not generally c re a te d in universities as p a rt of the task of
the institutional com m unity. T h e groups which include and support
the individuals who create th e a rts are less formally marked out and
institutionalized, except p e rh a p s in th e case of the bureaucratic arts of
radio, television and cinem a. N evertheless, even in th e individual arts
there are groups which are in th e ir ow n way parallel to the groups of
university scholars just d escrib ed . In visual art and music there are
colleges and teaching co m m u n ities. T h e re are also schools of artists
or m usicians linked in dialogue a b o u t th e ir work. Each art also has its
institutions - concerts, galleries and exhibitions, societies. >
In th e universities th e a rts tra d itio n is generally, though not in
variably, critical or historical. A discipline is created to study and
respond to the arts, and at its b est and in its own term s this supports
creative responses; but th e u n iversities do not possess the arts in the
way th at they do the form al academ ic disciplines, and precisely be
cause they do not create th em .
T h e re are thus two d istin g u ish ab le cultures in the arts with which
the school may identify: th e creative tradition and th e critical tradi
tion. In practice, the creative tra d itio n has been stronger in the schools
in visual art and music th a n it has in literature. T h is is probably
because th e majority of tea c h e rs o f art or m usic are or have been
practitioners, whereas the m ajo rity of E nglish teachers have not in any
full sense been writers.
In the th ird category of o u r classification of content, that of skills,
it seems worthwhile to d istin g u ish th re e m ain areas o f interest in the
schools: basic skills; craft a n d vocational skills; and leisure skills,
including skills in sports a n d gam es. Basic skills are characteristic
of the m ajority of people in o u r cu ltu re. T h e re is no clear and closed
group outside the school w hich is identified with them . Vocational
skills have reference points in crafts and in d u stries, w here again there
are groups m aintaining traditions and th e ir standards, groups which
in stru c tu re are not unlike academ ic g ro u p s. Sim ilarly, leisure skills
are associated w ith groups which have th e ir clubs and associations
a n d sometim es their rules com m ittees and train in g com m ittees.
O u r fourth category, languages, has been p rom inent in the gram m ar
school tradition, so prom inent th a t th e very name of th e school
derives from it. I am concerned here w ith th e teaching of the use of a
classical or m odern foreign language, a n d not with philology or
linguistics, which are university disciplines.
T h e origins of the schools* interest in th e teaching of languages lie
in the teaching of Latin (and to a lesser ex ten t Greek), first as the
lingua franca of the mediaeval scholarly w orld and later as a ‘discipline
to thought* and for the sake of classical literature. M odern languages
w ere at first alternative disciplines for th in k in g and are now increasingly
seen in practical term s. In the case of L a tin and G reek, th e ‘dead*
languages, the culture which su p p o rte d th e m lay first in th e church
a n d later in the university establishm ent, b u t in the case of m odern
languages, the point of reference is a natio n of people who speak the
language as their m other tongue. I t is in terestin g th at there is a threat
fo r th e m odern language teacher in th e existence of a large body of
people inferior in education to him self w ho nevertheless speak the
language better th an he since it is th e ir native tongue.
Conventions and values are expressed in all the school’s teaching
a n d in its organizational arrangem ents. D isciplines, arts, skills and
languages all carry values and conventions w ithin them . Consider
th e value tones o f the two accounts of disciplines of knowledge quoted
earlier in this chapter. (King and B row nell 1966; M usgrove 1968).
Social class values and conventions are explicitly tau g h t by many
schools, especially in the private sector, and are im plied in many
others. W hether the disciplines them selves rest on a base of social
class-linked values is a m atter of discussion. Even the day-to-day
arrangem ents of schools, such as stre a m in g and options system s, ex
p ress values strongly, as of course do th e rituals such as m orning
assem blies and speech days. A nd in all th ese cases the school reflects
values which are held by sections of society outside the schools.
I t is clear, therefore, that over a large range of its curriculum and
institutional arrangem ents the school is teaching a content on which
it has a lease rather than a possession. In m ost cases possession is felt
to lie in some group outside the school w hich acts as a point of refer
ence and a source of standards. H ow far do these groups outside the
school constitute ‘reference g ro u p s’ in th e sociological sense?
The Content o f Education 13
A standard introductory text in sociology defines a reference group
in th e following terms:
For members of a particular group, another group is a reference group
if any of the following circumstances prevail:
1. Some or all of the members of the first group aspire to membership
of the second group (the reference group).
2. T he members of the first group strive to be like the members of the
reference group in some respect, or to make their group like the refer
ence group in some respect.
3. T he members of the first group derive some satisfaction from being
unlike the members of the reference group in some respect, and strive
to maintain the difference between the groups or between themselves
and the members of the reference group.
4. W ithout necessarily striving to be like or unlike the reference group
or its members, the members of the first group appraise their own
group or themselves using the reference group or its members as a
standard for comparison.
(Johnson 1961, 39-40)
All the above circumstances seem to prevail from tim e to time or
for individual members of the school teach in g group, b u t the essential
relationship is best caught in th e last, th e idea that links standards
in the school to their sources in th e larger society. A nd in schools
the teachers appraise the p u p il g ro u p rath er than themselves by
reference group standards.
It seem s to me fair and h e lp fu l to describe as reference groups
those groups outside the school w h ich create and curate knowledge
and skills and values. Reference is in d ee d m ade to them as sources of
standards both in school subjects a n d in th e conventions of school
life. H istory, it is claimed, is n o t close enough to the history of the
real historian; a rt is not close e n o u g h to th e a rt of the a rtist; a foreign
language is not taught idiom atically, th a t is, according to the standards
of native speakers; vocational su b je c ts do not really equip people to
work in the vocational group; a n d th e values and conventions of the
school are out of touch with th e w o rld .
W hen accusations of this so rt a re m ade, th ere is an implication that
in the pressure of school situations tea c h e rs may develop within the
educational process cultures w hich, to a greater or lesser degree, lose
touch w ith th e reference group c u ltu re s th ey are m eant to represent
to th e pupils. F ord and Pugno (1964, 4) q u ote Ralph T y le r:
From the standpoint of the curriculum , the disciplines should be viewed
primarily as a resource that can be draw n upon for the education of
students. Hcncc, wc want to understand these resources at their best.
And we, I think properly, are often fearful that some of the second-hand
treatm ent that we get of these subjects really prostitutes them - does not
represent them at their best. Certainly these disciplines at their best are
not simply an encyclopaedic collection of facts to be memorized but
rather they arc an active effort to make sense out of some portion of the
world or of life.
A nd they com m ent:
T h u s those concerned with the curricula of the schools must in some
way maintain close contacts with scholars in the disciplines so that the
nature and contributions of the disciplines are accurately reflected.
(ibid. 17)
T h is is an im portant line of argum ent for it catches the sp irit of the
p o st-S p u tn ik curricular reforms in th e U n ited States w ith their
em phasis on educationalists w orking w ith university scholars in the
disciplines. It is a m atter of debate how fru itfu l this approach proved
to be.
A re we to accept the view th a t a lth o u g h knowledge is distorted
in th e culture of the school, outside th e school there are reference
g ro u p s w hich set the standards in know ledge, having as it were a
p u rch ase on truth? I don’t think we can, in th a t sim ple form . T he
concept of reference groups lies in sociology and applies to the
dynam ics of knowledge in society ra th e r th a n to tru th values. T here
is no guarantee th a t the disciplines as represented in the reference
g ro u p s are true. We are dealing n o t w ith epistemology and the
th eo ry o f tru th b u t with the sociology o f knowledge.
T h e sociology of knowledge tre a ts ‘know ledge or “ what counts as
know ledge” as socially constituted o r constructed*, and examines
‘how “ su bjects’* or disciplines are socially constructed as sets of
sh ared meanings*. (Young 1971b, 5) In sh o rt, the acceptance of the
idea th a t ‘knowledge* is represented in th e c u ltu re of groups - the idea
I have explored above - implies th a t ‘know ledge’ may be socially
d eterm in ed and in particular d eterm in ed by th e needs of th e groups
an d individuals involved.
N o t th a t this influence is a deliberate a n d intentional departure from
tru th .
T h e sociology of knowledge is concerned not so much with distortions
due to a deliberate effort to deceive as with the varying ways in which
objects present themselves to the subject according to the differences in
social settings. Thus, mental structures are inevitably differently formed
in different social and historical settings.
(Mannheim 1936, 238)
The Content o f Education J5
It is easy to see that this m u st be tru e of sp o rt and of skills -
consider dom estic science in schools, for exam ple, and compare it
w ith cordon bleu cookery - a n d certainly of language. In these
areas the relativism which is ap p a re n tly im plied in th e perspective of
the sociology of knowledge is fairly easily acceptable; but in the
academic disciplines relativism seem s m uch m ore threatening. Here
there is a strong tradition of a sp ira tio n tow ards absolutes, towards
some notion o f a warranted know ledge. D oes the entire tradition rest
on a plot to reinforce the status o f th e academ ic group, to underwrite a
bid of scholars to be philosopher kings?
T here is no easy answer to su ch questions, and they will recur
directly or obliquely throughout th is book.
I was led to them by a consideration o f content as culture, as public
traditions. B ut although it is im p o rta n t to consider those public
traditions know n as the disciplines o f knowledge as elements in
culture, it is equally im portant to consider them not as culture, but in
their own term s —as knowledge. L ay in g on one side for the moment
their social location and function, w hat do they look like in them
selves? As culture they are co n sid ered in th eir social location: as
knowledge they are considered against tests for tru th .
In the study of the curricu lu m th is contrast betw een the view of
knowledge taken by the sociologist and th a t taken by the philosopher
has been an im portant them e. >
Questions of the nature and s tru c tu re of knowledge have been a
m atter of philosophical discussion since th e tim e of th e Greeks and of
course assum ptions about th e s tru c tu re of knowledge are implicit
in the traditional school c u rricu lu m . N ew im petus has been given to
this discussion in the curriculum field, an d a stro n g line of develop
m ent has stem m ed from an eleg an t crystallization of the issues by
Jerom e B runer in The Process o f E ducation:
. . . the curriculum of a subject should be determined by the most

fundamental understanding that can be achieved of the underlying
principles that give structure to the subject. Teaching specific topics or
skills without making clear their context in the broader fundamental
structure of a field of knowledge is uneconomical in several deep senses.
In the first place, such teaching makes it exceedingly difficult for the
student to generalise from what he has learned to what he will encounter
later. In the second place, learning that has fallen short of a grasp of
general principles has little rew ard in term s of intellectual excitement.
The best way to create interest in a subject is to render it worth knowing,
which means to make the knowledge gained usable in one’s think
ing beyond the situation in which the learning has occurred. Third,
16 A n Introduction to Curriculum Developm ent
knowledge one has acquired without sufficient structure to tie it together
is knowledge that is likely to be forgotten. An unconnected set of facts
has a pitiably short half-life in memory. Organising facts in terms of prin
ciples and ideas from which they may be inferred is the only known way
of reducing the quick rate of loss of human memory.
(B runer i960, 31-32)
H ere B ru n e r’s background as a psychologist is ev id en t. H e argues
in term s o f tra n sfe r of learning, of motivation a n d o f retention, and
though th e p o in ts h e makes are not expressed in a scientific key, they
are based on experim ental work. He leaps beyond th is to assert th at
the essential qu ality of learning is the same for all, adv an cin g the bold
hypothesis ‘th a t any subject can be taught effectively in som e intellec
tually h o n est form to any child at any stage of d e v e lo p m e n t’. (B runer
*960,33) T h is hypothesis is program m atic. It su g g ests a line of experi
m ent in tea c h in g likely to push the educational fro n tie r forw ard.
B runer sees know ledge as organized into d iscip lin es or subjects
each w ith its ow n stru ctu res and methods. H is m o d el m an is not so
m uch co n cern ed w ith the search for truth in an a b so lu te sense as with
the desire to u n d e rsta n d his world, that is, to give it stru c tu re and
m eaning, b o th to satisfy curiosity and to form a basis for action.
K now ledge sh o u ld b e ‘usable in one’s thinking’. W ith th e confidence
of th e sc ie n tist B ru n e r is able to take the step o f re g a rd in g all know
ledge as provisional, all learning as an ad v en tu re ag ain st th e boun
daries. T h e disciplines and th e ir grasp of tru th a re th e b est we have
as of now . H e is, I w ould say, centrally concerned w ith th e quality of
life, P ro m e th e an in his attitu d e to truth and its a p p licatio n - and a
risk-taker, p re p a re d to make calculated errors in p u r s u it of inquiry,
seeking a ‘discip lin ed in tuition’.
T h e provisional a n d changing nature of bodies o f know ledge is also
stressed by Jo sep h Schwab, who characterizes th e disciplines as
resting o n s tru c tu re s of concepts:
T h e dependence o f knowledge on a conceptual structure means that any
body of knowledge is likely to be of only temporary significance. For the
knowledge which develops from the use of a given concept usually dis
closes new complexities of the subject matter which call forth new con
cepts. T hese new concepts in turn give rise to new bodies of enquiry
and, therefore, to new and more complete bodies of knowledge stated
in new term s. T h e significance of this ephemeral character of knowledge
to education consists in the fact that it exhibits the desirability, if not the
necessity, for so teaching what we teach that students understand that the
knowledge we possess is not mere literal, factual tru th but a kind of
knowledge which is true in a more complex sense. T h is in turn means
The Content o f Education iy
th at we must clarify for students the role of concepts in making know
ledge possible (and limiting its validity) and im part to them some idea
of the particular concepts that underlie present knowledge of each
subject matter, together with the reasons for the appropriateness of these
concepts and some of their limitations.
(Schwab 1964, 13-14)
K now ledge in this sense consists not o f facts, b u t of facts so
s tr u c tu r e d by theory th a t they acquire m ean in g . W hereas facts per
se - railw ay tim etables or general know ledge - can be m astered by
m em orization, knowledge w ith meaning re q u ire s u n d erstanding for
its m astery . And the w orld o f meaning can be likened to the terrestrial
w o rld in the sense th at it has been discovered gradually. T h e map of
k n ow ledge has changed ju s t as - witness th e h istorical m aps prin ted
in atlases - the map of th e terrestrial world has changed. A nd the w orld
o f know ledge, like the terrestrial world, can be m ap p ed on different
p ro jectio n s.
B loom , concerned to com pile a taxonom y o f educational objectives,
re g a rd s knowledge as ‘th e recall of specifics a n d universals, the recall
o f m eth o d s and processes, or the recall o f p a tte rn , structure, or
s e ttin g ’. (Bloom 1956, 62-78) He offers th e follow ing classification:
K now ledge of specifics
K now ledge of term inology
K now ledge of specific facts .
K now ledge of ways a n d m eans of dealing w ith specifics
K now ledge of conventions
K now ledge of trends and sequences
K now ledge of classifications and categories
K n ow ledge of criteria
K n ow ledge of m ethodology
K now ledge of the universals and abstractions in a field
K now ledge of principles and generalizations
K now ledge of theories and structures
T h is is prim arily a psychologist’s classification, th e logic being related
to th e possibility of m easurem ent of learning.
P h e n ix (1964b) approaches the problem w ith m ore philosophical
co n c ern s, and finds w ithin the map of know ledge Realm s o f Meaning.
W e are, he believes, ‘essentially creatures w ho have the pow er to
e x p e rien c e meanings. D istinctively hum an existence consists in a
p a tte rn o f meanings. F urtherm ore, general education is the process o f
engendering essential m eanings' (1964b, 5) I n s h o rt, th e characteristic
in te lle c tu a l achievement o f m ankind w hich is to be transm itted
th ro u g h education is his ability to ascribe m ea n in g to existence. ‘Six
j S A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
fundam ental patterns of meaning em erge from the analysis of the
six possible modes of hum an understan d in g . T h e se six pattern s may
be designated respectively as symbolics, empirics, esthetics, synnoetics,
ethics and synoptics * (1964b, 6)
O n this basis he distinguishes nine classes o f knowledge in the
following w ay:
Any epistemic meaning has two dimensions - extension and intension,
or quantity and quality. That is to say, knowledge consists in a relation
of the knowing subject to some range of known objects, and the import
of the relation is of some kind. Extension has three degrees: singular,
general and comprehensive. T hat is, the knowledge is either of one
thing, or of a selected plurality, or of a totality. Intensions of knowledge
are also of three kinds: fact, form and norm. In other words, the quality
of meaning is existential, formal or valuational. Still another way to
express the intensional types is to say that all epistemic meanings refer
either to actualities, or to possibilities, or to obligations.
(1 9 6 4 a, 5 4-55)
Phenix offers th e following schem atic ta b le :I
T he Generic Classes of Knowledge

Extension Intension Designation Disciplines
Singular Fact Synnoetics Philosophy, psychology lit
erature and religion in their
existential aspects
Singular Form Aesthetics Music, visual arts, the arts
of movement, literature
General Form Symbolics Ordinary language, math
ematics, nondiscursive sym
bolic forms
General Fact Empirics Physical sciences, life
sciences, psychology, social
sciences
Singular Norm Ethics T h e various special areas
General Norm Ethics of moral and ethical concern
Comprehensive Fact Synoptics History
Comprehensive Form Synoptics Philosophy
Comprehensive Norm Synoptics Religion
(Phenix 1964a, 60-61)
I find it difficult to resist the feeling th a t Phenix has over-tidied a

little, bu t his classification has been m u ch quoted and discussed and
is a good, if extrem e, example of th e genre.
The Content o f Education ig
Phenix is quite explicit about th e relation of such an analysis of the
disciplines of knowledge to the school.
My theme has been that the curriculum should consist entirely of
knowledge which comes from the disciplines, for the reason that the
disciplines reveal knowledge in its teachable forms. We should not try
to teach anything which has not been found actually instructive through
the labours of hosts of dedicated inquirers. Education should be con
ceived as a guided recapitulation o f the processes of inquiry which gave rise
to the fruitful bodies of organised knowledge comprising the established
disciplines.
(Phenix 1962, 133)
H irst has offered a classification o f knowledge, sim ilar in some
respects, b u t rather more speculative. In particular, he stresses the
characteristic tests for tru th in th e various disciplines, their philo
sophic grounding. He distinguishes:
(I) Distinct disciplines or forms of knowledge . . . mathematics, physical
sciences, human sciences, history, religion, literature and the fine arts,
philosophy.
(II) Fields of knowedge: theoretical, practical (these may or may not
include elements of moral knowledge).
(Hirst 1965, 131)
D eveloped forms of knowledge have certain distinguishing features:
central concepts peculiar in c h a ra c te r to the form ; a distinctive
logical stru ctu re ; expressions o r sta te m e n ts which, by virtue of the
form ’s particular terms and logic, are testable against experience;
particular techniques and skills for exploring experience and testing
th eir distinctive expressions.
Fields of knowledge are d istin g u ish e d by their subject matter
rather th an by a logically d istin c t form of expression. Given that
subject m atter, they draw on th e disciplines as need be and are thus
in a sense inter-disciplinary, th o u g h n o t in the service of some inter
disciplinary principle. H irst cites geography as an example of a
theoretical study of this kind a n d engineering as an example of a
practical study. Curriculum s tu d y w ould fall into this second
category.
H irst is concerned with th e n a tu re o f a liberal education, and he
seeks to define it in terms of know ledge and its nature and significance
and ‘not on th e predelictions o f p u p ils, the dem ands of society, or
th e whims of politicians.* (H irst 1965, 115) I t can well be argued -
as W hite (1969) has argued - th a t cu rricu la which do not face the
need to open up knowledge to th e p u p ils are often the staple of an
education designed for th e underprivileged and rein fo rc in g th eir
exclusion from the education and knowledge m ost valued a n d m ost
valuable.
O n th e o th er hand, it is often argued that a know ledge-based
curriculum too easily becom es an academic curriculum fro m w hich
pupils are excluded by boredom . I see no inherent reason w hy this
should be. H irst is certainly attacking rather than d efe n d in g school
subjects as we have th em now. H e argues for:
first, sufficient immersion in the concepts, logic and criteria of the
discipline for a person to come to know the distinctive way in which it
‘works’ by pursuing these in particular cases; and then sufficient
generalisation of these over the whole range of the discipline so that his
experience begins to be widely structured in this distinctive m anner.
(H irst 1965, 132)
A revision o f school practice along these lines is c e rtain ly w orth
experim ental exploration. A t present it has scarcely been a tte m p te d
except in m athem atics and science.
T h e re have been proposed m any m ore classifications o f know ledge
than I have considered here. T h e y differ in some respects, b u t share
a good deal of com m on ground. I do not believe th at we shall im prove
our c u rricu lar practices by finding the right one and stic k in g to it.
R ather we need to recognize th a t problem s in the s tru c tu re o f know
ledge ought to be on o u r agenda when we consider p ro b le m s of
curriculum . T h o u g h t about curriculum is, in one of its d im ensions,
thought ab o u t th e n a tu re of knowledge.
Beyond th e p ro b lem of classification lies th at o f th e sta tu s of
knowledge. In p articu lar, is know ledge immutable o r ch anging? T h is
is Joseph S c h w a b :
T he dependence of knowledge on a conceptual structure m eans that any
body of knowledge is likely to be of only temporary significance. For the
knowledge which develops from the use of a given concept usually
discloses new complexities of the subject matter which call forth new
concepts. These new concepts in turn give rise to new bodies of enquiry
and, therefore, to new and more complete bodies of knowledge stated
in new terms.
(Schwab 1964, 13)
If know ledge is tra n sie n t and shifting, what is th e ju stific a tio n for
teaching it? Is it in any sense true?
P henix a s k s :
How, then, can we be sure that the concept of a discipline is definite and
significant enough to serve as a basis for the organisation of knowledge?
[And he replies:] The answer is empirical and pragm atic: disciplines
prove them selves by their productiveness. They are the visible evidences
of ways of thinking that have proven fruitful.
(Phenix 1964b, 48)
F ru itfu l for whom ?

L et us fo r th e m om ent shift ou r usage from knowledge back to cul
ture. C u ltu re is th e sociologist’s term . It indicates th e sam e content as
know ledge view ed from a different point of c o n c ern : how is it
socially o rg an iz ed and developed? rather th an how is it related to
tru th ? B e rg e r and Luckm ann (1966, 15) contend th a t ‘th e sociology
of k now ledge is concerned w ith th e analysis of th e social construction
of reality ’, a n d th at it ‘m ust concern itself w ith w h atever passes for
“ k n ow ledge” in a society, regardless of the u ltim a te validity or
invalidity (by w hatever criteria) of such “ know ledge” ’. O n this view
epistem ology a n d sociology of knowledge are tw o universes of dis
course, d iffe re n t ways of talking and thinking ad apted to th e consider
ation o f d iffe re n t problem s.
M ichael F . D . Young blurs th is distinction w hen he alludes to
H irst’s w o rk a n d com m ents:
T he problem of this kind of critique is that it appears to be based on an
absolutist conception of a set of distinct forms of knowledge which
correspond closely to the traditional areas of the academic curriculum
and thus justify, rather than examine, what are no m ore than the socio-
historical constructs of a particular time. It is im portant to stress that it
is not ‘subjects’, which Hirst recognises as the socially constructed ways
that teachers organise knowledge, but forms of understanding, that it is
claimed are ‘necessarily’ distinct. T he point I wish to make here is that
unless such necessary distinctions or intrinsic logics are treated as
problem atic, philosophical criticism cannot examine the assumptions of
academic curricula.
(Young 1971a, 23)I
I w ant to s h a rp e n the point being made here and th e n to argue th at
Y oung is b e in g less than fair to H irst and th e tra d itio n which he
represents.
T h e sociology of knowledge (which is, in th e te rm s used in this
book, a b ra n c h of the sociology of culture) is co n cern ed in p a rt with
the way th a t knowledge is determ ined by its social context, held by
pow erful g ro u p s as a possession and an instrum ent o f th e ir pow er and
used to v alid ate institutions. O n th e basis of such an approach, one
could a rg u e th a t some of those concerned w ith th e analysis of the
disciplines o f knowledge are in fact caught in th e prejudices and
blindnesses o f th eir own situations. T h e y are consistently under
w riting the present organization of know ledge th at is the establish
m ent in which they have a vested in te rest.
Phenix does seem to me vulnerable to th is charge. Consider these
tw o passages:
T he richness of culture and the level of understanding achieved in
advanced civilization are due almost entirely to the labors of individual
men of genius and of organized comm unities of specialists. A high level
of civilization is the consequence of the dedicated service of persons with
special gifts for the benefit of all. Every person is indebted for what he
has and is to a great network of skilled inventors, experimenters, artists,
seers, scholars, prophets, and saints, who have devoted their special
talents to the well-being of all.
(1 9 6 4 b , 30)
T he perennial threat to meaning is intensified under the conditions of
modern industrial civilization. Four contributing factors deserve special
emphasis. T h e first is the spirit of criticism and skepticism. This spirit
is part of the scientific heritage, but it has tended to bring the validity of
all meanings into question . . . curriculum should be planned so as to
counteract destructive skepticism . . .
(1964b, 31)I
I should not wish to claim th a t P h e n ix intends a picture of ‘the
rich m an in his castle, the poor m an at th e gate*; b u t there is surely an
im plication of th a t sort to be draw n. T h e scholar sees him self as de
voting his special talents to the w ell-being of all, as m aking a case for
th e teaching o f the culture in w hich he excels, and as com bating
scepticism w hen it escapes from science in to values and policy. T he
poor m an in E ast Harlem or M id d le sb o ro u g h m ight be forgiven for
believing that th e scholar’s talents c o n trib u te d m ost of all to the well
being of the scholar and that he on his p a rt is entitled to som e scepti
cism , even if it be a little destructive.
But if Phenix can be suspected o f ideology, of developing ideas
w hich serve as weapons for social in te rests, th is is not to say th at the
sociology of knowledge implies th a t all know ledge is ideological.
W erner Stark (1958, 1962) saw th a t th e sociology of knowledge m ust
be m ore than a debunking science, th a t it m u st be concerned with
th e study of th e social conditions o f know ledge, with the sociology
of tru th rath er th a n merely with th e sociology of error.
L et us retu rn to Hirst. Young is grossly u n fair in attributing to him
a naive absolutism . Of course he has n o ticed th a t knowledge changes
a n d he actually discusses the point. H is search is for som e objectivity
in knowledge - o r to put it another way, som e degree of independence
of social influences, partial th o u g h it be in practice, w hich enables us
to criticize rather than accept w h a t is given. ‘. . . it is a form of educa
tion knowing no limits other th a n th o se necessarily im posed by the
nature of rational knowledge and th e re b y itself developing in man the
final court of appeal in all h u m a n affairs’. (H irst 1965, 127) Such
knowledge is a basis for scepticism and social criticism .
H irst proposes a concept of know ledge w hich has
objectivity, though this is no longer backed by metaphysical realism.
For it is a necessary feature of knowledge as such that there be public
criteria whereby the true is distinguishable from the false, the good from
the bad, the right from the wrong. It is the existence of these criteria
which gives objectivity to knowledge; . . .
(H irst 1965, 127)
T h e status of this objectivity is in philosophical term s a matter for
discussion. It is problematic.
Popper sees tru th as a regulative prin cip le and explains this by an
analogy.
T he status of truth in the objective sense, as correspondence to the facts
and its role as a regulative principle, may be compared to that of a moun
tain peak usually wrapped in clouds. A climber may not merely have
difficulties in getting there - he may not know when he gets there, because
he may be unable to distinguish, in the clouds, between the main summit
and a subsidiary peak. Yet this does not affect the objective existence of
the summit; and if the climber tells us ‘I doubt whether I reached the
actual summit’, then he does, by implication, recognise the objective
existence of the summit. T he very idea of error, or of doubt (in its
normal straightforward sense) implies the idea of an objective truth
which we may fail to reach.
(Popper 1963, 226)
In fact, the content of the actu al cu rricu lu m of the school would
appear to fall short in two respects. I t consists of ‘constructed realities
realised in particular institutional contexts* (Young 1971b, 3) and
distorted by those contexts. It fails to realize in practice the best
tru th available as judged on philosophical grounds. T o climb
higher up the mountain, we m u st significantly change th e institu
tion.
T h e viewpoints of philosophy a n d sociology of knowledge are
com plem entary rather than co n trad icto ry . If their contradictions seem
sharpened, this may be because sociologists and philosophers are
prone to contradict one another ‘in p articu lar institutional contexts’.
3
TEACHING
People arc learn in g alm ost all the tim e. Children especially are good at
learning. T h e y learn to walk, and how to find th eir w ay a b o u t town.
Having lea rn ed to talk, they learn th e names of everyone in th e village.
T hey learn to recognize by th eir shapes the make of every car on the
road, and to g e t th e ir own way in disputes. They fre q u e n tly learn how
to m anage th e ir p a re n ts adroitly, and they are often able to p re d ic t and
som etim es to control the behaviour of their teachers. C h ild re n are no
fools.
Schools tak e responsibility for planning and organizing children's
learning. T h e y try - not very successfully in m any cases - to give it
direction a n d to m axim ize its effectiveness.
I take teaching to denote the strategies the school a d o p ts to dis
charge th is responsibility. T eaching is not merely in stru c tio n , b u t the
system atic p ro m o tio n o f learning by whatever m eans. A n d teaching
strategy is an im p o rtan t aspect of curriculum.
I p re fe r ‘teaching strategy' to ‘teaching m e th o d s', w hich has
traditional u n d e rto n e s of training the teacher in skills. ‘T eaching
strategy' h in ts m ore at the planning of teaching and learn in g in the
light of p rin c ip le s, and it seems to lay more weight on te a c h e r ju d g e
m ent. I t involves developing a policy and p u ttin g th a t policy into
practice.
T h e re have been som e attem pts, particularly in th e U n ite d States,
to devise ‘te a c h e r-p ro o f' curricula - packages so well p lan n e d and
c o n stru cted th a t the teacher cannot underm ine th em . T h e evidence
does not g enerally suggest th at th is is an effective stra te g y . In any
case, it seem s odd to attem pt to m inimize the use of th e m ost expen
sive resource in th e school. In so far as the teacher has shortcom ings -
and like e v ery o n e else, including those bent on teach er im provem ent,
he has —th e way ahead is through providing o p p o rtu n itie s for teacher
developm ent, and particularly for th e refinement of ju d g e m e n t.
I t is a th e s is o f this book th at curriculum developm ent m u st rest on
teacher d ev elo p m en t and th at it should prom ote it a n d hence the
professionalism of the teacher. Curriculum dev elo p m en t translates
Teaching 25
ideas into classroom practicalities and thereby helps th e teacher to
strengthen his practice by system atically and th oughtfully testin g ideas.
A lm ost inevitably, new curricula involve new tea c h in g strategies
as well as new content. New teaching strategies are extrem ely
difficult to learn and to set oneself to learn, especially w hen th ey cut
across old hab its and assum ptions and invalidate h a rd -w o n skills. It
is not enough to assum e th at teachers are in a good p o sitio n to develop
new strategies independently on th e basis of com m on professional
skills. C o-operative and well-organized effort is needed, a n d teachers
working co-operatively together have the same rig h t an d need as
other professionals - such as doctors or engineers - to have access to
consultancy and to draw on research.
N evertheless it is tru e that strategies can only be developed in the
classroom. T h e re are too m any variables, including th e teach er him
self, to allow of the generalization of easy recipes. A n d o u r u n d er
standing o f classroom s and what goes on in them is still very lim ited.
T h u s, th e developm ent of teaching strategies can n e v e r be a priori.
New strategies m ust be worked out by groups of teach ers collaborating
w ithin a research and developm ent framework. T h e em erg en t cu rricu
lum w hich is com m unicated to the profession at large m u st be
grounded in th e study of classroom practice.
N evertheless, a provisional curriculum specification w ith its
teaching strateg y m ust be offered as a starting p o in t fo r experim ent,
however su b ject it may be to modification in the lig h t o f experience.
In devising th e teaching strategy aspect of curricu lu m w h a t sources
of inform ation and grounds of judgem ent are available to us?
T h e p rin cip al sources are the psychology of learning, th e stu d y of
child developm ent, th e social psychology and sociology o f learning,
the logic o f th e subject and accumulated p ractical experience,
system atic and unsystem atic. In creating the initial ratio n ale an d fram e
work for th e developm ent of a teaching strategy, th e se need to be
fused by educational im agination: the capacity to visualize with
verisim ilitude im aginary classroom s and to pre-test ideas in th em in
one’s m ind.
T h e psychology of learning has had a bad press from m any cu rricu
lum w orkers. K ing and Brownell, for example, declare th a t ‘Recent
curriculum theories w hich espouse psychology as th e “ fo u n d atio n ” of
curriculum theory, and learning as the fundam ental process of hum an
behaviour should be confronted w ith the testim ony o f psychologists
in the last decade or so,’ and they quote ten pessim istic com m ents.
Am ong th ese are, for exam ple, H ilgard’s ‘There are no law s o f learning
th at can be ta u g h t w ith confidence’, and E stes’ ‘no convergence is
im m inent between the e d u c a to r’s and the laboratory scientist’s
approaches to learning’. (K ing a n d Brownell 1966, 106)
Leaving aside program m ed learning - to which I shall return
later in this chapter - I still feel th a t this is an unduly negative
approach. Indeed, it seems in conflict with K ing and Brownell’s own
concept of the disciplines. T h e psychologists quoted tend to be
thinking in term s of the cross application of particular results or
predictive theory; but it is th e concepts adopted in the psychology
of learning which have been o f th e greatest relevance to curriculum
developm ent.
M otivation and interest are closely an d usefully bound into psychol
ogists’ work on learning, and th e curricular atrocities sometimes
com m itted under the sanction o f these words are attributable to
ignoring the work of psychologists, rather than to paying too m uch
attention to it. T he distinctions m ad e between blind or rote learning
and insightful learning also d eriv e from psychological work. Psychol
ogists’ exploration of the role o f structure and meaning in learning are
an underpinning of, if not th e fo u n d atio n of, a curriculum based on
disciplines rather than on th e encyclopaedic view of knowledge
reflected in the typical n in ete en th -ce n tu ry school reader. T he con
ceptual schem es of social learning and the study of emotion in learning
are also of clear relevance to w ork in curriculum . A nd transfer o f
learning is a fundam ental a n d perpetual concern of curriculum
developers.
I concede that there have b e e n som e misplaced attem pts to derive
curricula too narrowly from psychology, but there can be no d o u b t
th a t the conceptual schem e o f th e learning psychologist - and hence a
general acquaintance w ith th e experim ental work in which it is
rooted - is a tool in tra d e o f th e curriculum worker. So too is a
fam iliarity with some m ajor h y p o th eses of learning theory. In fact, it
is in th e context of curricu lu m developm ent that we are most likely
to be able to mount classroom experim ents w hich will take the
experim ental psychology of lea rn in g beyond the walls of the labora
tory. T h e mistake is to see th e classroom as a place to apply laboratory
findings rather than as a place to refute or confirm them . C urriculum
w orkers need to share the p sy chologists’ curiosity about the process of
learning rather than to be d o m in ated by their conclusions. N ot
enough attention has been given to th is line of thinking in the design
of curricula.
By contrast, almost all c u rric u lu m developers have given close
atten tio n to the psychology o f child developm ent. In this field
Piaget is the father figure. I t is his achievem ent to have attem pted a
Teaching 27
descriptive account of th e logics w hich inform the thinking of children
at different stages and also of som e of their em otional constructions.
His work, and that of th e m any experim enters who have followed his
lead, is concerned w ith em pirical logic, th at is, with the logical
strategies of observed th in k in g , rath e r than the norm ative logic which
is concerned with principles o f thinking.
Piaget conceptualizes th e developm ent of thinking by means o f
stages which, it is claim ed, are necessarily sequential, but uneven in
th eir application. In one area o f his thinking a child may be at one
stage, in another area at a n o th e r stage. In his work it is not the age
norm s For development th a t m a tte r —his samples are in any case too
small to generalize - b u t th e sequence which marks the child’s
construction of a logic to deal w ith his reality.
Following a sensori-m otor stage during w hich the infant is dis
crim inating and relating sen so ry stim uli and m otor responses, th e
child enters on a pre-operational stage of thinking, characterized b y
an anim ism deriving fro m his .difficulty in distinguishing between
his internal experience and external reality. H is generalizations an d
grasp of laws are intuitive and th e product of trial and error. In a
sense he deals in myths ra th e r th a n in theories. In particular, he can
not grasp the idea of rev ersab ility and consequently of conservation.
T h e next stage of dev elo p m en t is a stage of concrete operations, a n
operation being a pattern o f th in k in g or organizing the worl^l in th e
m ind, of internalizing it. T h e ch ild develops concepts of reversability,
conservation and d o u b le-e n try relationships. F o r example, when a
piece of clay is m anipulated into a new shape th e child argues th a t
there is the same am ount o f clay from the fact th a t it can be restored
to its original shape (reversability) or th at w hat it loses in length it
gains in girth (relationship) o r th a t none has been taken away an d
none added (conservation). A n o th e r im portant advance is the ability
to arrange things in classes a n d series.
But at this stage the ch ild theorizes his concrete experience rath e r
th an being capable of sp e cu la tio n in term s of hypotheses. Thus, fo r
example,' the child will o ften find it m ore difficult to grasp that th e
w eight of the clay is th e sam e th a n th at the am ount is the same, th e
idea of weight being so m ew h at m ore abstract. A nd such operations
as the following are n o t w ith in reach: ‘E dith is fairer than Susan.
E dith is darker than L ily. W h ich is the darkest?’ T he comparative
adjectives are taken as straig h tfo rw ard attributes, the notion of a
com parative continuum n o t being grasped. But if Edith, Susan a n d
Lily are present, of course th e answ er is sim ple. I t is the abstraction
which is elusive.
In the succeeding formal operational p eriod these lim itations are
overcome. Before th e formal stage th e ch ild cannot accept abstracted
hypotheses for examination. Piaget q u o tes B allard’s nonsense state
m en t: ‘I am very glad I do not like onions, for if I liked them , I
w ould always be eating them, and I hate eating unpleasant th in g s.’
A t the stage of concrete operations th e child will criticize (for ex
am ple) the statem ent that onions are' unpleasant: at th e stage of
form al operations he will point out th e contradiction in th e statem ent,
th a t is, he accepts the statem ent as a hypothesis to be exam ined
critically. T h u s th o ught is no longer b o u n d to proceed from actual to
theoretical. It is not concerned only w ith objects and experiences,
b u t also with propositions. T h in k in g becom es speculative and the
possibility is opened up of the stu d y o f scientific analysis and syn
thesis, of the grasping of concepts like predictability.
Piaget’s schem a of the developm ent o f th inking is of great signi
ficance for curriculum developm ent, so long as it is accepted as a
hypothesis rath er than as a dogma. In particular, it should be borne
in m ind that concrete and formal op eratio n s are both characteristics
o f advanced thinkers. Formal o p eratio n s do not obliterate concrete
operations from o u r repertoire.
Am ong the psychologists who have co n d u cted research of im port
ance into the developm ent of thinking, Jerom e Bruner stands out as
having given com m itted attention to education in general and to
curriculum in particular. His handling of problem s in psychological
developm ent in the context of education is speculative and flexible be
cause he is com m itted to the adventure o f action as well as of theory.
H e distinguishes enactive, iconic an d sym bolic m odes of thinking.
(B runer 1966, 10-12) ‘In earliest ch ild h o o d events and objects are
defined in term s of the actions taken to w a rd s them . . . . A n object is
w hat one does to it.’ This is the enactive m ode. ‘W hat appears next in
developm ent is a great achievement. Im ages develop an autonom ous
status, they becom e great sum m arizers o f action. ’T h is is the iconic
m ode. T h e th ird or symbolic system o f representation is ‘based on
th e translation o f experience into lan g u a g e ’.
A child who picks up a stick to lever u p a stone defines it enactively
as a tool for levering. A child who so rts picture cards to pick out a
knife, a spade, scissors and a pen (b u t n o t a car) as tools has an iconic
grasp of a concept. A child who d istinguishes im provized tools from
tools by design and considers w h eth er a car o r a language is a tool is
o perating in the symbolic mode.
T h ere is a close parallel w ith P iaget, b u t m ore em phasis on early
form s of conceptualization.
Teaching 2g
B ru n e r talks of the curriculum in te rm s o f grow th and offers
. . . some benchmarks about the nature of intellectual growth:
1. Growth is characterized by increasing independence of response
from the immediate nature of the stim ulus.
2. Growth depends upon internalizing events into a ‘storage system*
that corresponds to the environment.
3. Intellectual growth involves an increasing capacity to say to oneself
and others, by means of words or symbols, what one has done or what
one will do.
4. Intellectual development depends upon a systematic and contingent
interaction between a tutor and a learner.
5. Teaching is vastly facilitated by the medium of language, which ends
by being not only the medium for exchange but the instrument that the
learner can then use himself in bringing order into the environment.
6. Intellectual development is m arked by increasing capacity to deal
with several alternatives simultaneously, to tend to several sequences
during the same period of time, and to allocate time and attention in a
m anner appropriate to these m ultiple demands.
(Bruner 1966, 5-6)
I t is perhaps worth noting th a t B ru n e r’s use of growth in this con

tex t is sharply distinguished by its intellectual content from the use
of th e sam e w ord in many contexts in association w ith ‘child-cqntred
e d u c atio n ’ ; and indeed that his enactive m ode is not to be assimilated
to activity m ethods. His is not th e tra d itio n attacked by H irst and
P eters and it is significant th a t th e cu rricu lu m developed under
B ru n e r’s influence is much co n cern ed w ith ‘m an’s attem pt to under
stan d and appreciate the w orld’. (H irs t a n d Peters 1970, 31).
I n fact, developmental psychology has been applied in two main
ways in curriculum development. O n th e one hand, it has been taken
to p rovide norm s, to set lim its to readiness, to place restrictions on
th e possible. In Britain in p articular, w here educators are depressingly
anxious to ‘p ro tect’ the young o r lim ited from access to challenging
ideas, developm ental studies have som etim es supplied texts for
serm ons on the need to tem per th e w in d to shorn lam bs. T h e other
application of developmental psychology is to provide an under
sta n d in g of the developmental processes w hich will enable us to raise
o u r sights, to attack and overtake p re se n t developm ental norm s by
m eans of education. At the W oods H ole Conference, Professor In-
h e ld e r of Geneva, Piaget’s associate, ‘was asked to suggest ways in
w hich th e child could be m oved alo n g faster through th e various
stages of intellectual developm ent in m athem atics and physics’.
3o A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
(B runer i960, 40-41) It is this trad itio n w ith which B runer is*associ-
ated, hence his famous provocative hypothesis ‘that any subject can
be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at
any stage of developm ent’. (B runer 1960, 33) Only an understanding of
the logic of th e development of th in k in g can enable us to make what
B runer calls ‘a courteous translation* of advanced knowledge in order
to bring it w ithin the grasp of th e child.
I think we should be a little w ary of m aking curricula which are
developed by groups of teachers and curriculum workers con
form able to developmental norm s, n o t sim ply because, as I have
suggested above, education exists to change such norm s, but also
because the pupils in any one class are at different stages of develop
m ent. T h e m ost important function of such norm s may be diagnostic
and individual.
T he teacher can look for the presence or absence of these modes by
watching and talking to a child as he goes about his day to day tasks.
Occasionally, it might be worthwhile to set up such experiments (as
Piaget’s) as test situations. Information about a child’s mode of thinking
which can be gleaned in this way would afford another dimension upon
which his intellectual progress could be measured.
(Richmond 1970, 100)
W e tu rn now to social psychology and sociology, and here there are
two strands w hich I wish to discuss as having im p o rtan t significance
for the developm ent of teaching strategies. T h e first is the social
psychology of small groups and th e second some aspects of the work
of sociologists on social class and education.
In an earlier book (Stenhouse 1967) I com m ented th a t the under
lying model in m ost of our teach in g - at least at th e secondary stage -
is individual tuition, and th a t teach ers ten d to split the groups they
teach and deal w ith their m em bers as individuals, partly because of
problem s of disciplinary control. T h e situation is well caught in this
excerpt from an interview w ith a p u p il:
Question: Can you speak freely in other lessons?
Answer: No. Because the teacher just stands at the front and asks you
questions and if you don’t know it you just keep quiet.
(Hamingson 1973, 199)
I argued th a t the teacher’s task m ight be seen as generating an
appropriate sub-culture in th e classroom group, and this means
setting up a cross-group com m unication system . In th e Humanities
Project we developed a style of discussion teaching w hich laid great
stress on the g ro u p ’s accepting responsibility for its w ork and working
Teaching 31
co-operatively. Sometimes th e resu lts show ed up strikingly the way
th a t schools inhibit co-operative w orking.
Carol: T he work we have done already (in the Humanities Project)
has given us a greater understanding of each individual member
of the class and we are m uch friendlier towards each other after
the lesson.
Linda: N ot so much ‘friendlier’ - it is that we understand each other’s
point of view.
Sue: In this lesson we listen to their point of view and they listen
to ours.
Linda: We have evidence to refer to all the time - that helps.
(Hamingson 1973, 201-202)
Com paratively little attention has been given to making th e classroom
group a fully interacting su b -c u ltu re w ith educational values, prob
ably because teachers associate class cohesion with problems of
disciplinary control.
M ills and Rosenberg have e d ite d Readings on the Sociology o f
Sm all Groups (1970), The S m a ll G roup by Golembiewski (1962) is a
good standard review of research, a n d E lizabeth Richardson’s Group
S tu d y fo r Teachers (1967) is rep re sen ta tiv e of a m ore interpretative
tradition. A m ong applications m ay be m entioned Abercrombie’s
The A natom y o f Judgement (i9 6 0 ), T h e le n ’s Dynamics o f Groups at
Work (1954) and The Humanities Project: A n Introduction (1970)*
T h e sociological work on th e rela tio n sh ip of social class to educa
tion is in its conclusions fam iliar to all: children of working-class
background are, if we take general tre n d s in large samples, relatively
disadvantaged in school as co m p ared to m iddle-class children. Why?
T h e fashionable answer is th a t th e y are handicapped by what Bern
stein called th e ‘restricted co d e’ o f th e ir language. T h is is less than
fair to Bernstein, who m akes it clear th a t divergence in habitual
linguistic code is a symptom o f a m u ch deeper cultural cleavage of
values and understandings, in fact, of perception of reality.
T h is poses a dilemma for th e cu rricu lu m developer. T o what
extent is the cultural dissonance o f th e school, experienced by working-
class children, the result of its em b o d y in g m iddle-class values and
perceptions o f reality and lin g u istic p a tte rn s which are, in the last
analysis, irrelevant to education? T o w h at extent is it the result of a
gap betw een everyday culture a n d th e c u ltu re of worthwhile learning
which is greater in the case o f w orking-class than middle-class
children? Should we change th e school o r should we change the
working-class child?
A bit of b o th I fancy, bu t I confess th a t I find it difficult to strike a
j2 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
balance. Some free schools have gone a long way to adjust the school
to working-class pupils, and com m unity ed u catio n has sought roots for
education in socially disadvantaged in n e r u rb a n com m unities. M id
w in ter (1973) and Lawton (1973), a m o n g st others, have argued that
th e gap is perhaps not so dram atic as has b een m ade out, that there are
advantages in working-class children developing elaborated codes of
language, for example, and th at they can do this if the right kind of
experience is offered. The H um anities P ro ject attem pted to produce
conditions in w hich pupils would be able to use the developing
c u ltu re of their own discussion group as a secure base from w hich to
en c o u n te r formal cultures and elaborated language codes. T h e re was
som e evidence th at striking successes w ere possible b u t difficult to
achieve against th e background assu m p tio n s of schools and teachers.
I am inclined to think that the crucial p ro b le m is the lack of respect
show n by teachers and schools for w orking-class children and working-
class culture, rath er than the existence o f linguistic and value barriers
w ith in the content of the curriculum . It was interesting to find, for
exam ple, that school leavers felt th a t teach ers devalued the blue-
collar jo b s which m ost of them reg ard ed as preferable to teaching.
I f respect for th e client is of central im p o rtan ce, we need to develop
teach in g strategies which em body su ch resp ect and ensure th at if
th e re is to be any translation, it is, in B ru n e r’s term s, a courteous one.
A change of posture of this sort tow ards th e pupil cannot be achieved
by a change of heart. A change of pedagogy is needed and this is a
technical achievement.
O ne factor in w hat I have called lack o f respect is well-characterized
by E sland (1971, 89):
T h is view regards the child - by definition - as a deficit system; a passive
object to be progressively initiated into the public thought forms which
exist outside him as massive coercive facticities, albeit ‘worthwhile’ ones.
I t also legitimates a didactic pedagogy - the good pupil is docile and
deferential, cognitively, at least - and it provides particular organising
principles for the selection and transmission of knowledge.
I f knowledge is to be approached as a resource and an open system

ra th e r th an as an imposition by th o se w ho possess it, new styles of
teach in g need to be evolved, and th is is by no m eans easy. It is one of
th e central tasks of curriculum research a n d developm ent to explore
th is possibility.
I tu rn now to th e question of th e significance of subject m atter for
teach in g strategy.
A com m onplace view m ight b e: th e su b je c t m atter is the end, the
Teaching 33
teaching strategy is the means. T h o s e strategies are best w hich are
m ost effective in attaining the end. A n d o f course we m ust be clear
about the end if we are to develop th e m eans.
In order to explore the im plications o f th is view I shall look briefly
at linear program m ing and teaching by objectives.
T h e conception of linear p ro g ram m in g was developed system ati
cally by B. F. Skinner, though his w ork was anticipated, in some
respects by Sidney Pressey (1927). Basically it is a m ethod of self-
instruction.
L inear program m ing was built on a th e o ry of operant conditioning,
w hich I cannot explore here, th o u g h it can be learned by pro
gram m ed instruction. (Holland a n d S k in n er 1961) T h e points I
wish to make are not dependent on a close understanding of that
theory.
In order to prepare an in stru ctio n al program m e, one m ust be
clear about the skills and inform ation th e stu d en ts are to learn by the
end of the program m e and the skills a n d inform ation they bring with
them on entry to the program me. T h e program m e provides a route
from entry poin t to completion p o in t. T h is route is not th e path of
continuous prose exposition, as in a book, b u t it is broken into a series
o f small steps, each one self-explanatory a n d carefully sequenced in
relation to the preceding and follow ing ones.
W hat do such steps look like? L e t us take three fram es frpm the
second set (chapter) of H olland an d S k in n e r’s program m e on The
Analysis o f Behaviour (1961):
T he student reads:
In a reflex, a sufficient explanation of the response is a description of the
preceding.............
He writes: ‘stimulus’.
T he next frame confirms his response as correct, and offers him:
When food in the mouth elicits the secretion of saliva, the whole series
of events is called a(n )............
He writes: ‘reflex’, and is offered:
Candy put in the mouth of a child for the first tim e ...............salivation.
E ach step asks for a response fro m th e student, and immediately
^rewards th e response if ‘co rrect’. S tep s are intended to be simple
enough to m ake failure rare on th e prin cip le, as it were, th a t nothing
succeeds like success. T h e extent to w hich you now feel that you
w ould like to fill in the last gap a n d discover w hether your answer is
correct is som e indication of th e capacity of th e program m e to
m otivate. T h e extent to which you are inclined to observe that the
use of the w ord ‘sufficient’ in th e first fram e is controversial is an
34 A n Introduction to C urriculum Development
indication of th e capacity of th e p ro g ra m m e to open up speculative
thinking.
T h e linear program m e is a fixed se q u en c e and is based on a careful
analysis of the subject matter. T h e w illingness of the teacher (pro
gram m e w riter) to discipline h im se lf to analyse his content and
achieve this sequence is in a sense a co u rtesy to the learner, and a
courtesy w hich some inspirational a n d intuitive teachers do not
always pay. O n the other hand th e a ssu m p tio n that the program m er
knows in a rath er absolute sense m ig h t be construed as a discourtesy
to th e learner if th e content is in a n y sense controversial. T h ere is
a n o th e r im portant point to be m ade :
No attempt is made to provide different treatm ent for different abilities
and aptitudes, but at least each individual works at the rate which suits
him best. For the dull and the bright pupil the only difference is that the
former will take longer to work through the programme. Both get there
in the end and by the same route.
(Richmond 1965, 45)
A ll pupils are treated impartially if im personally.
O ne of the strengths of p ro g ram m in g is the clarity it asks of the
teacher. T h ere are obvious lim itations. Program m ing ten d s to treat
c om m and of inform ation and u n d e rs ta n d in g as skills and to avoid
critical questions. As I have hinted, it is clear in the exam ple quoted
th a t a description of the preceding stim u lu s can be regarded as a
sufficient explanation of the response on ly w ithin the assum ptions and
universe of discourse of Skinner’s b e h a v io u rist psychology.
S kinner takes a strong position in th e face of criticism :
T h e cry will be raised that the child is being treated as a mere animal
and that an essentially intellectual achievem ent is being analysed in un
duly mechanistic terms. Mathematical behavior is usually regarded not
as a repertoire of responses involving num bers and numerical operations,
but as evidence of mathematical ability or the exercise of the power of
reason. It is true that the techniques which are emerging from the
experimental study of learning are not designed to ‘develop the mind' or
to further some vague ‘understanding’ of mathematical relationships.
T hey are designed, on the contrary, to establish the very behaviors which
are taken to be the evidence of such m ental states or processes. This
is only a special case of the general change which is under way in the
interpretation of human affairs. An advancing science continues to offer
more and more convincing alternatives to traditional formulations.
(Skinner 1953)
H e has gone farth er than this in s u b s e q u e n t writing. (S kinner 1971)
Teaching J5
Clearly, at the extreme, operant co n d itio n in g raises value issues of the
kind explored in A Clockwork Orange (B urgess 1962)
Program m ed learning undoubtedly has potential. It seems to me
to have three serious limitations. O ne is th a t it dem ands little critical
speculation of the learner and th u s offers him only the learning built
into the design: that is, it does n o t seek to ‘develop the mind*.
R elated to this is the second w eakness. I t provides restricted oppor
tu n ity for the transfer of learning: tra n sfe r possibilities m ust be pre
defined and built in by the program m er. Finally, though it deals in the
tactics of m otivation, it does little a b o u t th e strategy. W hy should I
w ant to learn what is in the program m e? It is necessary to posit a
process of education (or self-education) outside the program m e.
W ithin its limits it has great stre n g th s. G iven that I have a general
speculative grasp of a field of know ledge and want to extend my skills
or inform ation in a particular area, a program m ed course may suit me
very well.
A m ore general question a b o u t th e organization of teaching is
w orth raising here. W ould som e o f th e analytic rigour involved in
program m ing — clarity of objective an d analysis of paths to it -
im prove teaching by more conventional m ethods? T h e re are indeed
m any who believe that the answ er is ‘Y es’, and who see great pros
pect in teaching by objectives.
Briefly, th e logic of the position is this. T eaching is intentional
behaviour w hich clearly has som e aim . T h a t aim ought to be clear. If
th e teacher can get his aim clear, generally by spelling out the
changes he expects to produce in th e stu d e n ts or the performances of
w hich they should become capable, th e n th e p ath to th a t aim should
be clarified. Moreover, if his aim is clear, he ought to be able to test
w hether th at aim has been attained.
O n the other hand, objections can be raised to this way of picturing
the jo b of teaching.
F o r instance, Philip Jackson, w hile adm itting th at benefits have
accrued from th e approach to teach in g th ro u g h behavioural objectives,
observes th a t ‘T he business o f teach in g involves m uch more than
defining curricular objectives and m oving tow ard them w ith dispatch.’
(Jackson 1968, 165) He points to th e unpredictability of classroom
events and the opportunist response of teachers.
As typically conducted, teaching is an opportunistic process. That is to
say, neither the teacher nor his students can predict with any certainty
exactly what will happen next. Plans are forever going awry and unex
pected opportunities for the attainm ent of educational goals are con
stantly emerging. The seasoned teacher seizes upon these opportunities
j6 A n Introduction to Curriculum Dei'elopment
and uses them to his and his students’ advantage. If a discussion is mov
ing along at full tilt he may decide to forget about a scheduled test and
let the discussion continue. If a student makes an unusual error in his
arithmetic notebook, he may call the class to attention and warn them
against making a similar mistake. If a fight breaks out in the playground,
the teacher may decide to cancel the activity planned for the next period
and spend the time talking to his students about the meaning of fair
play. And so it goes. Although most teachers make plans in advance,
they are aware as they make them of the likelihood of change.
Although gross changes in the teacher’s plans provide the clearest
evidence of the unpredictability of classroom events, the same quality
is also revealed through a more microscopic analysis of teacher-pupil
interaction. Stray thoughts, sudden insights, meandering digressions,
irrelevant asides, and other minor disruptions constantly ruffle the
smoothness of the instructional dialogue. Experienced teachers accept
this state of affairs and come to look upon surprise and uncertainty as
natural features of their environment. T hey know, or come to know,
that the path of educational progress more closely resembles the flight
of a butterfly than the flight of a bullet.
(Jackson 1968, 166-167)
Jackson is w riting here of th e ex perience o f life in classroom s.
F ro m th e point of view of the c u rric u lu m p lan n er or developer, the
pro b lem is w hether to use the conceptual fram ew ork of objectives in
designing a curriculum and evaluating it. O ne aspect of th a t problem
is w h eth er to specify a curriculum to tea c h e rs in term s of objectives.
T h a t aspect is relevant here.
U nless a teacher internalizes objectives, m akes them p a rt of his
b eing and weaves them naturally into his teaching, it is unlikely that
th e y will in fact exercise a controlling force on his teaching. T h is seems
ra th e r rare. But given that, how is th e te a c h e r to ju d g e th at a classroom
tran sactio n offers an ‘opportunity* o r th a t an aside is ‘irrelev an t’ w ith
o u t criteria to which he can refer? A nd w hat criteria other th a n objec
tives m ight he use?
I t m ay be th at th e structures of know ledge provide a basis for an
alternative approach. T his would accord w ith H irst’s objection to ‘the
n o tio n th a t a liberal education can be d irectly characterized in term s
o f m ental abilities and independently o f fully specifying th e form s of
know ledge involved*. (H irst 1965, 118)
I f there are disciplines of knowledge w hich are stru c tu re d and have
logical procedures and tests for tru th , is n o t th e aim of teaching a
discipline to explore the structure, to get som e bearings w ithin it?
As H irst says, ‘understanding a form o f know ledge is far m ore like
com ing to know a country than clim bing a lad d e r’. (H irst 1965, 135)
Teaching 37
L et us take another analogy, for th e ideas involved here are a little
hard to grasp. Chess may be taken as a sim ple model of a discipline
o f knowledge about a simplified w orld of pieces and squares. Certain
sim ple skills are necessary to b e g in : we m u st know the basic moves.
T h e se can be dealt with through objectives. S tandard openings are
m ore difficult. First a learner needs to see a use for them , and then to
u n d erstan d the principles of each. H e needs to explore them as they
arouse his interest. For much of th e tim e, beyond this, we cannot tell
th e learner exactly what to do. W e can advise him on principles, we
can help him analyse his successes and failures and the games of
others. But he m ust move autonom ously, he m u st act under his own
direction if he is to learn. And note, som etim es he will beat the teacher,
and he can never arrive at the p o in t w here he has learnt all.
It is m aintained by some that th is is th e best way to learn a disci
pline. F irst find your philosopher. T h e n begin to do philosophy with
him . Ask him to point out to you any obvious areas you ought to
explore and to analyse and criticize y o u r w ork with you.
T h e re are of course some snags. T h e teach er m ust know his own
su b ject; and he m ust be secure en o u g h to rejoice when he is beaten
o r even overtaken by his pupil. T h e s e are not easy conditions. Indeed,
tho u g h it may well be argued th a t it is m ore likely to be possible to
absorb a discipline and make it o n e ’s ow n th an to possess in the
sam e sense a schedule of objectives, yet it m u st be confessed th at such
m astery is not typical of all teachers. D evelopm ent tow ards rAastery
o f a subject is, however, a w orthw hile and satisfying professional aim
for a teacher. M oreover, there is, it is argued, a teaching strategy
w hich invites the teacher to cast h im self in th e role of a learner in his
work so that his life in his classroom ex tends rather than constricts
his intellectual horizons. A good classroom , by this criterion, is one
in w hich things are learned evey day w hich th e teacher did no t previ
ously know.
T h is teaching strategy is called discovery- o r inquiry-based teach
ing. O ften the two term s have b een u sed interchangeably. I have
trie d to draw a distinction which m ig h t be useful, but is not generally
adopted.
Instruction-based teaching implies that the task in hand is the teacher’s
passing on to his pupils knowledge or skills of which he is master. In
discovery-based teaching the teacher intoduces his pupils into situations
so selected or devised that they embody in implicit or hidden form
principles or knowledge which he wishes them to learn. Thus, Cuisen-
aire rods embody numerical principles. Instruction and discovery are
appropriate in the classroom whenever the desirable outcome of
jg Jln Introduction to Curriculum Development
teaching can be specified in some detail and is broadly the same for
every pupil.
Where a curriculum area is in a divergent, rather than in a convergent,
field, i.e. where there is no simple correct or incorrect outcome, but
rather an emphasis on the individual responses and judgements of the
students, the case for an inquiry-based approach is at its strongest.
(Stenhouse 1968, 30)
I believe this to be true! of the disciplines. T h e superficialities of the
disciplines may be taught by pure in stru ctio n , b u t the capacity to
th in k w ithin the disciplines can only be ta u g h t by inquiry. W hat
is characteristic of the advocacy o f in q u iry -b ased teaching in this
sense is the assertion th at one can think in a discipline at elem entary as
well as advanced levels of study.
Schw ab has characterized inquiry teach in g as an in quiry into
inquiries, th at is, a learning of the strateg ies of inquiry in different
disciplines. A nd he characterizes th e s tru c tu re of a discipline as
having a syntax. T h u s, the key pro b lem for th e teacher is th e syn
tactical structure of the disciplines he teaches.
T his problem is hidden in the fact that if different sciences pursue
knowledge of their respective subject m atters by means of different
conceptual frames, it is very likely that there will be major differences
between one discipline and another in the way and in the extent to which
it can verify its knowledge. There is, then, the problem of determining
for each discipline what it does by way of discovery and proof, what
criteria it uses for measuring the quality of its data, how strictly it can
apply canons of evidence, and in general, of determining the route or
pathway by which the discipline moves from raw data through a longer
or shorter process of interpretation to its conclusion.
(Schwab 1964, 14)
T h e general position is consonant w ith th a t o f H irst and w ith that
o f B runer. It m ight be said to lead u s n o t tow ards in struction to
w ards objectives b u t towards inquiry in th e light of w hat Peters has
called ‘principles of procedure’. (P eters 1959)
I n M a n : A Course o f Stu d y, th e social science curriculum with
w hich B runer was associated, the prin cip les of procedure or ‘peda
gogical aim s’ are stated at a high level :
1. T o initiate and develop in youngsters a process of question-posing
(the inquiry method);
2. T o teach a research methodology where children can look for infor
m ation to answer questions they have raised and use the framework
developed in the course (e.g. the concept of the life cycle) and apply it
to new areas;
Teaching 39
3. T o help youngsters develop the ability to use a variety of first-hand
sources as evidence from which to develop hypotheses and draw
conclusions;
4. To conduct classroom discussions in which youngsters learn to
listen to others as well as to express their own views;
5. To legitimize the search; that is, to give sanction and support to
open-ended discussions where definitive answers to many questions are
no.t found;
6. To encourage children to reflect on their own experiences;
7. To create a new role for the teacher, in which he becomes a resource
rather than an authority.
{M an: A Course of Study 1970, 5)
Som e people would term these process objectives. I think th a t prin
ciples of procedure is a m uch b e tte r term , b o th as avoiding confusion
w ith objectives in the norm al sense a n d as stressing th e need for
teacher judgem ent and grasp o f c rite ria a n d principles.
T h e above statem ent would s ta n d for m ost inquiry-based curricula
w ith small alterations.
T h e H um anities Project, w orking in th e area of the discussion of
controversial issues, was very m u c h in th is tradition. But lacking the
research m ethodology of a discipline (p rinciple 2 above), it sought to
create for educational purposes a discip lin e of discussion w hich aimed
at understanding rather than consensus. I t also laid heavier stress on
th e role definition of the teacher - as a n e u tra l chairm an - in 6rder to
provide a sharpness and existential focus to th e dilemm as of this style
o f teaching.
I do not think that any c u rricu lu m innovation is likely substantially
to im prove intellectual power if it is n o t centrally concerned with the
betterm ent of teaching. T h e im p ro v e m e n t o f teaching is a process of
developm ent. I mean by th is: first, th a t it is not to be achieved by a
change of heart but by the th o u g h tfu l refinem ent of professional skill;
and second, th a t the refinem ent o f professional skill is generally
achieved by th e gradual elim ination o f failings through the systematic
study of one’s own teaching.
Both curriculum developm ent a n d research into teaching should
provide a base for this professionalism . T h e y have begun to do so; but
th ere is m uch to be done if tea c h e rs are to get a research base on
w hich to m ount a programme o f professional self developm ent.
4
KNOWLEDGE, TEACHING,
A N D THE S C H O O L
AS A N I N S T I T U T I O N
I n th is chapter I shall be concerned w ith th e social construction of

reality in schools, and in particular w ith th e way in which the needs of
schools as institutions influence the c h a ra c te r o f the knowledge they
offer to pupils.
T h e culture of the school influences th e experience of the pupils
a n d teachers who work in it in u n p la n n e d ways. Philip Jackson,
h a v in g considered the social massing o f c h ild re n in school, th e ir being
u n d e r constant explicit evaluation a n d th e inequality of pow er b e
tw e e n teacher and pupil, observes th a t ‘th e crow ds, the praise, and the
p o w e r th a t com bine to give a distinctive flavour to classroom life
collectively form a hidden curriculum w hich each student (and teacher)
m u s t m aster if he is to make his way satisfactorily through th e school.
T h e dem ands created by these featu res o f classroom life m ay be
c o n tra ste d w ith the academic dem ands - th e “ official cu rricu lu m ” , so
to speak - to w hich educators traditionally have paid the m ost a tte n
tio n ’. A nd he goes on to suggest that ‘th e tw o curriculum s are related
to each o th er in several im portant w ays’. (Jackson 1968, 3 3 - 3 4 )
I w ant to discuss in this book tw o w ays in which the school as an
in stitu tio n affects curriculum and th e p ro ce ss o f curriculum develop
m e n t. F irst it offers content which m ay contradict or reinforce its
e x p ressed curricular intentions b u t w h ic h is not publicly acknow
led g ed . T h is is som etim es called the h id d e n curriculum . In som e cases
it escapes policy control within the school since it is taken for granted.
I n o th e r cases it is the subject of u n d e rg ro u n d or half-acknow ledged
p o licy control. F or example, I taught in a school in w hich certain
b o tto m stream classes were allocated to an old elem entary school
h a lf a mile away w hich served as an an n ex . 'Teachers arrived late,
th e re were no labs or workshops, th e m ain aim of the teachers was
to keep th e stu d en ts quiet. And out th e re th e y could not contam inate
th e m ain school. N obody wanted to talk a b o u t it, but it was a sub-
Knowledge, Teaching, the School as an Institution 41
stantial factor in any analysis o f th e c u rricu lu m offered to those
children. It is the way the school sets up its reality and constructs its
view of knowledge that I shall discuss in th is chapter.
In a later chapter I shall consider th e problem s a school as an
organization may encounter in p u ttin g its curricular intentions into
practice. T h e two problems are in te rre la te d , b u t the first concerns
th e ‘content* of the school’s in stitu tio n a l life, and the second is
concerned w ith its capacity for action to w ard s change.
O ne of the crucial aspects of th e school in respect to its values is the
gap betw een pupils and teachers an d p a re n ts. Now, in one sense, this
is to be expected, since teachers re p re se n t a value system to which it is
in ten d ed th a t the pupils should be exposed, and the school exists be
cause these values are not generally a n d system atically available in
society. However, the problem is w h e th e r th e values represented by
th e school accord with intentions we could justify.
T h e Schools* Council Enquiry N o . 1 su rv ey ed pupils*, parents* and
teachers* views of school objectives. I w an t to consider one of their
findings. T h ey reported that:
Both 15 year old leavers and their parents very widely saw the provision
of knowledge and skills which would enable young people to obtain the
best jobs and careers of which they are capable as one of the main
functions that a school should undertake. Teachers, however, very
generally rejected the achievement of vocational success as a> major
objective of education.
(Schools Council 1968, 45)
T h e n comes the interesting in te rp re ta tio n :
It is evident therefore that conflict and misunderstanding may arise
* between the short term viewpoint of parents and pupils who are con
cerned with starting work in the im m ediate future and the long term
objectives of teachers who see their responsibility as preparing pupils
for the whole of their lives.
I have read this statement m any tim es an d it still takes m y breath
away. I should have thought th a t n o th in g is m ore far-sighted than to
w ish to be a p rin te r or a shipw right ra th e r th a n a porter o ra van-boy or
- often enough - unemployed; yet th e claim appears to be m ade that
in concerning themselves with su ch issues parents and pupils show
them selves to be less wise and far-sig h ted th a n teachers.
B ut th e situation needs close sc ru tin y . T h e re are two im portant
background facts to be noted. W e are concerned here w ith early
leavers; and the commentary is n o t w ritte n by a teacher, b u t in an
official publication.
I should be prepared to claim th a t vocational success is one of the
m o st powerful factors in the pupils* lo n g -te rm future. C ertainly, in
m y experience gram m ar schools and p u b lic schools go along with
p a re n ts and pupils in valuing highly th e achievem ent of such success.
B u t teachers have traditionally know n little of the early leavers*
w orld. Probably only a minority of tea c h e rs can evaluate th e pros and
cons of various apprenticeships, or u n d e rs ta n d the rew ards and the
stresses of long-distance transport d riv in g , horticultural work or
m o to r car factory work. Teachers in school often understand less than
th e y m ight the fu rth e r education secto r an d its p attern of qualifica
tio n s. A nd m ost teachers are u n d e rm in ed if they face squarely the
p ro b lem s of youthful unem ploym ent. A ll th is is easily understandable
a n d m any teachers are deeply concerned a b o u t th e situation.
H ow ever, the com m ent in Enquiry N o . I docum ents an im portant
clim ate in the context in which the school has to work. Official policies
te n d to endorse those teachers who tu r n aw ay from the practical and
vocational realities of their pupils a n d a p p eal to higher things. Indeed,
o n e m ight go so far as to speculate w h e th e r th e results of th e survey
are n o t influenced by the pressure te a c h e rs feel to talk about their
educational endeavours in term s of th e good life rather th a n in term s
o f th e practical problem s of securing a basis on w hich to live it.
A re teachers expected by society to c o m b a t th e aspirations of leavers
a n d th eir parents by making it clear th a t th e plentiful supply of cakes
th e school can offer makes it sh o rt-sig h ted to dem and bread?
T h e re is a related point worth m aking. T h e power of th e British
school to define reality and knowledge is increased by the fact th at in
B ritain the teacher is taken to be w ise in deciding w hat his pupils
shall learn and not sim ply know ledgeable in teaching them w hat they
have decided to learn or what society h as decided they should learn.
T rad itio n ally com paratively little choice o f curriculum has lain w ith
th e p upil - as com pared with the U n ite d S tates for exam ple. And
teach ers have been rather free of policy co n strain ts on the curriculum
- as com pared say w ith Sweden, w h ere m o st people would regard it
as im p ro p er th a t curricular decisions s h o u ld lie w ith teachers rather
th a n in the dem ocratic political process. A ll these factors are potent
for th e relationship of reality in th e school to reality outside it. T he
B ritish system is well equipped to resist policies of indoctrination
b e in g im posed upon it, and this also e n su re s th a t it is in a good posi
tio n to resist the reality at its doors.
T h e gap betw een pupils and te a c h e rs and the outside world is
o fte n rath er a large one, and it is o fte n expressed indirectly through
th e im plicit values of the school ra th e r th a n th ro u g h its curriculum .
Knowledge , Teaching, and the School as an Institution 43
K ing (1969), in a study of Values an d Involvem ent in a Grammar
School, provides a list of pupils* in terests and activities ordered
according to the extent to w hich th ey receive teachers’ overall ap
proval and disapproval. Here is th e ranked list. T h e higher in the list,
th e greater the approval. All those activities below the line were more
disapproved than approved.
1. Reading worthwhile books

2. Camping
3. Debating
4. Theatre visits
Swimming
6. Amateur dramatics
Painting and drawing
Athletics
9. Playing an instrument
10. Listening to classical music
Natural history
12. Visiting picture galleries
Playing cricket
14. Duke of Edinburgh’s Award
Tennis
16. Playing rugger
17. Woodwork
Keeping pets
19. Being a Scout or a member of the Boys’ Brigade
Girl friend (fifth or sixth form)
Holiday job
22. Youth club
23. Making radios, etc.
Photography
Playing soccer
Badminton
27. Cycling
28. Choir singing
29. Aero modelling
30. Table tennis
Doing science experiments at hom e
32. Joining the A.T.C.
33. Listening to jazz records
34. Fishing
Crosswords.
Collecting stamps, coins, etc.
Going to public dances
38. Roller skating
Driving a car
Bridge
41. Reading science fiction
42. Saturday job
Going to the cinema once a week
Belonging to a youth political movement
45. Listening to pop records

46. Twisting or jiving
47. Going to soccer matches
48. Visiting jazz clubs
Scootering
50. Solo
51. Paper round
Wearing the latest teenage fashions
53. Hitch-hiking
54. Ten pin bowling
55. Seeing X certificate films
56. Billiards and snooker
Visiting public houses (legally)
58. Motor bike
59. Reading novels emphasizing sex and violence
60. Smoking
(King 1969, 68-69)
T h is list could well be used to distinguish goodies from baddies

in th e public school stories of my youth. B u n tcr, like FalstaflF, wras
large enough to break the mould.
T h e re are some interesting features. T h e a ttitu d e reflected is pre-
M acL u h an . Books are 1 and theatre is 4 b u t cinem a is 42 and tele
vision has not been included. You cannot stay tu n e d to radio 3, for
th o u g h classical m usic is 10, jazz is 33 and you could spend your
tim e a lot better th an that. It may be, how ever, th a t listening to jazz
records is construed as an unsupervised p eer group activity. All
social situations above this and going to dances (34) appear to be
supervised by adults. Political awareness seem s to be disapproved (42).
R ugger rates b etter th an soccer - 16 as against 23 - and going to
soccer m atches is actually disapproved (47); 59 is not, I think,
in tended to exclude Wuthering Heights o r H elen W addell’s Peter
A belard or The Dam Busters. One is u n su re w hether it excludes
F ielding’s Tom Jones.
O f course this list cannot be applied to any school, b u t a similarly
organized list could be made. It suggests a su b stan tial hidden curri
culum . In this case, it appears to have social class im plications, prob-
ably divides the staff and is d istrustful o f autonom y in pupils. It may
be com pared w ith the teachers’ ranking o f values in the sam e book.
(K in g 1969, 61)
W aller (1932) considers the stru c tu re o f th e separate culture which
grow s up within the school.
T h e social relationships centering in the school may be analysed in terms
of the interacting groups in the school. T h e two most important groups
arc the teacher-group and the pupil-group, each of which has its own
moral and ethical code and its customary attitudes toward members of the
other groups. There is a marked tendency for these groups to turn into
conflict groups. W ithin the teach groups are divisions according to rank
and position, schismatic and conspirital groups, congenial groups, and
cliques centering round different personalities. Within the student
groups are various divisions representing groups in the larger community,
unplanned primary groups stair-stepping according to age, cliques,
political organisations, and specialised groups such as teams and gangs.
T he social influence of the school is a result of the action of such groups
upon the individual and of the organisation of individual lives out of the
materials furnished by such groups.
(Waller 1932, 12)
T eachers, like students, are pressed to w a rd s conform ity to institu
tional expectations, and the personalities th e y present in the school
are often different from those they p re se n t in th e social life outside the
school. T h ere is a professional persona, o ften the result of tension
betw een the stereotyped role o f th e te a c h e r and the real person
w ho fills it. And reality may be seen q u ite differently by the teachei
inside and outside school. For exam ple a tea c h e r may both urge his
p upils tow ards reading good literatu re a n d away from television and
sp en d m ost of his evenings w atching television.
T h e jo b of the teacher in his n eg o tiatio n w ith the student group
m ay be seen as an attem pt to influence th e content through which
th ey interact and the criteria or sta n d a rd s w hich govern the orienta
tio n o f th eir interaction.
We may say that the core of the teaching process lies in the teachers*
judgem ent of the standards adopted by the pupils. According to his own
standards, the teacher deploys his rewards and punishments, encour
agement and discouragement in order to influence the standards of the
group. These group standards form the basis of the social pressures
which in turn influence the individual standards of the group members.
T h e question of the sources of the teacher’s standards arises, and we
shall expect to find these standards accepted in the groups from which
the teacher draws his cultural support.
(Stcnhouse 1963, 127)
M any of these groups are reference g ro u p s outside the school,
w hose influence has been instanced in th e co m m en ts of Enquiry No. I .
B ut a powerful group is the professional g ro u p in the school as it
reacts both to these external pressures and to th e problem s encountered
w ithin the school itself. Among these p ro b lem s th a t of pupil control
features largely. T h e re is in many schools a consciousness of the
possibility of insurrection by the subject p opulation.
W illow er, Eidell and Hoy conceptualized th e response to this
th re a t by adapting to the educational situation a continuum of control
ideology ranging from ‘custodialism* at one extrem e to ‘humanism* at
th e other. T h e poles of the continuum are ideal types in M ax W eber’s
sense, th at is, they are pure types not necessarily found in purity
in em pirical study. Willower and his colleagues developed the
follow ing prototypes of custodial and hu m an istic orientations tow ards
p u p il control.
T h e rigidly traditional school serves as a model for the custodial
orientation. This kind of organization provides a highly controlled
setting concerned primarily with the maintenance of order. Students
are stereotyped in terms of their appearance, behaviour, and parents*
social status. They are perceived as irresponsible and undisciplined
persons who must be controlled through punitive sanctions. Teachers
do not attempt to understand student behaviour, but, instead, view it in
moralistic terms. Misbehaviour is taken as a personal affront. Relation
ships with students are maintained on as impersonal a basis as possible.
Pessimism and watchful mistrust imbue the custodial viewpoint.
Teachers holding a custodial orientation conceive of the school as an
autocratic organisation with rigidly maintained distinctions between the
status of teachers and that of pupils: both power and communication
flow downward, and students are expected to accept the decisions of
teachers without question. Teachers and students alike feel responsible
for their actions only to the extent that orders are carried out to the
letter.
T he model of the humanistic orientation is the school conceived of as
an educational community in which members learn through interaction
and experience. Students’ learning and behaviour is viewed in psycho
logical and sociological terms rather than moralistic terms. Learning is
looked upon as an engagement in worthwhile activity rather than the
passive absorption of facts. The withdrawn student is seen as a prob
lem equal to that of the overactive, troublesome one. T he humanistic
teacher is optimistic that, through close personal relationships with
pupils and the positive aspects of friendship and respect, students will
be self-disciplining rather than disciplined. A humanistic orientation
leads teachers to desire a democratic classroom climate with its attendent
flexibility in status and rules, open channels of two-way communication,
Knowledgey Teaching, and the School as an Institution 47
and increased student self-determination. Teachers and pupils alike are
willing to act on their own volition and to accept responsibility for their
actions.
(Willower, Eidell and Hoy 1967, 5-6)
Now it seems quite clear that th e g eneral pictu re of reality and the
conception of knowledge tran sm itted to p u p ils in schools approxi
m ating to these models will be radically different. In the first, know
ledge, like control, depends upon th e hierarchical authority of persons:
the expert is not there to be questioned, b u t to in stru ct and to test. He
is a source rather than a resource.
In another paper Willower (1965, 44) hypothesizes th at the employ
m ent of external controls by teachers will be positively related to the
displacem ent of instructional objectives. E ducational goals give way
u n d e r the pressure of control goals. H e observes th at ‘if acceptance
w ithin the teacher group is based u p o n com m itm ent to and com
petence in the use of external controls ra th e r th an com petence in
instruction; th en instructional goals will be pushed into th e back
ground, th at is, displaced’.
T h is is a shrew d, but a rather a b stra ct statem ent. L et me give two
observed examples. A teacher of h isto ry gives a test on half sheets of
paper when pupils enter the room . H e finds this settles the class and
contributes to control. As he tears th e p a p e r for the test these effects
are visible in the children. In o rder to do th is he has to teach st kind
of history which is extremely closed a n d positive, and w hich thus
lends itself to one-w ord or short answ ers. T h is is not the kind of
history he would defend in conversation w ith a historian. Its main
justification is th a t it is a good kin d o f history through w hich to
dom inate and control his class.
T h is is an example of c u rricu lu m co n ten t being influenced
th ro u g h control ideology. A second exam ple is of influence on teach
ing strategy. By and large learning is m o st likely to be prom oted by
asking questions o f those who can give in terestin g and informative
answers. But the stress of control a n d th e associated motivational
problem s induce m ost teachers to ad d ress a very high proportion of
th eir questions to pupils who, th ey are well able to predict, will not
know th e answers. T h e questioning is p u n itiv e rath er than elucidatory.
T h e m ost thorough and system atic tre a tm e n t of the influence of the
school’s organization and value system on its curricular organization
o f knowledge is th a t of Bernstein. H is p a p e r, ‘O n the Classification
and Fram ing of Educational K now ledge’ (1971), is extrem ely tightly
w ritten. I cannot do justice to it in a su m m ary and m ust restrict
m yself to an account sufficient to su sta in th e present argum ent.
B ernstein distinguishes two types of cu rricu la, a collection ty p e in
w h ic h th e various content elements are clearly b o u nded and insulated
fro m each other; and an integrated type w here th e contents stand in an
o p e n relation to each other. It is possible to identify these types w ith
su b ject-b ased and integrated types of cu rricu la and to som e extent
B ern stein appears to do this; but I th in k th a t such identification
n e e d s to be guarded, as I shall explain later.
T w o concepts are also introduced, nam ely classification and fram e.
C lassification refers to th e degree of b o u n d a ry m aintenance betw een
c o n te n ts. Fram e refers to the degree o f co n tro l teacher and pup il
possess over the selection, organization and pacing of th e know
led g e transm itted and received in the pedagogical relationship.
E ducational knowledge codes are defined at a general level by the
relatio n sh ip between classification and fram e. Specific exam ples are
g iv en w hich help to explain what is at stake. E uropean broad subject-
b a sed curricula have strong classification and exceptionally stro n g
fra m in g , i.e. central direction of the selection, organization and pacing
o f know ledge. T h e English specialized c u rric u lu m involves exception
ally stro n g classification with strong b o u n d a rie s betw een specialist
o p tio n s, but it is m uch weaker in fram ing th a n is com m on in E urope.
I h av e already rem arked on the English te a c h e r’s com parative freedom
fro m th e direction of central policy. O f th e A m erican situation B ern
s te in w rites:
T h e course-based, non-specialised U .S.A . form of the collection, I
suggest, has the weakest classification and framing of the collection
code, especially at the secondary and university level. A far greater
range of subjects can be taken at the secondary and university level, and
these are capable of combination; this indicates weak classification.
(Bernstein 1971, 235)
In teg ratio n , as Bernstein uses it, refe rs m inim ally to th e su b
o rd in a tio n of previously insulated su b jects o r courses to som e rela
tio n a l idea. Integration can be handled by one teacher or by a group
o f teachers. It is here th a t I would w an t to re tu rn to my earlier note
o f cau tio n about the identification of in te g ratio n w ith the w ord used
to s ta n d for actual practices in the school. F irst, if the relational idea
is n o t strong enough or not sufficiently pow erful in the te a c h e r’s
th in k in g , th en th e integrated study m ay n o t integrate. H am ilton
(*973) h as produced a close em pirical s tu d y of the way in w hich
classification is in fact m aintained in a g ro u p of teachers handling
S c o ttis h integrated science. Second, if in te g rate d units exist side by
s id e in a school, they can readily b ecom e a new collection code of
‘s u b je c ts ’.
Knowledge, Teaching, and the School as an Institution 49
In fact, it is arguable that in te g ratio n as B ernstein discusses it
depends on the capacity of those involved to hold on to a particular
open attitude to knowledge. It depends u p o n the abandonm ent of the
idea of knowledge as a possession and a source of power to be dis
pensed grudgingly to those who accept th e system hierarchy and are
p repared to defer satisfaction. F o r th e collection code holds the
hierarchy in place.
Any collection code involves an hierarchical organization of knowledge,
such that the ultimate mystery if the subject is revealed very late in the
educational life. By the ultimate m ystery of the subject, I mean its
potential for creating new realities. It is also the case, and this is im
portant, that the ultimate mystery of the subject is not coherence, but
incoherence; not order, but disorder; not the known, but the unknown.
As this mystery, under collection codes, is revealed very late in educa
tional life - and then only to a select few who have shown the signs of
successful socialization - then only the few experiejice in their bones the
notion that knowledge is permeable, that its orderings are provisional,
that the dialectic of knowledge is closure and openness. For the many,
socialization into knowledge is socialization into order, the existing
order, into the experience that the w orld’s educational knowledge is
impermeable. Do we have here another version of alienation?
. . . T he key concept of the European collection code is discipline.
This means learning to work zvithin a received frame. It means, in
particular, learning what questions can be put at any particular time.
(Bernstein 1971, 240-241)
In short, the pressure upon th e school to m aintain its own order

th ro u g h a hierarchical relationship leads to th e generation of an ideol
ogy whose function is social control. T h is ideology does not con
form to knowledge as it is used in society, b u t rath er to knowledge as it
is possessed. As Bernstein has it, th e em p h asis is on states of know
ledge rather th an ways of knowing. T h e effect is th at the control
p roblem in the school tends to shape know ledge in such a way that
only those who enter the establishm ent can innovate. Acceptance
ra th e r th an speculation is the p ro d u ct.
B ernstein’s analysis is theoretical an d h e com m ents th at it stands in
need of em pirical testing. T he H u m a n itie s Project, which was con
cerned w ith stu d en ts’ access to know ledge a n d ability to utilize it,
particularly as this problem relates to th e au th o rity of schools and
teachers, was engaged in exploring B e rn ste in ’s area o f interest, though
n o t in the light o f his theory.
By selecting as content controversial h u m a n issues the project was
able to work in a curriculum area w h e re teachers could no t claim
t^o A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
a u th o rity on the basis of their subject tra in in g . Since the project was
flexible in its application, it had different p a tte rn s of im plem entation
in different schools. A common one was to in tro d u c e hum anities as a
su b je c t within a collection code. O ne u n u su a l feature of hum anities
was th a t the teacher groups handling it crossed subject qualifi
cations draw ing comm only on specialists in E nglish, history, geog
rap h y , religious education and social science and less com m only on
specialists in m athem atics, science, physical education and dom estic
science. It weakened traditional classification boundaries in the staff
room , though experim enting teachers o fte n created a tight group,
casting them selves as innovators, id en tify in g them selves w ith the
p ro je c t as a possession and thereby try in g to p ro te c t them selves from
th e institutional pressures they experienced w ith in the school.
F ram in g was very weak, the stru c tu re b eing provided less by
com m onality o f selection, organization a n d pacing of knowledge
th a n by the acceptance of a comm on te a c h e r role, th at of neutral
chairm an. T his role was extremely difficult to im plem ent in practice,
p a rtly because it cut across the assum ptions o f th e traditional peda-
gogy, partly because it involved technical p ro b lem s, which m eant th at
teach ers experienced incompetence. (M a c D o n a ld 1973a) Both the
te n sio n in im plem enting the role and th e effects observed suggest
th a t Bernstein m ay have underestim ated pedagogical role as a m eans
o f a lte rin g the perspective from which p u p ils en co u n ter knowledge in
school. In this case there was a shift of te a c h e r’s status base from their
su b je c t affiliation tow ards professional identification with pedagogical
skills and the capacity to mount ex p erim ental innovation.
T h e evaluation study suggests th a t a range of results of a kind
w h ich m ight be predicted on the basis o f B ernstein’s theory did
tak e , place. T h e re was rather extensive evidence of an increase in
speculative confidence in students and also o f increm ents in reading
com prehension, vocabulary and p u p il self-esteem , am ong other
variables.
I n som e cases th e project had an influence w hich spread in the
school. Schools w hich wished to contain it d id ‘seem in m any cases
to react by tightening classification, c re a tin g a hum anities dep art
m e n t and stabilizing the composition o f th e teach er team involved.
O n th e whole, however, when th e e th o s o f th e project becam e
established, it seem ed to survive b e tte r th a n in some integrated
co d e curricula. W ith complex in tegrated curricula, team teaching
o fte n appeats to lead to tight fram ing; tea c h e rs facing the uncertain
tie s o f open endedness without a firm role close dow n on possibilities
a n d obtain security and power by teach in g p u p ils w hat questions can
be p u t at any particular time; and th e custodial function of the school
is reinforced by strong developm ents on th e pastoral side.
T hese are of course only em pirical im pressions, but it is clear that
w ithin the relevant curriculum projects d ata does exist for the em piri
cal testing and further developm ent of B ern stein ’s theory. Certainly,
th ere is considerable evidence of ideologies in schools which con
stitu te institutionally reinforced im p e d im e n ts to the realization of
curricula em bodying open views of know ledge.
5
BEHAVIOURAL OBJECTIVES
AND CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT
I n th e p a st th ree chapters I have reviewed som e aspects of the nature

o f know ledge, of teaching and of schools w h ic h have central relevance
to c u rric u lu m developm ent. In the next five c h a p te rs I tu rn to p ro b
lem s in th e design of curriculum developm ent. M o st of the discussion
w ill be relevant both to development in a sin g le school and develop
m e n t th ro u g h th e agency of a curriculum p ro je c t w orking with m any
schools.
T h e organization of the discussion is so m e w h at unusual in th at I
p ro p o se to tre a t the problem s of c u rricu lu m developm ent separately
fro m th o se of curriculum evaluation, to w h ic h I tu rn in C hapter 8,
afte r having reviewed tw o strategies for dev elo p m en t. In C hapter 9, I
shall consider the prospect of synthesizing d evelopm ent and evalua
tio n .
In any consideration of design in c u rric u lu m one m ust, I think,
s ta rt fro m th e classic m odel which is based o n objectives. T h is can be
tra c ed in its m odern form to the two books o f th e A m erican, B o b b itt:
T he Curriculum (1918) and How to M a k e a Curriculum (1924). Be
lieving th a t ‘H um an life . . . . consists in th e p erform ance of specific
activities*, B obbit held th at ‘Education w h ic h prep ares for life is one
th a t p rep a re s definitely and adequately fo r th e se specific activities.*
(1918, 42) K liebard (1968, 243) in a review of B obbitt’s work
c o m m e n ts :
Bobbitt undertook the specification of those activities as educational
objectives. By setting out the range of m an’s adult activity in detail, he
hoped to introduce a practicality and scientific objectivity into the
uncertainty and speculation that surrounded the question of the purposes
of schooling.
In one form or another the idea o f objectives was current in
A m erican w riting on th e curriculum from B o b b itt onw ards; b u t th e
Behavioural Objectives and Curriculum Development 53
m o st lucid and straightforw ard account o f th e use of objectives in
cu rricu lu m developm ent remains th a t o f T y le r (1949).
T h e school is a purposive in stitu tio n , education an intentional
activity. T yler starts from the q u estio n : w h a t educational purposes
sh o u ld the school seek to attain? and he eq u ates a purpose with an
objective or goal. Education is a m eans to w a rd s ends.
T h e objectives of education are to be form ulated as a result of a
consideration of the learners them selves, contem porary life outside
th e school (B obbitt’s original em phasis), th e nature of subjects, the
psychology of learning and a philosophy, o r set of values. T h e n the
question arises how best to form ulate o n e ’s purposes as a practical
guide to action, and T y ler considers the p ro b le m of ‘stating objectives
in a form to be helpful in selecting learning experiences and in guiding
tea c h in g ’.
H e reviews three ways of approaching th e problem , and proposes a
fo u rth .
F irst, one may specify things th e in stru c to r is to do. Am ong his
exam ples are to dem onstrate the n a tu re o f inductive proof and to
p rese n t the Rom antic poets. T yler arg u es:
T h e difficulty of an objective stated in the form of activities to be carried
on by the teacher lies in the fact that there is no way of judging whether
these activities should really be carried on. T hey arc not the ultimate
purpose of the educational programme and arc not, therefore, reilly the
objectives.
Second, one may list ‘topics, concepts, generalizations, o r other
elem ents of content th a t are to be dealt w ith ’. H e regards such speci
fications as unsatisfactory objectives ‘since th ey do not specify what
th e students are expected to do w ith th ese elem en ts’.
T h ird , one may specify generalized p a tte rn s of behaviour such as
‘to develop ciritical thinking’ or ‘to develop social attitu d es’. Tyler
argues th at it is unlikely that such p a tte rn s o f behaviour generalize
a n d th a t it is necessary to specify th e c o n te n t to w hich the behaviour
applies.
T h e third approach is right, how ever, in concentrating on student
behaviour.
Since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform
certain activities but to bring about significant changes in the students*
patterns of behaviour, it becomes im portant to recognise that any state
m ent of the objectives of the school should be a statement of changes to
take place in students.
(Tyler 1949, 44)
O n th e basis of these arguments, T y le r offers his own form ula.
T h e most useful form for stating objectives is to express them in terms
which identify both the kind of behaviour to be developed in the student
and the content or area of life in which this behaviour is to operate. If
you consider a num ber of statements of objectives that seem to be clear
and to provide guidance in the development of instructional programmes,
you will note that each of these statem ents really includes both the
behaviour and the content aspects of the objective.
T hus, the objective, ‘To Write Clear and Well-organized Reports of
Social Studies Projects’, includes both an indication of the kind of
behaviour - namely, writing clear and well-organized reports - and also
indicates the areas of life with which the reports are to deal.
(Tyler 1949, 46-47)
One can define an objective with sufficient clarity if he can describe or
illustrate the kind of behaviour the student is expected to acquire so that
one could recognize such behaviour if he saw it.
(Tyler 1949, 59-60)
T h is is the classic definition of a ‘b eh av io u ral objective’. T h is
sense o f the w ord objective is a basic lin g u istic tool of curriculum
stu d ie s and th ro u g h o u t this book objective will be used to signify an
aim specified in term s o f student behaviour. In curricu lu m studies the
alternative synonym ous phrase to beh av io u ral objective is intended
learning outcome, som etim es shortened to I .L .O . Goal is also found in
th e literature b u t usage is more inconsistent.
H ild a T ab a (1962) draws a widely a c ce p ted distinction betw een
aims and objectives. Aim s are broad sta te m e n ts of purpose and in ten
tio n — to transm it culture or to develop a dem ocratic way of life.
‘T h e chief function of stating aim s o n su c h general levels is to
p ro v id e an orientation to the m ain e m p h a sis in educational p ro
g ram m es.’ (T aba 1962, 196)
T h e process o f system atic curricu lu m developm ent rests on the
analysis o f general statem ents of aim in to m o re specific behavioural
objectives. G reat store is set by precision.
In spite of the lip service that objectives have received over the past
several hundred years, few teachers have derived many instructional
dividends from expressing their goals because, ordinarily, the objectives
have been stated in terms too loose to allow the teacher to proceed
effectively from them.
(Popham and Baker 1970, 19^
T h e process of system atic curriculum d ev elo p m en t rests, th en , on
th e analysis of general statem ents o f aim in to m o re specific behavioural
objectives.
T h e general aims can be satisfied only if individuals acquire certain
knowledge, skills, techniques, and attitudes. TJiese latter represent a
more specific platform of goals. T h e outcomes on this more specific
level are usually referred to as educational objectives . . .
(Taba 1962, 196)
T h e chief function of the more specific platform of objectives is to guide
the making of curriculum decisions on w hat to cover, what to emphasize,
what content to select, and which learning experiences to stress.
(Taba 1962, 197)
Since education does not consist solely of mastery of content, objectives
also serve to clarify the types of powers, m ental or otherwise, which need
to be developed. The definition of these powers determines how subject
m atter is selected and how it is handled in the classroom. In teaching
literature, it makes a good deal of difference whether the intent is to
familiarize students with the content of literary masterpieces, to sensi
tize them to a greater range of hum an values, to develop a familiarity
with the forms of literature, or to develop a personal philosophy of life.
(Taba 1962, 198)
A platform of objectives is needed also to provide a common, consistent
focus for the multifarious activities we call the curriculum. T he pro
gramme of the school is managed by m any people. There are many
subjects, classes and teachers. Some unity in emphasis, some common
focus is needed to make these efforts converge on certain common,
consistent goals. >
(Taba 1962, 198)
Finally, the objectives serve as a guide for the evaluation of achievement.
(Taba 1962, 199)
W ith in this conceptual fram ew ork, T a b a tentatively suggests an
o rd erly procedure aimed at a m ore th o u g h tfu lly planned and a more
dynam ically conceived curriculum :
Step 1: Diagnosis of needs
Step 2: Formulation of objectives
Step 3: Selection of content
Step 4: Organization of content
Step 5: Selection of learning experiences
Step 6: Organization of learning experiences
Step 7: Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means
of doing it.
(Taba 1962, 12)
I have chosen to define this m ddel o f c u rricu lu m developm ent by
d raw in g on T y ler and Taba because in m y view T y ler offers the
clearest statem ent of the basic p rin cip les involved and T ab a th e best
$(y A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
exposition of the relation of those prin cip les to th e study of education
and to the practice of curriculum d e v elo p m en t. But m uch of the
literature of curriculum studies in all c o u n trie s is concerned with
this m odel. M oreover, the model draw s on experience gained in
train in g personnel such as radar o p erato rs an d gunners d uring the
Second W orld W ar and on a long estab lish ed tradition of objective
testing of student attainm ent. W ithin th e sco p e of this book it is not
possible to do m ore th an alert the reader to th e existence of this large
body o f literature and network of related stu d ie s.
I propose now first to consider the p o w e r o f th e objectives model
as a system of organizing thinking ab o u t c u rricu lu m , th en to review
som e developm ents in form ulating objectives and in applying the
m odel to practice. Finally, I shall co n sid er th e concept of m astery
learning, the developm ent of the objectives m odel in system s theory,
and the idea and implications of p erfo rm a n c e contracting.
T h e organizing pow er of the objectives m odel seem s to derive from
its origins as an applied tradition of ed u cational studies and behavioural
science. T h e process of diagnosis o f n eed s an d statem ent of aims
provides a focus for the consideration o f high-level values, for an
analysis of society’s dem ands upon the schools, an d for a consideration
o f the nature of knowledge and cu ltu re. T h e debate at this stage
invites the participation of those in te rested a n d qualified in ethics,
epistem ology, sociology of knowledge a n d social philosophy.
As th e im plications of these aims are w orked across into practical
form w ith constant reference back to p rin c ip le s by m eans of the
form ulation of objectives, the selection a n d organization o f content,
and th e selection and organization o f lea rn in g experiences, other
relevant studies can be orchestrated in to th e w ork. Epistem ology and
psychology are b ro u g h t into relationship, p a rticu la rly in th e Piagctian
trad itio n of em pirical study of the d e v e lo p m en t of concepts, logics,
know ledge and affective responses, th e c h ild ’s reconstruction of the
w orld in the m ind. Learning theory, sy stem atic pedagogy and social
psychology inform th e selection and o rg an izatio n of learning ex
periences. And w hen the curriculum w h ic h is th e p ro d u ct of this
synthesizing process emerges as a p ro d u c t, it can be tested, evaluated
and im proved by th e application of th e relatively refined techniques of
psychom etrics and educational m easu rem en t.
In short, the objectives model of cu rricu lu m developm ent provides
a system atic focus for the various bran ch es o f th e study of education.
Bloom (1963) has expressed the aspiration tow ards the use of the
objectives m odel as such a focus in a p a p e r on ‘T h e role of the
educational sciences in curriculum d e v e lo p m en t’.
If you imagine a large faculty of e d u catio n staffed with philo
sophers, sociologists, learning theorists, child and developm ental
psychologists, m ethods experts, system s analysts, psychom etricians
a n d others, invited to give a consultancy in curriculum to a school
system , then the objectives model is a m eans of integrating th e ir
contributions. Ju st as T ab a argues th a t objectives ‘provide a com m on,
consistent focus for the m ultifarious activities we call the curriculum ’,
so th e objectives model provides a logical p a tte rn of co-operative
action and intellectual synthesis for th o se engaged in educational
research and the academic study of ed u catio n . I t is a m eans of tra n s
lating th e study of education into th e practice of education.
O ne of the major contributions to th e stu d y of objectives is the
a tte m p t to produce a taxonomy of educational objectives which arose
from ‘an inform al m eeting of college exam iners attending th e 1948
A m erican Psychological Association C o n v e n tio n ’. (Bloom 1956, 4) It
illustrates rather well how psychologists and psychom etricians tackled
th e problem and made their c o n trib u tio n w ithin the objectives
trad itio n .
T h is taxonom y is in two volumes, th e first covering the cognitive
dom ain and the second the affective do m ain (Bloom 1956 and
K rath w o h l 1964). A th ird volume covering th e psycho-m otor dom ain
has not appeared. T h e taxonomy has a ttra c te d w idespread attention,
and it is w orth quoting the authors at som e length.
As achievement testers and educational research workers, the major
phenomena with which we are concerned are the changes produced in
individuals as a result of educational experiences . . .
We are of the opinion that although the objectives (aims) and test
materials and techniques may be specified in an almost unlimited num
ber of ways, the student behaviours involved in these objectives (aims)
can be represented by a relatively small num ber of classes. Therefore,
this taxonomy is designed to be a classification of the student behaviours
which represent the intended outcomes of the educational process . . .
It should be noted that we are not attem pting to classify the instruc
tional methods used by teachers, the ways in which teachers relate
themselves to students, or the different kinds of instructional materials
they use. We are not attempting to classify the particular subject matter
or content. What we are classifying is the intended behaviour of students -
the ways in which individuals are to act, think or feel as the result of
participating in some unit of instruction . . .
T he emphasis in the Handbook is on obtaining evidence on the extent
to which desired and intended behaviours have been learned by the
student . . .
It should also be noted that the intended behaviours specified by
educational objectives do not include m any of the behaviours which
psychologists are interested in classifying and studying. One reason
is that the intended behaviours represent the social goals imposed upon
youngsters by their society or culture. T hus, the intended or desired
behaviours included in educational objectives usually do not include
undesirable or abnormal behaviours which are socially disapproved. . .
(Bloom 1956, 12-13)
T h e following is an excerpt from th e taxonom y itself:
1.24 Knowledge o f Criteria - Illustrative Educational Objectives

Familiarity with criteria for judgem ent appropriate to the type of work
and the purpose for which it is used.
Knowledge of criteria for the evaluation of recreational activities.
Knowledge of the criteria by which a valid source of information in the
social sciences can be recognized.
Knowledge of the criteria by which the nutritive value of a meal can be
judged.
Knowledge of the basic elements (balance, unity, rhythm, etc.) which
can be used to judge a work of art.
Knowledge of the criteria by which some economists judge the relative
proportions of income distributed for different purposes by a family.
(Bloom 1956, 73)
1.24 Knowledge of Criteria - Illustrative T est Items.
Directions: In the following, select the one best completion.
In the preface to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant
discusses the problem of placing metaphysics upon the secure path of a
science. By science in this context he means
A. a body of generalizations whose tru th is guaranteed by observation
of facts.
B. demonstrations of conclusions from assumptions which must
always retain a hypothetical character.
C. dialectic in the Platonic sense.
D. a body of knowledge corresponding closely to the intellectual
virtue called ‘scientific knowledge’ by Aristotle.
In the view of John Ruskin, the greatest picture is
A. that which imitates best.
B. that which teaches us most.
C. that which exhibits greatest power.
D. that which conveys the greatest num ber of the greatest ideas.
T he criterion Darwin uses to distinguish the more variable species from
the less variable species in Chapter II is
A. number of individuals in the species.
B. frequency of individual differences in the species.
C. number of varieties in the species.
D. number of closely related species.
E. number of different climatic conditions tolerated by the species.
(Bloom 1956, 84)
In this example, the student b eh av io u r is first characterized as
know ledge of criteria and then progressively given m ore precision,
first in application to a content area - for exam ple, ‘knowledge of the
basic elem ents which can be used to ju d g e a work of art* —and then
in th e form ulation of a particular te st item . It is clear too th at this
ty p e of analysis does lay out the objectives for criticism . Philosophers,
psychologists and psychom etricians are all provided w ith data which
can be discussed critically in th e light o f th e ir own fields of study.
N otionally at least, the taxonomy is open to progressive im provem ent
an d refinem ent, as are the taxonom ies o f biology. But it should be
n o ted th at it is m ore open to developm ent th ro u g h criticism of experts
in particular fields of study th a n th ro u g h criticism based on the
observation of classrooms. Its origins are n o t in the em pirical study of
teaching, though it could be regarded as em pirical in the sense that it
is an ordering of goals which are in fact expressed or an observation
o f ‘th e social goals imposed upon y o u n g sters by their society or cul
ture.* T his also implies that th e taxonom y has a conservative cast,
th o u g h this need not necessarily be tru e of all taxonom ies.
As I have already m entioned, th e w ork on objectives has been
extensive. One line has been concerned w ith precision, clarity and
specificity. T he following are exam ples:
Given a human skeleton, the student m ust be able to correctly identify
by labeling at least 40 of the following bones; there will be no penalty
for guessing (list of bones inserted here).
(Magcr 1962, 49)
T he student will be able to evaluate various interpretations of the causes
of the Civil War by applying evaluative criteria which were employed in
the course for evaluating interpretations of other wars.
(Kibler, Barker and Miles 1970, 94)
T h e student will write a 500-word essay with a topic sentence, develop
ment by example, and a concluding statem ent. The topic of the essay
will be Negro contributions to the culture of the United States.
(Popham and Baker 1970, 52)
Appreciates good literature.
1. Describes the difference between good and poor literature.
2. Distinguishes between selections of good and poor literature.
3. Gives critical reasons for classifying a selection as good or poor.
4. Selects and reads good literature during free-reading period.
5. Explains why he likes the particular selections of good literature that
he reads.
T h is last is a teacher quoted as being generally on the right lines by
G ro n lu n d (1970).
T h e above attem pts to increase th e specificity of objectives show
som e of the strengths and limitations o f this developm ent. T h e second
takes the course rather than the discipline as a criterion by w hich to
ju d g e work in history. T h e third seem s to m e to stereotype undesir
ably the pattern of the essay. T he final one appears absurd. Leaving
o u t 4, the objectives m ight be sho rten ed to : ‘Solves th e central
problem s of literary criticism at which professional critics have been
w orking throughout the centuries!’
C riticism s of such objectives do not invalidate the approach; but
th e y do indicate th at it is beset by pitfalls. A nd it is im portant to note
th a t the objectives above are quoted from p ro m in en t workers in the
field and are not, I think, unfairly chosen sim ply to catch them
nodding.
T h e re has been som e reaction against too precise specification of
objectives w ithin the assum ptions of th e objectives m odel. O ne of the
m o st interesting exam ples of this tren d com es from Sw eden. W e m ust
b e a r in m ind th at in Sweden we are concerned w ith a centralized
system and hence w ith the problem o f fram ing legally binding cur
ricula for the whole school system.
In the introduction to an official pub licatio n on ‘goal description’
(equivalent to specification of objectives), M a rk lu n d sees goal speci
fication as playing dow n content and stressin g teaching principles.
Since in Sw eden th ere had previously existed centralized curricula
laid down in term s of content, objectives rep resen ted a possibility of
freeing the teacher rath er than tightening th e specification to w hich he
w orks.
T he advantage of this form of goal description was that it was not binding
on teachers and producers of learning aids. But experience soon showed
that this freedom would not automatically result in the transformation of
methods and means envisaged by the new goals. Concrete examples were
needed of how the teaching principles enjoined on teachers were to be
translated into means and methods. Now as previously, the most con
crete help came from learning aids, at the same tim e as it was found that
these did not automatically have exactly the results intended.
A more rigid steering towards the goals came as a result of the so-called
learning systems, in which the teacher is only part of a prefabricated
teaching plan which also includes organization and methods. So far the
learning system has proved something of a mixed blessing. One of its
Behavioural Objectives and C urriculum Development 61
advantages is that organizational frames have for the first time been
devised whereby the general and overall goals of the school system can be
more consistently provided for, e.g. through co-operation in varying
groups, independent tasks and individualized studies. But the teachers,
who have realized the value of these new developments, have often re
marked on the rigid steering which learning systems involve. T hus the
criticism has sometimes been made that the choice of a particular
learning aid must of necessity mean studying according to a particular
method.
T here is no simple and obvious way out of this dilemma . . .
(Marklund 1972, 6-7)
T h e response is to suggest that teachers, learning aid designers and
evaluators should be stim ulated to goal d e scrip tio n . In Sweden th is
im plies a degree of decentralization. In th e U n ite d States and Britain
th e objectives model is often seen as lim itin g teacher initiative eith er
by tying th em down or keeping them up to sc ra tch . Against the Sw edish
background it is seen as having some p o te n tia l for increasing teacher
freedom and initiative, albeit against a background in which an
extrem ely precise and systematic ap p licatio n of an objectives m odel
has been found restricting.
I t is interesting to find the Sw edish M P P physics project p ro
d u cin g th e following statem ent w hich is analytic b u t quite distinct
from th e A m erican tradition of objectives :
T h e teaching of physics should:
A 1 arouse the pupils* interest in physical phenomena
A2 create understanding of the application of physical phenomena in
technology and everyday life
A3 give pupils an idea of the way in which hum an living conditions
depend on the manner in which physics and techology are utilized
A4 relate to the pupils* experience and interests
A5 observe that certain fundamental concepts, phenomena and relations
are a precondition of the pupils being able to comprehend other, more
complex relations
A6 aim at letting pupils establish and get to know the relation between
cause and effect regarding the phenomena to be studied on the basis of
their own observations
A7 lead to conclusions which can provide a basis for universal relations
A8 accord a central position to experimentation.
I t is tru e th at th e project goes on to specify p re tty clear objectives
in term s, o f pupil behaviour, but th ere a re tw o significant shifts of
em phasis. First, th e high-level goals are tre a te d as m ore Teal* th an
the behavioural objectives which are clearly subordinated to th em
and instrum ental. T hey are no longer reg ard ed as ‘not really th e
objectives’ (T yler 1949, 44). And second, th e high-level goals contain
specifications of pupil learning - ‘u n d e rsta n d in g ’, ‘an idea of* -
w hich appear to demand teacher ju d g e m e n t, to dem and m arking or
ratin g rather than measurement.
In England, although many c u rricu lu m projects have discussed
objectives, and the North W est D evelopm ent Project encouraged
teachers to form ulate them, only Science 5 1 3 has adopted a developed
objectives model.
T h e principles from which the project sta rts indicate the need for
flexibility, since they stress the responsibility of individual teachers
a n d responsiveness to children’s interests.
In general, children work best when trying to find answers to problems
that they have themselves chosen to investigate.
These problems are best drawn from their own environment and tackled
largely by practical investigations. Teachers should be responsible for
thinking out and putting into practice the work of their own classes.
In order to do so they should be able to find help where they need it.
(Science 5 - J j, 1972, 4)
Starting from a general aim of science teaching, namely, ‘developing
an enquiring m ind and a scientific a p p ro ach to problem s’ (ibid. 21),
th e project arrived at eight broad aim s, w hich they expressed dia-
gram m atically as follows:
T h e n , on a Piagetian base, th ey distin g u ish ed three stages of
developm ent, the first stage being su b d iv id e d . Briefly, these were as
follow s:
Stage 1a transition from intuitive to co n crete operations.
Stage ib Concrete operations. E arly stage.
Stage 2 Concrete operations. L a ter stage.
Stage 3 T ransition to stage of a b stract thinking.
Each broad aim was worked into objectives considered appropriate
to each stage. A nd each objective was n u m b e re d . T h u s 1.34 indicated
Stage 1, broad objective .3 (D eveloping basic concepts and logical
thinking), sub-objective 4. The full set of objectives for this broad aim
is given below.
1.30 Developing basic concepts and logical thinking:
Stage 1 (a)
1.31 Awareness of the meaning of words which describe various types
of quantity.
1.32 Appreciation that things which are different may have features in
common.
Stage 1 (b)
1.33 Ability to predict the effect of certain changes through observation
of similar changes
1.34 Formation of the notions of the horizontal and the vertical. *
1.35 Development of concepts of conservation of length and substance.
1.36 Awareness of the meaning of speed and of its relation to distance
covered.
Stage 2
2.31 Appreciation of measurement as division into regular parts and
repeated comparison with a unit.
2.32 Appreciation that comparisons can be made indirectly by use of an
intermediary.
2.33 Development of concepts of conservation of weight, area and
volume.
2.34 Appreciation of weight as a downward force.
2.35 Understanding of the speed, time, distance, relation.
Stage 3
3.31 Familiarity with relationships involving velocity, distance, time,
acceleration.
3.32 Ability to separate, exclude or combine variables in approaching
problems.
3.33 Ability to formulate hypotheses not dependent upon direct obser
vation.
3.34 Ability to extend reasoning beyond the actual to the possible.
3.35 Ability to distinguish a logically sound proof from others less
sound.
(Science 5-13, 1972)
T h ese objectives, though not highly specific, are carefully worked
o u t and well defined. T h e project argues th a t such objectives help ‘the
te a c h e r to take advantage of the potential elem ents of science which
a re in any of their activities*. C u rricu lar suggestions are based on
th e m , but it is also clear that they are m ea n t to su p p o rt responsive
as well as p re-p lan n ed elements in tea c h in g ; th o ugh, pushed too far,
th e project’s dictum th a t ‘working w ith objectives takes some of the
insecurity out of discovery situations* (26) m ight restrict responsive
ness.
I t is, I think, dangerous to judge all b u t th e cru d est elem ents in a
cu rricu lu m w ithout trying out the strategies it suggests in the class
room . But Science 5 -1 3 strikes me as an intelligent, m oderate, m odest
a n d practical attem pt to use the general fram ew ork of the objectives
m odel in curriculum design. It will repay m ore detailed study and
elem ents of it can be m ounted experim entally in the classroom w ith
o u t great expense or difficulty.
A m ore radical, system atic attem pt to follow th ro u g h the im plica
tio n s of the objectives model for c u rricu la r an d instructional problem s
is associated w ith the concept of ‘m astery learn in g ’, in the develop
m e n t of w hich Bloom has been influential.
T h e basic prem ise of mastery learning is th a t stu d e n ts’ aptitudes
a re predictive of the rate at which th ey can learn rath e r th an o f their
possible level of achievement. If ap titu d e is norm ally d istributed in a
g ro u p and all are given the same in stru ctio n , it is argued th at achieve
m e n t will be norm ally distributed. As B loom com m ents:
T h e most wasteful and destructive aspect of our present educational
system is the set of expectations about student learning each teacher
brings to the beginning of a new course or term . T h e instructor expects
a third of his pupils to learn well what is taught, a third to learn less well,
and a third to fail or just ‘get by*. These expectations are transmitted to
the pupils through school grading policies and practices and through the
methods and materials of instruction. Students quickly learn to act in
accordance with them, and the final sorting through the grading process
approximates the teacher’s original expectations. A pernicious self-
fulfilling prophecy has been created.
(Bloom 1971, 47)
Suppose, however, that although all th e stu d e n ts are distributed
norm ally on aptitude, each learner receives the optim um quality of
instru ctio n and the tim e he needs to com plete th e learning task. T h e n
th ere w ould be little relationship betw een a p titu d e and achievem ent:
m ost students would attain mastery. F o r exam ple, one study reports:
‘W hereas in the previous year only 30% o f stu d e n ts received an A
grade, 80% of the sample achieved at o r above th e previous year’s A
grade score on a parallel exam and th u s received A ’s.’ (Airasian 1967,
98)
T h e reader may well blink! At first sig h t it m ay seem as though
we shall all know everything. I t ’s not q u ite like th at, of course. T h e
stu d e n ts involved in this course were stu d y in g test theory at graduate
level and m ost of the confirmatory ex p e rim e n ts are either with
groups of this kind w ithin relatively n a rro w a p titu d e bands or at the
level of learning the elements of a su b ject. In m any cases also in
dividualized instruction is involved so th a t in th e long run students
w ith greater aptitude learn more. But s tu d e n ts of m odest ability
attain m astery w ithin limits rather th a n failure over an extensive
field. T h is is in itself of great im portance a n d m ay well have positive
effects on m orale which go far beyond th e co n tex t in which m astery
learning takes place.
Block (1971, 64-67) discusses the possibilities and lim itations of
m astery learning. Application is claim ed to be m ost effective where
stu d e n ts need either minimal prior lea rn in g o r previous learning
w hich m ost learners already possess, w h ere th e subject to be learned
is sequential and w here the subjects are closed and emphasize con
verg en t rather th an divergent thinking.
M astery learning depends upon th e clear definition of objectives
and sub-objectives in subjects of this so rt, th e com m unication of these
objectives to stu d en ts and the passage o f s tu d e n ts through the learn
ing system only as they attain m astery o f a given stage or level. T h e
follow ing points are fundam ental and m u st be com m unicated to the
s tu d e n ts:
1. T he student will be graded solely on the basis of his final . . .
examination performance.
2. T he student will be graded on the basis of his performance vis a vis
a predetermined standard and not relative to his peers.
3. All students who attain the standard will receive appropriate grade
rewards (usually A’s) and there will be no fixed number of awards. . . .
4. Throughout the learning, the student will be given a series of un
graded, diagnostic-progress tests to prom ote and pace his learning.
5. Each student will be given all the help he needs to learn.
(Block 1971, 75)
O ne of the im p o rtan t aspects of an objectives approach is brought
o u t in 2 and 3 above. An objective or series of objectives provides a
basis for criterion-referenced rather th a n norm -referenced testing.
M any teachers (and many standardized tests) operate on the assum p
tion of a normal curve, giving for exam ple 10% A ’s, 15% B’s, 50%
C ’s, 15% D ’s and 10% E’s. Such a p ro ce d u re is desperately de
m oralizing to students. Only a tiny m in o rity have any indication of
having reached a desired level of a tta in m e n t. For the rest the goal
seem s to move out of reach as one stretch es for it. Objectives are in
principle attainable by all; percentile scores or not!
I have not had th e opportunity to stu d y m astery learning procedures
in practice, but it certainly seems possible to accept that m any of the
tasks encountered by students in schools a n d universities are not
und u ly dem anding in terms of ap titu d e. T h e assum ption adopted
by th e educational institution m ay well be th a t m any m ore tasks
involve differential achievement according to aptitude levels than
m ay in fact need to do so. T h e a d o p tio n o f m arking and grading
assum ptions w hich across the board m ake th e assum ption th a t the
perform ance required is one which allow s hig h fliers to fly high and
holds others to a low ceiling, may have depressing effects in areas
w here reasonable m astery should be a tta in a b le by most.
M astery learning is in the view o f its ad h e re n ts of lim ited appli
cation. T h e m ost thorough-going a tte m p t to apply objectives to
curriculum is th e systems approach, w hich depends upon an analysis
of the educational process in the light o f general system s theory.
G eneral systems theory has been used to gain understanding in the
physical sciences, biology, and th e behavioural sciences and has
been applied extensively in engineering a n d m ore recently in m anage
m ent.
G eneral system s theory developed originally from the difficulties
encountered by scientists in conceptualizing and expressing the
characteristics of complex entities. As B ertalanffy expresses the dilem
m a:
If we look at a living organism, we observe an amazing order, organiza
tion, maintenance in continuous change, regulation and apparent
teleology. Similarly, in human behaviour goal-seeking and purposive
ness cannot be overlooked, even if we accept a strictly behaviouristic
standpoint. However, concepts like organization, directiveness, teleology,
etc., just do not appear in the classic system of science. As a matter of
fact, in the so-called mechanistic world view based upon classical
physics, they were considered as illusory or metaphysical.
(Bertalanffy 1962, 29-30)
. . . in modern physics and biology, problem s of organized complexity,
Behavioural Objectives and Curriculum Development 6y
th at is, interaction o f a large but n ot in fin ite n um ber o f variables, are
p o p p in g up everyw here and dem and n ew co n cep tu a l tools.
(ib id . 30)
System s theory is concerned with the stu d y o f organized complexity.

‘A system is an organized or com plex w hole: an assemblage or
com bination of things or parts form ing a com plex or unitary w hole.’
(K a st and Rosenzweig, 1970, 14) A cru d e distinction can be draw n
betw een empirical systems theory w hich aim s at models to advance
u n d e rsta n d in g and ‘engineering’ system s theory which aim s at
m odels to control action. The second perspective is the one w hich
concerns us in this chapter.
T h e basic argum ent rests on th e pro p o sitio n th at a variety of
different systems can be analysed and m ade am enable to planning by
th e use of a general theory.
A system might be described as an array of things in which we are con
cerned particularly with the way they relate to, and interact with, each
other. Systems analysis is a method of understanding the way a system
works preparatory to influencing or controlling it.
(Birley 1972, 30)
System s analysis as applied to policy areas such as education is
essentially problem -oriented.
Amongst the policy-makers* tasks are these:
1. defining the problem;
2. thinking of possible ways of solving it; and
3. weighing the merits of the various ways, both in terms of quantitative
assessments and of value judgements.
(Birley 1972, 30)
B ut how do we know we have a problem ?
It is reasonable, and useful, to take the apparently chaotic universe to be
a complex of intereacting systems. If a system has definable objectives
then we may hope to be able to engineer it in order that they are achieved.
Even if this systems engineering is not possible, the systems view still
provides the best framework for relevant debate concerning the prob
lems which arise in the real world.
(Checkland 1971, 51)
W e m u st have criteria for judging th e effectiveness of a system and
th e existence of problems within it, a n d these criteria are provided
by specifying objectives. Problem s are problem s of efficiency in
reaching these objectives, and efficiency involves value for m oney or
68 A n Introduction to Curriculum Uevelopmem
cost-effectiveness. G iven objectives, th is can be conceptualized as
o u tp u t budgeting.
T raditionally, budgets have categorized e x p e n d itu re by the type of
resource on which it is to be spent - staff, b u ildings, m aterials and so
on - rath er than by the purpose for w hich it is to be spent. T h e aims
of an o u tp u t budgeting system may briefly be stated as being to
analyse expenditure by the purpose for w hich it is to be spent and to
relate it to the results achieved. It is a form al system for establishing:
i) W hat a department is aiming to achieve - what its objectives are -

in the areas of policy for which it is responsible;
ii) Which activities are contributing to these objectives;
iii) W hat resources, or inputs, are being devoted to these activities;
iv) W hat is actually being achieved, or what the outputs are.
(Department of Education and Science 1970)
I argued earlier th at the objectives m odel o f curriculum develop

m en t provides a focus for the application of th e various fields of
educational study to curricular problem s. I n th e application of general
system s theory it leads through o u tp u t b u d g etin g , m anagem ent by
objectives and planning-program m ing-budgeting system to a relating
o f curriculum design to the m anagem ent, p lan n in g and politics of
education. How does this systems a p p ro a c h look at the curriculum
developm ent end?
A school o r a school system is a sy stem in th e general system s
th eo ry sense, Feyereisen, Fiorno and N ow ak (1970) adopt the follow
ing m odel for the m anagement of c u rric u lu m and instruction:
1. Identification of the problem.

2. Diagnosis of the problem.
3. Search for alternative solutions.
4. Selection of the best solution.
5. Ratification of that solution by the organization.
6. Authorization of the solution.
7. Use of the solution on a trial basis.
8. Preparation for adoption of the solution.
9. Adoption of the solution.
10. Direction and guidance of the staff.
11. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the solution.
(Feyereisen, Fiorno and Nowak 1970, 61)
A n d they im m ediately com m ent: ‘T h e se step s involve the assum p

tio n th a t th e school system has a statem en t o f objectives. If th is is not
th e case, th en a prelim inary step is th e definition o f th e objectives for
th e school system .’ (62) Later, they co n sid er Problem Identification
(S te p 1) and observe: ‘Problem s associated w ith the actual statem ent
o f objectives do not have to be m easured by a strict set of criteria:
T h e only criterion these problem s m ust satisfy is a dissatisfaction w ith
th e sta te d objectives.’ (64) In short, objectives are not problem atic
w ithin the system. T h e system depends u p o n th e existence of agreed
objectives and does not.contribute such objectives.
A system s approach rests on the fo rm u latio n of objectives, b u t
does no t provide a m ethod of defining su c h objectives. It is con
c e rn e d w ith efficiency rather than direction. System s theory dem ands
objectives as given, as basic data. It c o n trib u te s only the idea th at
all personnel in the system should be involved in the form ulation of
objectives and this in itself is argued m ore on the grounds o f the
m otivational force of involvement of people in purposes than on the
g ro u n d s th at the purposes are thereby likely to be m ore ‘correct’.
I n short, systems theory does not assist us in determ ining our
objectives (except in term s of their realism , as ju d g ed by success or
failure in im plem enting them ) n o r does it c o n trib u te to the content
o f education or to its m ethods. R ath er it is concerned w ith the
identification of problem s, with decision-m aking and w ith th e m o n i
to rin g of solutions. I t is concerned w ith efficiency, rather th a n w ith
tr u th . T h a t is not to be despised. B ut it sh o u ld be noted th a t its
c o n cern w ith efficiency in the sense o f value-for-investm ent prpvides
an em phasis on value rather than values.
F ro m such a base it is possible, th o u g h by no m eans inevitable, to
tak e th e step th at leads to perform ance co ntracting.
Perform ance contracting basically m eans paym ent by results, and
in any consideration of the m odern A m erican m ovem ent, th e n in e
tee n th -c e n tu ry British experience should b e taken into account. In
B ritain, H er M ajesties Inspectors visited schools and exam ined child
re n according to certain pre-specified ‘sta n d a rd s ’. G overnm ent grants
w ere paid to the School Board according to th e ch ildren’s perfo rm
ance. In the U nited States some school system s have contracted out
secto rs of the educational system to profit-m aking learning system
com panies whose profits depend on th eir capacity to achieve objectives
pre-specified in term s of the children’s perform ance on standardized
tests.
T h is ‘objectives or b u st’ policy is th e o th e r extrem e from ‘with
objectives in m ind’ (Science 5 - r j ) .
6
A CRITIQUE O F THE
OBJECTIVES M O D E L
N o issue has been m ore contentious in c u rric u lu m theory th an the

objectives model. A t th e 1972 Chicago C o n v e n tio n of the A m erican
E d u catio n al Research Association, p a rtic ip a n ts displayed car b um per
stick ers reading h e l p s t a m p o u t b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s ! or h e l p
s t a m p o u t s o m e n o n - b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s ! A n d the history of this
stick er w ar has been amusingly and in stru ctiv e ly presented by Pop-
h am (1971).
I n w riting this book, I face the p ro b lem o f m aintaining a balanced
view , since my own work in research a n d developm ent has been in
reactio n to w hat I regard as the shortcom ings o f th e objectives m odel.
I n th e last chapter I have tried to give a g e n e ra l account of the m odel,
relatively free of explicit criticism. I set it o u t as a theory of and policy
fo r cu rricu lu m developm ent which needs to b e tested. Now I propose
to review some of the criticisms of it, to a d d critical com m ents of my
ow n, a n d finally to review the strengths a n d weaknesses of the ap
p ro a c h to curriculum design through o b jectives as they seem to
em erg e from th e discussion.
F irst, however, I w ant to provide a c o n te x t by reviewing briefly
th e n a tu re of theory as it applies to this issue.
I n action areas or ‘policy sciences' like c u rricu lu m study, theory
h as tw o functions. I t serves to organize th e d ata, th e facts we have, in
su c h a way as to provide an understanding. I n so far as it does not go
b ey o n d o u r knowledge to rest upon d o u b tfu l assum ptions, it is ‘well
grounded*. In so far as it embraces a w ide ra n g e o f data and considera
tio n s, it is com prehensive or ‘high level*. T h e second function of
th e o ry in a policy science is to provide a basis fo r action. U n d erstan d
in g m u st provide the basis for acting: th e th e o ry m ust have an execu
tive as well as a contem plative slant.
T h e objectives m odel of curriculum d e v e lo p m en t is an am bitious
a n d com prehensive theory in the sense t h a t it provides a m eans of
org an izin g and relating a large range o f variables, problem s and
A Critique of the Objectives M odel yi
activities. Such am bitious attem pts at th eoretical synthesis are neces
sary a n d im portant for the advancem ent o f understanding. But in the
policy sciences such is our lack of firm know ledge of the workings of
th e institutions with which we are concerned th a t am bitious theories
a n d m odels are inherently precarious. T h e y go far beyond the estab
lished data. They reach eagerly for coherence and sacrifice firm
grou n d in g . In short, they are highly speculative.
A n d we must, be especially cautious w ith th em because they have
im plications for action.
N o w it is one of th e problems o f th eo rizin g th a t our m inds are
beguiled by system atic tidiness and by com prehensive breadth.
H ence, m any people believe that th e m ore system atic a theory is, the
m o re likely it is to be correct. In c u rricu lu m studies - though perhaps
n o t in the physical sciences - the reverse is likely to be the case. O ur
firm knowledge of the educational process is very lim ited. Large-scale
th eo ries have great utility as staging p o in ts in th e advancem ent of
know ledge, b u t the m ore logically satisfying th ey are, the less likely
th e y are to be adequate. They can easily becom e the lotus isles of our
scientific journey.
F ro m the point of view of the p rogress o f o u r knowledge, it is
excellent th at such adventurous and speculative theories should ex ist;
b u t in a policy field it is im portant th a t th e y should not be too confi
d e n tly advocated or adopted as a basis for large-scale actiop. We
m u st beware of believing that in th e objectives m odel - o r in any
o th e r m odel or theory —we have a system atic solution to our curricular
p roblem s, m uch less an educational panacea. A nd the tone of some of
th e literature suggests that this is n o t a n im aginary danger. T h e
fu n ctio n of such a theory is not to co m m an d allegiance, b u t to attract
th e criticism and experimental testing w hich will lead to its refutation
o r refinem ent.
T h is is a criticism, not of the objectives m odel as such, b u t of the
vein o f advocacy and certitude of som e o f its proponents.
A n o th er im portant point to bear in m in d is th at the objectives
fram ew ork is a conceptual scheme, n o t a th in g . W e m ust not reify it.
W e do not have objectives: we choose to conceptualize our behaviour
in term s of objectives —or we choose n o t to. W hat are the pros and
cons o flisin g such a conceptual schem e in curriculum developm ent?
In th is chapter I want to consider th e issues from the point o f view
of th e designers rather than of th e evaluators of a curriculum .
D esigners of curricula are not ju s t Schools Council project* people
o r university and college teachers. T h e y m ay be the staff of a cur
ric u lu m project bu t typically they are teachers in schools. In the
first case, there is a problem of large-scale com m unication. T h is is
rep lica ted on a sm aller scale in a school team . As staff change, th e
c u rric u lu m has to be comm unicated to new com ers.
T h e m odel offered to designers is broadly as follows: agree broad
aim s and analyse these into objectives; c o n stru c t a curriculum to
achieve these objectives; refine it in practice by testing its capacity
to achieve its objectives; comm unicate it to tea c h e rs th ro u g h (am ong
o th e r things) the conceptual framework of objectives.
I propose to begin my review of criticism s o f th e objectives m odel
by considering a paper by Popham (1968), ‘P ro b in g th e Validity of
A rg u m en ts against Behavioral Goals’. P o p h am attem p ts in this paper
to d efen d the objectives model against eleven criticism s.
T h e first objection he considers is: ‘T riv ia l learning behaviours are
th e easiest to operationalize, hence th e really im p o rtan t outcom es
of education will be u n d e r em phasized.’ A tk in , am ong others, has
levelled this criticism .
T h ere is a strong tendency in the literature about behavioural objectives
in curriculum design to make the assumption that the objectives that can
be defined behaviourally, the objectives that can be readily assessed, are
the important objectives for a school program m e. T he corollary also
seems to be accepted. If it seems impossible to detect and assess a specific
learning outcome, it probably isn’t im portant.
(Atkin 1969, 17)
If identification of all worthwhile outcomes in behavioural terms comes
to be commonly accepted and expected, then it is inevitable that, over
tim e, the curriculum will tend to emphasize those elements which have
been thus identified. Important outcomes which are detected only with
great difficulty and which arc translated only rarely into behavioural
term s tend to atrophy. They disappear from the curriculum because we
spend all the time allotted to us in teaching explicitly for the more
readily specifiable learnings to which we have been directed.
(Atkin 1968b, 28)
K lie b a rd (1968) and H ogben (1972) p o in t to th e problem th a t m any
w orthw hile aims of education m ight express them selves behaviourally
only in the long term or in the face of c e rtain contingencies.
In try in g to m eet these criticism s P o p h a m argues ‘th a t explicit
objectives make it far easier for ed u cato rs to atten d to important
in stru ctio n al outcom es’ by exposing th e triv ial w hich is often lurking
b e n e a th the high-flow n. T here is a d a n g e r o f trivial objectives, b u t
th e re is always a danger of triviality, a n d th e discipline of expressing
o u r objectives precisely helps to detect it.
P o p h am obviously considers some o f M a g e r’s w ork a liability in this
A Critique of the Objectives M odel 73
a rg u m e n t and points out that alm ost all o f M a g e r’s examples deal
w ith cognitive behaviours at the very low est level.
I believe that the question at issue here is an em pirical one. On
th e basis of experience rather than system atic stu d y , I think th at the
c ritic ism is justified in m any complex fields w ith in the disciplines of
know ledge, but it is not justified w hen no g reat weight need be
claim ed for the ultim ate worth of the objectives. T h ere are m any
passages of learning in sciences and languages in particular where an
im p o rta n t goal is clearly seen to be both lim ited and instrum ental. On
th e o th e r hand, it is common experience th a t conventional examinations
can have ju s t the effect feared by Atkin, a n d it is generally judged that
p a y m e n t by results did.
T h e second criticism is: ‘Prespecification o f explicit goals prevents
th e tea c h e r from taking advantage of in stru ctio n al opportunities
unex p ected ly occurring in the classroom .’ Jackson (1966, 1968) has
a rg u e d th is at lcngtjh on the basis of em pirical studies of the teaching
process. Popham replies that opportunism is alw ays welcome, b u t it
sh o u ld always be justified in term s of its c o n trib u tio n to the learner’s
a tta in m e n t of worthwhile objectives. A gain, th e question is largely an
em p irical one. I should guess that objectives form ulated at the level
of th o se in Science 5-13 could well su p p o rt a n d discipline opportunism
a n d responsive teaching, but I am by no m eans certain th at such
objectives would be precise enough to satisfy Popham . t
T h e th ird objection Popham faces is: ‘Besides pupil behaviour
changes, there are other types of educational outcom es which are
im p o rta n t, such as changes in parental a ttitu d e s, th e professional
staff, com m unity values, etc.’ Popham replies th a t ‘all modifications
in p e rso n n el or external agencies should be ju stified in term s of their
c o n trib u tio n toward the prom otion o f desired pupil behaviour
c h a n g es’. I t seems very doubtful w hether th is can be done in practice.
M o reo ev er, the principle seems questionable. O ne could well argue
th a t th e abolition of corporal punishm ent co uld be justified even if it
h ad no effect on outcomes. However, in p rin cip le there is no real
o b jectio n to the extension of the objectives approach to take in other
k in d s o f outcomes, and only the m o st extrem e enthusiasts for
objectives would oppose this, so long as p u p il outcom es were also
specified. (
P o p h a m is optim istic about the objection th a t ‘M easurability
im plies behaviour which can be objectively, m echanistically m easured,
h en ce th ere m ust be som ething dehum anizing about the approach’,
since h e believes that ‘it is currently possible to assess many com pli
cated h u m an behaviours in a refined fash io n ’ and ‘Developm ental
J4 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
w ork is under way in those areas where we m u st now rely on prim itive
m e a s u re s /
It seem s to me th at Popham is too op tim istic here. A m ong m any
criticism s of the position that m ental m easurem ent offers refined
in stru m e n ts to the curriculum field, I find th a t of Stake (1971) the
m o st compelling. In particular, Stake p o in ts out that standardized
te sts involve particular hazards. W riting in th e context of objectives-
b ased perform ance contracting he has this to s a y :
T o the person little acquainted with educational testing, it appears that
performance testing is what educational tests are for. T h e testing
specialist knows better. General achievement tests have been developed
to measure correlates of learning, not learning itself.
Such tests are indirect measures of educational gains. They provide
correlates of achievement rather than direct evidence of achievement.
Correlation of these test scores with general learning is often high, but
such scores correlate only moderately with performance on many specific
educational tasks. Tests can be built to measure specific competence,
bu t there is relatively little demand for them . M any of those tests (often
called criterion-referenced tests) do a poor job of predicting later per
formance of either a specific or a general nature. General achievement
tests predict better. The test developer’s basis for improving tests has
been to work toward better prediction of later performance rather than
better measurement of present performance. Assessment of what a
student is now capable of doing is not the purpose of most standardized
tests. Errors and hazards abound . . .
(Stake 1971, 583)
O f course, criterion-referenced tests can be used, b u t they ten d to

b e b est adapted to the curriculum w hen th ey are detailed. T h is m eans
th a t th ey are best given regularly at sh o rt intervals. R etention is not
m easu red . If we m easure for reten tio n in a term inal or yearly test,
we have to sample from our objectives again. A nd teaching for the
exam ination enters the picture w ith all its potential for distorting the
c u rricu lu m .
I n spite of all these problems, I do n o t th in k we can rule out the
objectives model on the basis of m easu rem en t problem s. W hat we
can do is question the range of its applicability if the m easurem ent
elem en t is stressed, and judge th a t cau tio n is always needed.
T h e fifth objection which Popham considers is th at ‘It is somehow
u ndem ocratic to plan in advance precisely how the learner should
b ehave after instruction.* I believe th a t th is objection im pinges on
th e m ost im portant shortcoming o f th e objectives m odel, b u t is
w rongly conceived as it stands. I shall, therefore, consider it later.
O bjection six is attributed by P opham to Jackson. ‘T h a t isn’t
really the way teaching is: teachers rarely specify th eir goals in term s
o f m easurable learner behaviours; so le t’s set realistic expectations
of teachers.* Popham makes short work o f th a t one. ‘T hey ought to !’
I th in k this response is quite unacceptable from th e point of view of the
d esigner for the following reasons.
F irst, there is a strong case for the close stu d y of teachers at work
on the basis that a good many of them know w hat they are doing.
A tk in (1968, 339-340) puts it rather well.
F or the moment, let us call teaching a craft to enable the construction of
an analogy, an analogy with the craft of m etallurgy. For centuries, and
continuing today, skilled craftsmen have been making metals. They
have learned to add a little of this substance and a little of that, then
heat the batch for a certain length of tim e until it reaches a certain
colour, then let it cool at a certain rate. T h e craft has been continually
developed through the centuries, apprentices learning from masters.
Meanwhile, ‘scientific* approaches to m etallurgy have not succeeded in
fully explaining all that the master craftsman does . . .
Isn ’t it possible that teaching is at least as complex as metallurgy?
T h e theories of psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists - taken
singly - do not permit us to deduce an educational programme any more
than a physicist’s theories lead directly to fabrication of new metals. It
doesn’t seem unreasonable to follow the route of metallurgy.
>
In sh ort, curriculum stu d y should be g ro u n d e d in the study of class
room s. P o p h am ’s cavalier assum ption th a t th e teacher m ust be wrong
is unjustifiable because it is basically a p rio ri ra th e r than empirical.
‘R ational curriculum planning m ust take account of the realities
of classroom situations. I t is not enough to be logical.’ (Stenhouse
1970, 7^)- ‘T h e re appear to be no stu d ie s establishing an actual
relationship between increased clarification o f educational objectives
an d im proved discrim ination in the selection o f classroom learning
o p p o rtu n ities for students.* (G oodlad i9 6 0 , 192) T h is situation
ap p ears still to hold.
T h e re is th u s actually slender justificatio n fo r P opham ’s ‘ought’j.
C lassroom s cannot be bettered except th ro u g h th e agency of teachers
teachers m ust be the critics of work in c u rric u lu m , not docile agents!
M oreoever, there is some evidence th a t c u rricu lu m projects have
failed to influence schools where they have a tte m p te d to enforce the
co ncept of objectives against teacher op p o sitio n . T h e evidence that
th e re m ay be other ways of organizing o n e ’s teaching than through
objectives and th a t some teachers may find th ese ways m ore effective
needs careful attention from curriculum w orkers.
j6 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
I t is interesting th at at this point P opham ’s p a p e r changes style. It
becom es an attack on the schools. T hus, o b jection seven: T n certain
s u b je c t areas, e.g. fine arts and the hum anities, it is m ore difficult to
id en tify m easurable pupil behaviours*, gets th e response: ‘Sure, it’s
to u g h . Yet, because it is difficult in certain su b je c t fields to identify
m easu rab le pupil behaviours, those subject specialists should not be
allow ed to escape this responsibility.*
W e go on (eight) to: ‘W hile loose general sta te m e n ts of objectives
m ay appear worthw hile to an outsider, if m o st educational goals
w ere stated precisely, they would be revealed as generally innocuous.’
T o th is P opham responds: ‘T he u n fortunate tr u th is th at m uch of
w h a t is going on in the schools today is in d efen sib le.’ W hich leads
n a tu ra lly to objection nine: ‘m easurability im plies accountability:
tea c h e rs m ight be judged on their ability to p ro d u c e results in learners
ra th e r th an on the m any bases now used as indices of com petence’ -
ev oking: ‘T eachers m ight actually be ju d g e d on th eir ability to
b rin g about desirable changes in learners. T h e y should b e.’
F acin g th e objection th a t objectives are difficult to generate, Pop-
h a m looks forw ard to a tim e when teachers w ill teach shorter hours
a n d o b se rv e s:
Perhaps we should give him objectives from which to choose, rather than
force [sic] him to generate his own. Many of the federal dollars cur
rently being used to support education would be better spent on agen
cies which would produce alternative behavioural objectives for all fields
at all grade levels.I
I d o n ’t th in k that Popham achieved his objective on shorter hours
fo r teachers, b u t he m ade it on the objective bank.
T ire d of hearing teachers complain they were too busy to write out
measurable objectives for their instruction, it seemed that we might
reasonably expect them to be selectors, not generators, of precise goals.
Hence, while returning from an administrators’ workshop in Fresno, I
decided to try to set up an operation analogous to an ‘objectives bank’
so that educators could draw out collections of behavioural objectives,
then select those which were appropriate for their local instructional
situations. T he Instructional Objectives Exchange was established as a
project of the U.C.L.A. Center for the Study of Evaluation later that
year and is now operating as a nonprofit educational corporation. While
the vast majority of the objectives currently distributed by the Exchange
are behaviourally stated, there are a num ber of general, non-behavioural
goals which are used as descriptors of large groups of more specific
objectives.
(Popham 1971)
A Critique of the Objectives M o d el 77
R o u n d s six to ten of Popham ’s fight w ith his im aginary opponent
are in stru ctiv e. One wonders whether th e referee will step in and
sto p th e contest. It is certainly very pu n itiv e to teachers. M uch of
th e ir tea c h in g is not sim ply bad - it’s indefensible. I believe there is a
ten d e n c y , recurrent enough to suggest th a t it m ay be endem ic in the
ap p ro ach , for academics in education to use th e objectives model as a
stick w ith w hich to beat teachers. ‘W hat are y o u r objectives?’ is m ore
often asked in a tone of challenge than one o f in terested and helpful
in q u iry . T h e dem and for objectives is a d e m a n d for justification
ra th e r th a n sim ply description of ends. As su ch it is p a rt of a political
dialogue ra th e r than an educational one. It is n o t about curriculum
design, b u t rath er an expression of irritation in th e face of the p ro b
lem o f accountability in education. I believe th a t politicians will
have to face the fact th a t there is no easy road to accountability via
objectives. Paym ent by results showed th at.
T h e final objection w hich Popham faces is in m any ways m ore
crucial for th e evaluator th a n the developer, at least as it is stated. ‘In
ev aluating th e worth of instructional schem es it is often th e u n
a n tic ip a ted results which are really im p o rta n t, b u t prespecified
goals m ay m ake the evaluator inattentive to th e unforeseen.* Popham
agrees th a t unanticipated results are im p o rta n t; ‘B ut w hat can you
tell th e w ould-be curriculum evaluator a b o u t th is problem ? “ K eep
your eyes o p e n ,” doesn’t seem to pack th e d e sire d punch. Yet; it’s
ab out all you can say.* As I shall argue below , th is reveals serious
w eaknesses in the objectives model. An a d e q u ate theory should be
advancing o u r knowledge of the situation so th a t unanticipated
results becom e susceptible to anticipation. Y ou o u g h t to be able to
say m u ch m ore th a n ‘Keep your eyes open*, a n d if th e objectives model
doesn’t help you to do so, th at is a serious w eakness.
C o n sid e r th e position o f the curriculum designer. H e is offered a
m odel w hich fixes his eyes so firmly on his d e stin a tio n th a t he doesn’t
notice th e po n d in his p a th until he is w aist d e e p in it. O ne of the
exam ples Popham gives of unanticipated ou tco m es is th a t som e new
cu rricu la in science reduced the nu m b er o f s tu d e n ts who chose
science in th e option system. One can u n d e rsta n d th a t this possibility
m ight be m issed, but as soon as one encounters it, one recognizes its
im p o rtan ce. F o r various reasons, not least conservatism , students
m ay n o t like new curricula, at least at first. T h e cu rricu lu m designer
needs a th eo ry which helps him to anticipate su c h difficulties, and the
objectives m odel does not contribute to such a th eo ry .
E isn er, w ho is recognized by Popham (1971) as one of th e m ost
influential critics of the behavioural objectives m odel, has attem pted
a reform ulation, w hich involves draw ing a distinction betw een in
structional and expressive objectives. A lth o u g h I do not think it
m eets the criticism ju st outlined, it may help us on our way towards an
answ er.
In 1967 Eisner published a paper, ‘E ducational O bjectives: Help
o r Hindrance?*, whose argum ent he sum m arizes as follows:
I have argued in this paper that curriculum theory as it pertains to
educational objectives has had four significant limitations. First, it has
not sufficiently emphasized the extent to which the prediction of educa
tional outcomes cannot be made with accuracy. Second, it has not dis
cussed the ways in which subject m atter affects precision in stating
educational objectives. Third, it has confused the use of educational
objectives as a standard of measurement when in some areas it can
be used only as a criterion for judgement. Fourth, it has not distin
guished between the logical requirement of relating means to ends in
the curriculum as a product and the psychological conditions useful for
constructing curriculums.
(1967b, 258-259)
I n a later paper (1969) Eisner goes on to distinguish betw een two
concerns of education, th at of giving m astery o f the cultural tools al
read y available and th a t of making possible creative responses which
go beyond w hat is available and help to develop it and individualize it.
O n this basis he distinguishes instructional objectives, suitable to the
first purpose, and expressive objectives, su itab le to the second.
Instructional objectives are essentially th e same as behavioural
objectives.
T h e effective curriculum, when it is aimed at instructional objectives,
will develop forms of behaviour whose characteristics are known before
hand and, as likely as not, will be common across students - if not at the
identical point in time, at some point during the school programme.
(1 5 )
Expressive objectives differ considerably from instructional objectives.
An expressive objective does not specify the behaviour the student is to
acquire after having engaged in one or more learning activities. An
expressive objective describes an educational encounter: it identifies
a situation in which children are to work, a problem with which they are
to cope, a task in which they are to engage; but it does not specify what
from that encounter, situation, problem or task they are to learn. An
expressive objective provides both the teacher and the student with an
invitation to explore, defer, or focus on issues that are of peculiar
interest or import to the inquirer. An expressive objective is evocative
rather than prescriptive.
T he expressive objective is intended to serve as a theme around which
A Critique of the Objectives M odel yg
skills and understandings learned earlier can be brought to bear, but
through which those skills and understandings can be expanded,
elaborated and made idiosyncratic. W ith an expressive objective what is
desired is not homogeneity of response among students but diversity. In
the expressive context the teacher hopes to provide a situation in which
meanings become personalized and in which children produce products,
both theoretical and qualitative, that are as diverse as themselves. Con
sequently, the evaluative task in this situation is not one of applying a
common standard to the products produced but one of reflecting upon
what has been produced in order to reveal its uniqueness and signifi
cance. In the expressive context, the product is likely to be as much of a
surprise to the maker as it is for the teacher who encounters it.
Statements of expressive objectives m ight read:
1. T o interpret the meaning of Paradise Lost.
2. T o examine and appraise the significance of The Old Man and the
Sea.
3. T o develop a three-dimensional form through the use of wire
and wood.
4. To visit the zoo and discuss what was of interest there.
W hat should be noted about such objectives is that they do not specify
what the student is to be able to do after he engages in an educational
activity; rather they identify the type of encounter he is to have. From
this encounter both teacher and student acquire data useful for evalua
tion. In this context the mode of evaluation is similar to aesthetic
criticism; that is, the critic appraises a product, examines its qualities
and import, but does not direct the artist toward the painting of a
specific type of picture. The critic’s subject-m atter is the work done - he
does not prescribe a blueprint of its construction.
(Eisner 1969, 15-16)
I believe that Eisner has grasped fu n d am e n ta l points here, but
th a t he has m ade two errors which have p rev e n ted him from driving
th e m hom e. In the first place, he has c o n tin u e d to use the term ob
jectives in his expressive mode. T his has b o th b urdened him w ith an
unw elcom e inheritance of assumptions an d p rev en ted a fresh analysis
of w hat is at stake. A nd secondly, as is p e rh a p s natural in one who
fo u n d the objectives model intractable in th e context of his own
p ro ject in visual arts, he has identified th e creative-expressive m ode
too closely with the arts.
I n th e rem ainder of this chapter I shall a tte m p t to set out what I
regard as the fundam ental objections to th e universal application of
th e objectives model, and to distinguish th e areas in which I believe it
will often serve us reasonably well. T h e se objections are:
1. T h at it mistakes the nature of knowledge.
2. T h at it mistakes the nature of the process of improving practice.
8o A n Introduction to Curriculum Developm ent
I w ant to distinguish several functions o f th e school. I draw the
d istin ctio n s for the purpose of analysis, recognizing th a t the functions
a re interw oven in practice; and I acknowledge som e problem s in the
use of term s - I have done my best to m inim ize th e arbitrariness of my
choice.
E d u cation as we know it in schools c o m p rises and necessarily
com prises at least four different processes. I shall call these: trainingy
instruction, initiation and induction. T ra in in g is concerned with the
acquisition of skills, and successful train in g resu lts in capacity in
perform ance. Exam ples are making a canoe, speaking a foreign lan
guage, typing, baking a cake and handling lab o rato ry apparatus. In
stru c tio n is concerned w ith the learning of in fo rm a tio n and successful
in stru ctio n results in retention. Examples are re te n tio n of the table of
chem ical elem ents, of dates in history, o f th e n am es o f th e countries
o f E urope, of G erm an irregular verbs and o f th e recipe for making
pastry. Initiation is concerned with fam iliarization w ith social values
a n d norm s and successful initiation leads to a capacity to interpret
th e social environm ent and to antiepate th e reactio n to one’s own
actions. Ind u ctio n stands for introduction in to th e th o u g h t systems —
th e know ledge - of th e culture and successful in d u ctio n results in
u n d e rsta n d in g as evidenced by the capacity to g rasp and to make for
oneself relationships and judgem ents. T h e se te rm s generally conform
to at least one com m on usage except p e rh a p s for th e last. F or ‘in
d u c tio n ’ m any people w ould substitute ‘e d u c a tio n ’, as it is som etim es
u sed in c o n trast w ith training.
In itia tio n takes place as a by-product o f living in a com m unity.
Som e schools, such as English public schools, pro m o te particular
social no rm s and values consciously and o ften ra th e r successfully. In
so far as th e y operate in the light of an ideal o f m an, in the sort o f
tra d itio n represented by Castiglione’s Book o f the Courtier, they could
express th e ir purposes in term s of objectives. I n m o st schools initia
tio n is p a rt o f the hidden curriculum, often w ith a surface m yth. T h ey
m ay have an intention, b u t it is extrem ely difficult to achieve a
congruence betw een th e socialization w hich p u p ils in fact undergo
a n d th e intentions of th e school: th ere are influential reference
p o in ts outside the school, in the com m unity a n d in th e peer group.
I am concerned here mainly with tra in in g , in stru ctio n and in
du ctio n .
In th e case of training, th e objectives m o d el gives reasonably good
fit, and th is is reflected in its successful use in tra in in g in the arm ed
forces a n d in in dustry where objectives a re precise. T h e aim is
p erform ance, th a t is, behaviour, and th is is n a tu ra lly expressed in
A Critique o f the Objectives M odel 8i
te rm s o f behavioural objectives. T here is a lim itatio n when style is
im p o rta n t, b u t it is often a marginal one. H ow ever, while at the
elem en tary stages, training in playing a m usical instrum ent is
easily assim ilated to th e objectives m odel, in a m aster class it is
p ro b lem atic, since it becomes im portant to evoke personal in ter
p re ta tio n , th a t is, we are more concerned w ith th e m usical criteria
for th e use of skill than w ith skill in a stra ig h tfo rw ard sense.
A gain, in instruction the objectives m odel is appropriate. Five
verbs by T hu rsd ay ! R etention can readily be tested behaviourally
a n d a t different levels, for example, recall a n d recognition.
H ow ever, it is im portant to bear in m ind th a t skills and inform ation
are often learned in a context of knowledge, w hich is, in one of its
aspects, an organization of skills and inform ation. I have given as
exam ples handling laboratory equipm ent an d retaining the table of
chem ical elem ents. M any would argue th a t th e skills and inform ation
learn ed in knowledge contexts are am ong th e m ost im portant and
fu rth e r th a t in knowledge areas skills and inform ation should be
su b o rd in a te or instrum ental. This could e ith e r m ean th at they are
pick ed u p incidentally or th at training or in stru ctio n is offered w hen
th e learn er sees a need for it. In the first case, it is difficult to use the
objectives m odel. In the second case, th e objectives m odel fits well,
b u t describes only a subordinate unit w ithin th e curriculum which
plays a service role. Exam ples might be L atin for m ediaeval historians,
statistics for social scientists or prosody for stu d e n ts of literature.
T h e great problem in applying the objectives m odel lies in the
area o f in d u ctio n into knowledge.
A t th is point, it is w orth returning to a criticism o f the objectives
m odel w hich we have already encountered. P o p h am , you will rem em
b er, cites as a criticism : ‘It is somehow u n d em o cratic to plan in
advance precisely how th e learner should behave after in stru ctio n /
K lieb ard (1968, 246), am ong many others, p u ts th is view strongly:
. . . from a moral point of view, the emphasis on behavioural goals,
despite all of the protestations to the contrary, still borders on brain
washing or at least indoctrination rather than education. We begin with
some notion of how we want a person to behave and then we try to
manipulate him and his environment so as to get him to behave as wc
want him to.
C ertainly, m uch of the literature of behavioural objectives does
reflect a concern for the achievement of socially approved goals, and
th is m ig h t be seen as a th re a t to democracy. B u t th e poin t seems to be
w rongly taken. It seems to assume that we are free and there is a
th re a t th a t education will chain us. But in fact o u r freedom is lim ited.
By stan d ard s as near to absolute as we can conceive, m en are relatively
p redictable, limited and uncreative. It is the b u sin ess of education to
m ake us freer and m ore creative.
E ducation enhances the freedom of m an by inducting him into
th e know ledge of his culture as a thinking system . T h e most im portant
characteristic of the knowledge mode is th a t one can think with it.
T h is is in the nature of knowledge - as d istin ct from inform ation -
th a t it is a structure to sustain creative th o u g h t and provide fram e
w orks for judgem ent.
Education as induction into knowledge is successful to the extent that
it makes the behavioural outcomes o f the students unpredictable.
C onsider the m arking of history essays. T h e exam ination m arker
h a s a large num ber w hich he m ust m onitor.
A s he reads them he often becomes aw are th a t th ere is a depressing
sim ilarity about them . T h is is because th e m ajority of teachers have
b een w orking to a behavioural objective — to produce ju st such an
essay. T h e y don’t talk about objectives because they feel they are
ra th e r disreputable, b u t they are using th e m . F rom the pile of
essays a few leap out at the marker as original, surprising, showing
evidence of individual thinking. T hese, th e unpredictable, are the
successes. In the university setting, they are th e ones who get the
firsts.
In any area of knowledge or art the m o st im p o rtan t product in
te rm s of student perform ance is the essay —in th e broadest sense of
th a t w ord, th a t is, a trial piece or endeavour. A n essay in this sense
w o u ld m ean not m erely a written piece, b u t also an oral perform ance
o r a pain tin g or the playing of a piece o f m u sic or designing and
m ak in g a standard lam p. It is in such efforts th a t a student tests his
pow ers. T h e y m ust be criticized, cannot be ignored, and the criticism
o f th e m is a m uch m ore important evaluation th a n th at derived from
a n objective test.
A n essay should be individual and creative and not an attem pt to
m ee t a prespecification. It takes account of th e indeterm inacy in
know ledge which arises because the s tru c tu re s of knowledge are not
m e re classification and retrieval systems b u t c o n stitu te a raw m aterial
fo r thinking.
T h e evaluative response to an essay involves th e teacher in a claim
to m ake judgem ents of quality about s tu d e n t w ork, guided by his
u n d e rsta n d in g of the nature of his subject. A n essay is not right or
w rong. I t is to be ju dged qualitatively in th e light of criteria appro
p ria te in its field.
N ow of course this implies that the evaluation of an essay is not
objective, and indeed it is an index of the qu ality of a teacher th at he
is capable of thoughtful and productive evaluation which helps the
stu d e n t to improve his work. This sets p ro b lem s in public examining,
b u t there is no escape from them. T h e q u a lity of a teacher is in
separable from the quality of his ju d g em e n t o f stu d e n ts’ work.
In addition to formalizing and th ereb y w eakening standards of
quality, the objectives approach also te n d s to make knowledge
instrum ental. Literary skills are to be ju stified as helping us to read
H am let. Ham let m ust not be justified as a training ground for
literary skills. W e know only too well how easy it is to tu rn intrinsi
cally w orthw hile content into a m ere exercise. W e m ust be careful
th a t we do not allow ‘the use of m ethods to d isto rt content in order to
m eet objectives’. (Stenhouse 1970, 76)
K now ledge is prim arily concerned w ith synthesis. T he analytic
app ro ach im plied in th e objectives m odel readily trivializes it.
Basically, the objectives approach is an attem p t to improve
p ractice by increasing clarity about ends. E ven if it were logically
justifiable in term s of knowledge - and it is no t - there is a good case
for claim ing that it is n ot the way to im prove practice. W e do not
teach people to jum p higher by setting th e b a r higher, but by enabling
th em to criticize their present perform ance. I t is process criteria
w hich help the teacher to better his teaching. >
I n curriculum developm ent on the large scale the use of objec
tives laid down from the centre is a kind o f teacher proofing. T h e
c u rricu lu m is to tend in the same direction w hatever the knowledge
and talents of the individual teacher a n d in d eed of the individual
stu d e n t.
B ut there can be no educational dev elo p m en t w ithout teacher
d e v e lo p m en t; and the best means of dev elo p m en t is not by clarifying
en d s b u t by criticizing practice. T h ere are c riteria by which one can
criticize and improve th e process of ed u catio n w ithout reference to an
en d -m e a n s model which sets an a rb itrary horizon to one’s efforts.
T h e im provem ent of practice rests on diagnosis, not prognosis. It is
not by concentrating on the analysis of h e a lth th a t we cure our ills.
7
A PROCESS M O D E L
I t is idle to criticize the objectives model as a strateg y for the design

a n d developm ent of curriculum if no ord erly alternative can be
fo u n d . In this chapter I shall attem pt to explore the possibilities
offered by a strategy of curriculum design w hich attem p ts to arrive
a t a useful specification of curriculum and th e educational process
w ith o u t starting by pre-specifying the an ticipated outcom es of that
p ro cess in th e form of objectives.
T h e issue is: can curriculum and pedagogy be organized satis
facto rily by a logic other th an that of the m eans end m odel? Can the
d e m a n d s of a curriculum specification as I set th e m o u t in C hapter i
(page 5) be m et w ithout using the concepts of objectives?
F irs t I m ust ask, can th ere be principles for th e selection of content
o th e r th a n th e principle th at it should co n trib u te to th e achievem ent
o f an objective? T here seem s no doubt th a t th e re can. P eters (1966)
a rg u es cogently for th e intrinsic justification o f content. H e starts
fro m th e position that education ‘implies th e tran sm issio n of what is
w o rth w h ile to those w ho become com m itted to it* and th a t it ‘m ust
involve knowledge and understanding and som e kind of cognitive
persp ectiv e, which are not inert1. (45) B elieving th at education
involves taking part in worthwhile activities, P eters argues th at such
activ ities have their ow n built-in standards o f excellence, and thus
‘ca n b e appraised because of the standards im m an e n t in them rather
th a n because of what th ey lead on t o \ (155) T h e y can be argued to
b e w orthw hile in them selves rather th an as m eans tow ards objectives.
I n P e te rs’s view the m ost im portant exam ples o f activities of this
k in d a re th e arts and th e forms of knowledge.
Curriculum activities . . . such as science, history, literary appreciation,
and poetry are ‘serious* in that they illuminate other areas of life and
contribute much to the quality of living. They have, secondly, a wide-
ranging cognitive content which distinguishes them from games. Skills,
for instance, do not have a wide-ranging cognitive content. There is very
little to know about riding bicycles, swimming, or golf. It is largely a
m atter of ‘knowing how* rather than of ‘knowing that*, of knack rather
A Process M odel 85
than of understanding. Furthermore what there is to know throws very
little light on much else. In history, science, or literature, on the other
hand, there is an immense amount to know, and if it is properly assimi
lated, it constantly throws light on, widens, and deepens one’s view of
countless other things.
(Peters 1966, 159)
I have already argued th a t skills are p ro b ab ly susceptible to tre a t
m e n t th ro u g h the objectives model, w hich e n c o u n te rs its greatest
p ro b le m s in areas of knowledge. Peters is claim ing th a t these areas of
know ledge are essential p arts of the cu rricu lu m and th at they can
be ju stifie d intrinsically rather than as m eans to ends. T hey can be
selected as content on grounds other th a n th e scrutiny of th eir
specific outcom es in term s of student behaviours.
It is interesting that Peters moved later - a n d I th in k wrongly -
from education as initiation into knowledge to th e notion of the
e d u c a te d m an, thereby letting objectives in again, as any founding
o f ed u catio n on an ideal o f man, rather th a n o f know ledge, m ust do.
W ith in knowledge and arts areas, it is possible to select content for
a c u rric u lu m unit w ithout reference to s tu d e n t behaviours or indeed
to e n d s o f any kind other th an that of rep re sen tin g th e form of know
ledge in th e curriculum . T h is is because a fo rm o f knowledge has
s tru c tu re , and it involves procedures, concepts a n d criteria. C ontent
can be selected to exemplify the most im p o rta n t procedures, thp key
c o n cep ts and the areas and situations in w hich th e criteria hold.
N o w it m ight be th o u g h t that this is to designate procedures,
co n cep ts and criteria as objectives to be lea rn ed by the students.
T h is strateg y could, of course, be followed, b u t it w ould, I believe,
d isto rt th e curriculum . F o r the key procedures, concepts and criteria
in any subject - cause, form , experiment, tragedy - are, and are
im p o rta n t precisely because they are, p ro b lem atic w ith in the subject.
T h e y are the focus of speculation, not th e o b jec t o f m astery. E duca
tionally, they are also im portant because th e y invite understanding
at a variety of levels. T h e infant class co n sid e rin g th e origins of a
p lay g ro u n d fight and th e historian co nsidering th e origins of the
F irs t W o rld W ar are essentially engaged in th e sam e sort of task.
T h e y are attem pting to understand by u sin g th e concepts of causa
tio n ; and they are attem pting to understand b o th th e event and the
co n cep t by which they seek to explicate it.
I t is th e building of curriculum on such s tru c tu re s as procedures,
c o n cep ts and criteria, w hich cannot ad eq u ately be translated into
th e perform ance levels o f objectives, th a t m akes possible B runer’s
‘co u rte o u s translation’ o f knowledge and allow s of learning w hich
challenges all abilities and interests in a d iverse group. (See R aths’
p o in t 5, page 87)
T h e translation of the deep structures of know ledge into behavioural
o b jectiv es is one of the principal causes of th e distortion of know
ledge in schools noted by Young (1971), B ernstein (1971) and
E slan d (1971). T h e filtering of knowledge th ro u g h an analysis of
ob jectiv es gives the school an authority an d p o w er over its students
by s e ttin g arbitrary lim its to speculation a n d by defining arbitrary
so lu tio n s to unresolved problem s of know ledge. T h is translates the
te a c h e r from the role of the student of a com plex field of knowledge
to th e role of the m aster of the school’s agreed version of that field.
W h a t is the nature of historical causation? C an the concept of
c a u sa tio n be used successfully to u n d e rsta n d com plex situations?
H o w m ig h t one attack the origins of the F irs t W orld W ar by using
th e concept, and how successfully? T h ese a re th e kinds of question
raise d by adopting cause as a key concept in history. T here is no
g e n e ra lly acceptable and pre-specifiable a n sw er to them . T h e use of
th e objectives model has led to the provision o f arb itrary answers in
th e fo rm of specifications o f the causes of th e F irs t W orld W ar w hich
ca n be tested and m arked and this necessarily d isto rts the knowledge
in c lu d e d in the curriculum .
I t is qu ite possible to evolve principles for th e selection of content
in th e curriculum in term s of criteria w hich are n o t dependent on the
e x iste n ce of a specification of objectives, a n d w hich are sufficiently
specific to give real guidance and to expose th e principles to criticism .
R a th s (1971) offered an interesting list o f c rite ria ‘for identifying
a c tiv itie s th at seem to have some inherent w o r th ’. (716) For the p u r
p o se o f th e present argum ent it is not n ecessary th a t his criteria be
a c c e p te d . W hat is at issue is whether we find th em m eaningful and
accessible to our ju d g em en t, and w hether we can produce co u n te r
p ro p o sa ls in a sim ilar form when we disagree w ith Raths.
H e re is th e list:
1. All other things being equal, one activity is more worthwhile than
another if it permits children to make inform ed choices in carrying out
th e activity and to reflect on the consequences of their choices.
another if it assigns to students active roles in the learning situation
rath e r than passive ones.
an o th er if it asks students to engage in inquiry into ideas, applications of
intellectual processes, or current problems, either personal or social.
A Process M odel 87
another if it involves children with realia (i.e. real objects, materials and
artefacts).
another if completion of the activity may be accomplished successfully
by children at several different levels of ability.
another if it asks students to examine in a new setting an idea, an applica
tion of an intellectual process, or a current problem which has been
previously studied.
another if it requires students to examine topics or issues that citizens in
our society do not normally examine - and that are typically ignored by
the m ajor communication media in the nation.
another if it involves students and faculty m em bers in ‘risk* taking - not
a risk of life or limb, but a risk of success or failure.
another if it requires students to rewrite, rehearse, and polish their
initial efforts.
another if it involves students in the application and mastery of meaning
ful rules, standards, or disciplines.
another if it gives students a chance to share the planning, the carrying
out of a plan, or the results of an activity with others.
12. All other things being equal, one activity is m ore worthwhile than
another if it is relevant to the expressed purposes of the students.
T h e s e criteria are less explicity related to epistem ology than those
I discussed earlier in the chapter, but n u m b e rs 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10
p ro v id e a link in th a t it is argued that the arts a n d form s of knowledge
are characterized in p a rt by the fact th a t th ey m eet such criteria.
O th e rs o f Raths* criteria are linked to p ro p o sitio n s regarding the
ethics o f education or the principles of pedagogy.
T h is is an im portant point. T he fo rm u la tio n of a schedule of
behavioural objectives helps us little tow ards th e m eans of attaining
them . T h e analysis of the criteria for w o rth w h ile activities and of
the s tru c tu re o f the activities deemed to b e w orthw hile appears to
p o in t m u ch m ore clearly to principles of p ro c e d u re in teaching.
Peters (1959) drew a clear distinction betw een aims and principles
of procedure.
T o illustrate more clearly the distinction which I am drawing between
‘aim s’ and ‘principles of procedure’, let me take a parallel from politics.
A m an who believes in equality, might, like Godwin, be lured by a
positive picture of a society in which differences between people would
be minimised. He might want to get rid of differences in wealth and
rank, even to breed people in the attempt to iron out innate differences.
H e m ight even go so far as to advocate the abolition of institutions like
the army or the Church in which some men were given opportunities
of lording it over others. Another social reformer, however, might
employ the principle of equality in a much more negative sense without
any concrete picture to lure him on his journey*. He might insist, merely,
that whatever social changes were introduced, no one should be treated
differently from anyone else unless a good reason could be produced to
justify such unequal treatment. The Godwin type of man would rightly
be regarded as pursuing equality as a very general aim; the more cau
tious liberal would have no particular aim connected with equality. He
would merely insist that whatever schemes were put forward must not
be introduced in a way which would infringe his procedural principle.
I think this is an illuminating parallel to the point I am trying to make
about the aims of education. For, in my view, most disputes about the
aims of education are disputes about principles of procedure rather than
about ‘aims’ in the sense of objectives to be arrived at by taking appro
priate means. The so-called ‘aims’ are ways of referring to the different
valuations which are built into the different procedures like training,
conditioning, the use of authority, teaching by example and rational
explanation, all of which fail under the general concept of ‘education*.
(Peters 1959, 89-90) I
I find P eters’s concept of ‘principles o f p ro c e d u re ’ a helpful one,

th o u g h his use of it here strikes me as a little odd. H is ‘m ore negative
sense* seem s to im ply th at principles o f p ro c e d u re are constraints
u p o n th e way in w hich aims are p u rsu e d , w hereas the adoption of
su c h an aim as induction into a field of know ledge - an aim apparently
congenial to Peters - seems to give a basis fo r positive principles of
p ro c e d u re derived from the aim itself.
I t does seem to be true, however, th a t p rin c ip le s of procedure are
o fte n m ost easily form ulated negatively, even w hen they derive
fro m su c h an aim. It is m ore difficult to define w hat the pu rsu it of a
p a rtic u la r field of knowledge com prises in p rinciple than w hat it
ex clu d es in principle. T h is is because th e p rin cip les w hich obtain for
know ledge w ithin a field are problem atic w ith in th a t field. It is p a rt
o f th e n a tu re of knowledge that such p rin c ip le s should always be in
so m e sense provisional and open to d ebate. C onsensus is th u s m ore
easily achieved in excluding certain p ro ce d u re s as invalid th an in
d iscrim in atin g am ong those which have claim s to validity.
T h e way in which principles of p ro ce d u re struggle to separate th e
v alid from the invalid is well exem plified in an attem p t by Griffin
A Process Model 89
(1942, rep o rte d in M etcalf 1963^0 advance p rin c ip le s for the teaching
of histo ry in th e light of D ew ey's reflective th eo ry o f teaching (Dewey
19 3 3 ): ‘Reflective thought is the active, careful an d p ersistent exami
nation of any belief, or purported form of know ledge, in the light of
the g ro u n d s th at support it and the further conclusions tow ard which
it te n d s .' (M etcalf 1963, 934) Griffin attem pted to ju stify the develop
m en t of reflective thinking on the grounds of th e dem ocratic ethic, and
one can see clearly how he works tow ards his positive principles
th ro u g h th e exclusion of non-dem ocratic altern ativ es and how his
positive proposals are m ore controversial th an his exclusions.
Democracies also need order, stability, unity, purpose, and continuity.
For them the solution cannot take the form of instilling specific beliefs
in all children. Democracies cannot justify the suppression of knowledge,
and if they consider doubt to be the beginning of all knowledge, they
m ust positively encourage occasions for doubt. A reliance upon know
ledge rather than hallowed belief, becomes the central, all-embracing
value.
All culture patterns, democratic or authoritarian, have central and
directing values. Democracy is not so much concerned with the specific
character of the directing values as with the way in which central values
are m aintained and modified.
T h e earliest beliefs of children are not and cannot be acquired re
flectively, although some writers have urged that they can be. Early
beliefs are taken on uncritically and are often the consequence of1con
ditioning or animal preference. The uncritical acquisition of early
beliefs takes place in all societies, democratic or authoritarian, and a child
need be no more ashamed of those beliefs than he is of his ancestry. Both
are beyond his capacity to choose.
T h e development of children into adults who can steadily modify
their beliefs in terms of their adequacy for explaining a widening range
of experience requires two things: (1) improving and refining the re
flective capacities of children, and (2) breaking through the hard shell
of tradition which encases many deeply rooted and emotionally charged
beliefs.
(M etcalf 1963, 934 - 935 )
T h e p rinciples are reached by the exclusion of o th e r possible posi
tions, and th ey are m ore contentious when th ey em erge than the
exclusive steps taken to arrive at them. M etcalf is arg u in g th at history
should be th e means by w hich children criticize ra th e r than accept
the tra d itio n s and values handed on to them .
I believe I have cited enough evidence to s u p p o rt the view that
sections A and C of the specificational req u irem en ts o f a curriculum
w hich I set u p in C hapter 1 (page 5) can be m et w ith o u t the use of
objectives. B ut the points I have made are at a high level of generality.
C an one in fact plan a curriculum on the basis of principles of p ro
cedure? W ill a process m odel work in practice?
In arguing for the use of behavioural objectives in curriculum
design, T y le r (1949) m entioned and dism issed tw o o th er possibilities.
I now w ant to take those up.
T h e first was th at we m ight specify w hat th e teacher is to do. A nd
you will rem em ber th at he argues (see page 53) th a t if an objective is
sta te d in th e form of activities to be carried on by the teacher, there
is no way o f judging w hether these activities are justifiable, since
th e y are n o t the ultim ate purpose o f education. T h ese ultim ate
p u rp o ses are, he avers, changes in the stu d e n ts. A nd they need to be
prespecified, spelled out in advance. W e have n o ted the shortcom ings
o f an ends-m eans m odel in education, and looked tow ards the
specification of principles of procedure w hich refer to teacher activity.
T h e second possibility which T yler dism issed was th at one m ight
specify th e content to be dealt with. T h is too he regards as unsatis
facto ry as it does not tell us what the s tu d e n ts are to do w ith the
co n ten t. I have argued th at where a form of know ledge exists, a
specification of content does imply how it is to be handled.
I now w ant to consider by reference to practical cases w hether we
c a n reasonably set about curriculum design by attem p tin g to define
th e classroom process in term s of what th e teach er is to do at the level
o f principles and w hat the content is. In su ch a case our statem ent
a b o u t a curriculum w ould be an answ er to th e q u estion: how is the
te a c h e r to handle what? I shall of course have to consider this approach
in relation to changes in the students.
I propose to exam ine two curricula, M a n : A Course o f S tu d y and
th e H um anities C urriculum Project, b o th of w hich are designed on a
basis other th an th at of behavioural objectives.
M a n : A Course o f S tu d y is an A m erican social science curriculum
m ainly for th e 10-12 year-old age range. It is film -based and is rich
in m aterials. I t was directed by Peter D ow w ith Jerom e B runer as
c h ie f consulting scholar, and the force of B ru n e r’s ideas w'as pow erful
th ro u g h o u t the process of development.
A brief specification of the content o f th e course does not reach the
h e a rt of it. I t consists of a rather detailed stu d y of the Pacific salm on,
th e herring gull, the baboon and the N etsilik eskim o w ith a running
com parison w ith the students’ own society and experience. T h e
m eth o d is com parative, and the curriculum is based in the behavioural
sciences and anthropolgoy.
B ru n er w rites:
A Process M odel 9*
T h e content of the course is man: his nature as a species, the forces that
shaped and continue to shape his humanity. T h ree questions recur
throughout:
W hat is human about human beings?
How did they get that way?
How can they be made more so?
(Bruner 1966, 74)
T h e am biguities in these questions and the shift to a value implication
in th e last one (where strictly speaking ‘h u m a n e ’ m ight be m ore
a p p ro p ria te than ‘h u m an ’) are intended. T h e y invite teacher and
s tu d e n ts to speculate about hum anness in th e b ro ad est sense as they
s tu d y th e m aterials of the course.
A good deal more than this could be said a b o u t content, but that is
e n o u g h for the present purpose. T h e c o n te n t is speculation about
h u m an n e ss through a study of behavioural science in a context of
value questions. T h e teacher then is asked to be, for the purpose
o f th e course, a speculative behavioural and social scientist alive to the
value issues raised by his work.
B ru n e r notes the problem which im m ediately hits th e teacher when
he is confronted with such a dem and:
T h e first and most obvious problem is how to construct curricula that
can be taught by ordinary teachers to ordinary students and that at the
same time reflect clearly the basic or underlying principles of various
fields of inquiry.
H e notes the need for powerful and in telligent m aterials and for
a d ju stm e n t to students of different abilities. H e discusses in detail
th e dem an d s on the teacher implicit in th e position he takes.
E ith e r the teacher m ust be an expert o r he m u st be a learner along
w ith his students. In m ost cases, the teacher cannot in the nature of
th e case be an expert. It follows that he m u st cast him self in the role
o f a learner. Pcdagogically this may in fact be a preferable role to th a t
o f th e expert. It implies teaching by discovery or inquiry m ethods
r a th e r th an by instruction.
T h e teacher is not free to cast him self in th e role of the learner
w ith o u t regard to the learning of his s tu d e n ts for w hich he m ust
a c ce p t responsibility. W hat is required o f him to m ake him a senior
le a rn e r capable of offering som ething of w o rth to th e ju n io r learners
w ith w hom he works? Skills in finding th in g s ou t, of course. But
m o re th a n t h a t : some hold on, arid a continual refinem ent of, a philo
so p h ical understanding of the subject he is teaching and learning,
o f its deep structures and their rationale. T h e teach er needs to take
o n to his agenda a desire to understand th e n a tu re o f social science,
Q2 A n Introduction to Curriculum D evelopm ent
th e value problem s it raises and its relation to th e questions at the
c e n tre of the course. O nly when he has g one som e way tow ards
s tru c tu rin g his own understanding of these issues can he adopt the
pedagogy of the course.
T h e principles behind this pedagogy have been expressed as
pedagogical aim s:
1. T o initiate and develop in youngsters a process of question-posing
(the inquiry method);
2. T o teach a research methodology where children can look for infor
mation to answer questions they have raised and use the framework
developed in the course (e.g. the concept of the life cycle) and apply it
to new areas;
3. T o help youngsters develop the ability to use a variety of first-hand
sources as evidence from which to develop hypotheses and draw
conclusions;
4. T o conduct classroom discussions in which youngsters learn to listen
to others as well as to express their own views;
5. T o legitimize the search; that is, to give sanction and support to
open-ended discussions where definitive answers to many questions are
not found;
6. T o encourage children to reflect on their own experiences;
7. T o create a new role for the teacher, in which he becomes a resource
rather than an authority.
(Hanley, W hitla, M oo, Walter 1970, 5)
A n d th e authors com m ent: ‘It is clear th at th e se goals centre around

th e process of learning, rath er than around th e p ro d u c t.’ T hey are in
fact p rinciples of procedure, and they are sp e lle d o u t m ore fully in
th e course m aterials, a n d particularly in th e te a c h e rs ’ handbook on
E valuation Strategies.
L e t us take stock. M a n : A Course o f S tu d y is a cu rricu lu m designed
o n a specification of c o n ten t - objects o f s tu d y a n d some m aster
co n cep ts an d the point o f view of social science —a n d a specification
o f w h at th e teacher is to do expressed in te rm s o f principles of pro
c e d u re . I t is not designed on a pre-specification o f behavioural ob
jec tiv e s. O f course th ere are changes in s tu d e n ts as a result of the
co u rse, b u t m any of th e m ost valued are n o t to be anticipated in
detail. T h e pow er and th e possibilities of th e c u rricu lu m cannot be
c o n ta in ed w ithin objectives because it is fo u n d e d on th e idea th at
know ledge m ust be speculative and thus in d e te rm in a te as to student
o u tcom es if it is to be worthwhile. And it is a practical and orderly
c o u rse in use in a large num ber of schools.
M a n : A Course o f S tu d y sustains coherence w ithin a process
A Process Model 93
m odel p artly at least because of its reliance on the structures of
know ledge. I t is often argued that education sh o u ld be founded on the
disciplines of knowledge because they provide a fram ew ork of criteria
and p rin c ip le s of procedure and a means of ju stify in g these. I believe
th a t if th e advantages of this framework are to be gained, a process
m odel sh o u ld be used rather than an objectives m odel.
D oes th is m ean that the process m odel im plies the disciplines
of know ledge as a framework? Are they the only source of process
criteria?
I n its experim ental design the H um anities P ro ject is an attem pt
to ex p lo re this problem . T h e content selected, controversial hum an
issues, has in com m on w ith knowledge in th e disciplines a necessary
in d eterm in acy of student outcomes, b u t th e re is no disciplinary
stru c tu re .
T h e a rg u m e n t runs thus. Controversial issues are defined em piri
cally as issues which do in fa c t divide people in o u r society. Given
divergence am ong students, parents and teach ers, dem ocratic p rin
ciples a re evoked to suggest th at teachers m ay w ish to ensure th a t
th ey do n o t use th eir position of authority in th e classroom to advance
th e ir ow n opinions or perspectives, and th a t th e teaching process
does n o t determ ine the outcom e opinions a n d perspectives of the
s tu d e n ts. I t is im portant th a t there is no epistem ological base to this
a rg u m e n t. T h e position is th at, given a d isp u te in society abou£ the
tr u th o f a m atter, the teacher in a compulsory sta te school m ight wish
to te a c h th e dispute rather th an the tru th as h e know s it. A sim ilar
p o sitio n could be taken on different grounds in alm ost any area of
know ledge.
H ow ever, w ithout the su p p o rt of a discipline o f knowledge as a
base — th o u g h disciplined knowledge is an in g re d ien t - it proved
p o ssible to operate a design on the process m odel.
T h e H um anities C urriculum Project (1970, Stenhouse 1971a,
1971b) concentrated its research on th e technical problem s of
o p e ra tin g a discussion-based form of teaching in w hich the group
critically exam ined evidence as it discussed issues u n d e r the chair
m an sh ip of a teacher who subm itted his w ork to th e criterion of
n e u tra lity .
T h e pedagogical (as opposed to the research) aim of the Project is
to develop an understanding of social situations an d hum an acts and
of th e controversial value issues which they raise. (Retrospectively, I#
th in k it w ould have been b e tte r to delete V alu e', since as it stands the
aim m ay appear to imply th a t the only controversial issues are value
issues o r even th at value issues are necessarily controversial.)
T w o im plications of this aim are w orth p o in tin g out. First, it is
im plied th a t both students and teachers develop understanding, th at
is, th e teacher is cast in the role of a learner. S econd, understanding
is chosen as an aim because it cannot be achieved. U nderstanding
can always be deepened. Moreover, there m u st always be dispute as
to w hat constitutes a valid understanding. T h e tea c h e r and the group
have to accept as p art of their task an ex p lo ratio n of the nature of
u n d e rsta n d in g .
T h e hypotheses and suggestions offered to teachers by the Project
w ere largely based on th e observation o f classroom s and had two
p rin c ip al logics. One logic was that of g ro u p dynam ics. F or example,
th e arran g em en t of chairs may be im p o rta n t fo r encouraging dis
cussion across the group, and slow -paced discussions may broaden
p a rticip a tio n . Such hypotheses are virtually in d ep e n d e n t of content.
O th e r hypotheses about procedure, how ever, are content-linked. F or
exam ple, understanding o f controversy is b e tte r achieved by listening
to a range of views carefully and using q u e stio n s to elicit amplifi
catio n ra th e r than by arguing against o p p o n e n ts and attem pting to
resolve divergence.
I n th e H um anities Project we were h am m e rin g o u t in collaboration
w ith teachers a procedural discipline like th a t o f ‘p ro ced u re at m eetings'
o r p arliam entary procedure with the im p o rta n t distinction th a t we
w ere concerned not w ith a decision-m aking g ro u p , b u t with a learning
g ro u p aim ing to develop understanding. A n d th e very existence of
su c h form s as procedures at meetings, th e m ediaeval disputation
and indeed the epic or th e novel, should in d icate th a t such procedures
can have logical structures which are not d e p e n d e n t on epistemological
stru c tu re s. C ontroversiality is a p articularly interesting them e in
th is respect, since it contains a paradox. S ince th e controversy in
volves (for all but the relativist) com peting claim s to tru th , it im plies
th e no tio n of some non-controversial sta n d a rd o f tr u th to w hich appeal
is b e in g m ade.
T h e process model o f curriculum d e v elo p m en t raises problem s
for th e assessm ent of student work. T h e y m ay be difficult in practice,
b u t th ey are not difficult to understand. T h e objectives m odel is
closely related to the American m ovem ent tow ards exam ination
reform . D iscontent was felt at the subjectivity o f m arking and there
was a pressure tow ards objective tests, th e c riteria for w hich were
s u p p lie d by statem ents o f objectives.
N ow , of course, compromises could be m ade betw een th e objectives
and th e process m odels in practice, b u t in its logically pure form I
th in k th a t th e process m odel implies th a t in assessm ent or appraisal
A Process Model 95
th e tea c h e r ought to be a critic, not a m arker. T h e worthw hile
activity in w hich teacher and students are engaged has standards
a n d c riteria im m anent in it and the task of ap praisal is th at of im
p ro v in g stu d e n ts’ capacity to work to such criteria by critical reaction
to w o rk done. In this sense assessment is ab o u t th e teaching of self-
assessm ent.
S u c h assessm ent is not purely subjective since it appeals to public
c riteria , b u t it is concerned with difficult ju d g e m e n ts and hence
p erfo rm an ce will vary from teacher to teacher. C ritical assessment of
w ork is an activity w hich exposes the stre n g th s a n d weaknesses of
tea c h e rs very clearly. T h is presents problem s. I f I as a student tru st
m y te a c h e r’s judgem ent, I w ant criticism ra th e r th a n m arking. If I
do n o t tru s t his judgem ent, I want m arking ra th e r th a n criticism. In
th e classroom there is no way of com pensating m e fo r th e loss I suffer
in w orking w ith a teacher whose judgem ent I do n o t tru st. But I do
w a n t to be protected w hen it comes to public exam ination.
T h e re is a conflict of dem and between appraisal as teaching and
ap p raisal as grading. In appraisal as teaching, th e differing abilities
a n d stre n g th s of teachers are acceptable. T h a t is w hy a singer may
choose to be taught by several teachers in succession. T h e capacity of
th e lim ited teacher to lim it us is the price we pay for the capacity
o f th e profound teacher to extend us. But since g rading counts for so
m u ch , we w ant to be assured that the lim itations o f o u r teachers do
n o t seriously penalize us in examinations. T h e m ore objective an
exam ination, the more it fails to reveal the q uality o f good teaching
a n d good learning. By objective tests M ichelangelo and Russell
F lin t b o th get distinctions, yet it is the difference of quality between
th e m th a t is of fundam ental importance in art.
T h e process model is essentially a critical m odel, not a m arking
m odel. I t can never be directed towards an ex am ination as an objective
w ith o u t loss of quality, since the standards o f th e exam ination then
o v errid e th e standards im m anent in the subject. T h is does not mean
th a t stu d e n ts taught on th e process model c an n o t be exam ined, b u t
it does m ean that the exam ination m ust be taken in their stride as
th e y p u rsu e other aspirations. And if the exam ination is a by-product
th e re is an implication th a t the quality th e s tu d e n t show s in it m ust
b e an under-estim ate of his real quality. I t is hence rath e r difficult to
g e t th e weak student th ro u g h an exam ination u sin g a process model.
C ra m m e rs cannot use it, since it depends u p o n com m itm ent to
e d u catio n al aims.
U nfo rtu n ately , exam inations are so im p o rta n t in o u r society th at
m o st teachers, faced as they often are with choosing betw een education
g6 A n Introduction to Curriculum Developm ent
a n d o p p o rtu n ity for a substantial p roportion o f th e ir pupils, opt
fo r th e latter. T h eir aim is to get their pupils th ro u g h exam inations
th e y do n o t deserve to pass. And it is quite possible to get ‘O ’ or ‘A ’
level passes in chem istry or history or literatu re (n o t to m ention a
respectable degree) w ithout really u n d erstanding th e subject in the
sense o f grasping its deep structures and the concerns of scholars in it.
T h e process-based curriculum pursues u n d e rsta n d in g rather th an
g rades w h en the two conflict, and since grades are attainable w ithout
u n d e rsta n d in g , this penalizes the limited stu d e n t in term s of oppor
tu n ity even though it is educationally advantageous to him.
T h is ten sio n between educating and exam ining is, o f course, at the
c e n tre o f m o st teaching from the third year of th e secondary school
o n w ard s. C onflicts have to be resolved by com prom ises. T h e quality
a fte r w hich th e process-based curriculum reaches is to some extent
sacrificed by the acceptance of the public exam ination as a legitim ate
social objective, though it is recognized as an a rb itra ry educational
goal.
I t m ay be th a t process models are of great im p o rtan ce in areas of
th e c u rric u lu m where understanding and criteria are central, precisely
becau se su c h models counteract the pressure o f th e exam ination as an
o bjective a n d deny that knowledge can be defined by th e exam ination.
T h e m ajor weakness of the process m odel of curricu lu m design
will by now have become apparent. It rests u p o n the quality of th e
te a c h e r. T h is is also its greatest strength.
T h e process model is comm itted to tea c h e r developm ent. I f
tea c h e rs are to pursue understanding, develop a n d refine their criteria
o f ju d g e m e n t and their range in their subject, th ey m u st be able and
th ey m u st have time and opportunity for professional developm ent.
T h e co n d itio n s of teaching at present too often m ake survival a m ore
u rg e n t c o n cern than scholarship. And m ore research an d developm ent
is n e e d e d to forge teaching procedures w hich em body survival
te c h n iq u e s com patible w ith the personal and in tellectual developm ent
o f b o th p u p ils and teachers.
T h e objectives model applied to know ledge areas seem s to me to
c o n c e n tra te on im proving teaching as in stru ctio n w ith o u t increm ent
to th e w isdom or scholarship of the teacher. I t is, as th e designers o f
p a y m e n t by results believed, a way of increasing sta n d a rd s of form al
a tta in m e n t in restricted areas while accepting th e lim itations of th e
te a c h in g force. It is a m eans of bettering students* perform ance
w ith o u t im proving teachers’ personal and professional quality.
A n y p ro cess model rests on teacher ju d g e m e n t rath er th an on
te a c h e r direction. It is far more dem anding on teachers and thus far
A Process Model 97
m ore difficult to im plem ent in practice, bu t it offers a h igher degree of
perso n al and professional developm ent. In p a rtic u la r circum stances it
m ay well prove too dem anding.
In th is c h a p te r I have considered the process m o d el of curriculum
design a n d developm ent, arguing that, largely on logical grounds, it is
m ore a p p ro p ria te than the objectives m odel in th e areas of the cur
ricu lu m w hich centre on knowledge and u n d e rsta n d in g . T h e objec
tives m odel appears more suitable in curricular areas w hich emphasize
in fo rm atio n and skills.
M u c h of th e advocacy of th e objectives m odel has, however, come
not fro m those who are engaged in curriculum d esig n and develop
m en t, b u t from those concerned with c u rricu lu m evaluation. T h eir
p ro b le m s will be considered in the next c h ap ter.
8
THE EVALUATION
OF C U R R I C U L U M
I have argued in the last chapter that from th e developer’s point of

view it is possible to m ake a systematic and orderly approach to
c u rric u lu m innovation w ithout using the objectives model. It is, of
co u rse, open to the developer to use the objectives m odel if it appears
to s u it his needs. M y point is simply th at p ro m isin g alternatives do
a p p e a r to exist.
H ow ever, m uch of th e pressure on the developer to use the objec
tiv e s m odel has been based on the prem ise th a t it is necessary to
a d o p t it in order to m ake evaluation possible. In th is chapter I shall
rev iew the field of evaluation. Are there alternatives to the objectives
m o d e l w hen the problem of curriculum inn o v atio n is seen from the
p o in t of view of the evaluator?
L e t m e begin by picking up a phrase I have ju s t used - ‘the field of
e v a lu a tio n ’. Is there a field of evaluation?
N o w th e answer is, I think, that there is a highly developed specialist
a re a o f evaluation in educational research in th e U n ited States and in
S w ed en , b u t only the beginnings of such a developm ent in Britain.
A n y review of the state o f the art is b o u n d to depend heavily on
A m erican or Swedish w ork; and the differing conditions of education
in th ese countries needs to be taken into acco u n t if we are to apply
th e ir work to our situation.
C ronbach (1963), 673) distinguishes th re e types of decisions for
w h ic h evaluation is u sed :
1. Course improvement: deciding what instructional material and

m ethods are satisfactory and where change is needed.
2. Decisions about individuals: identifying the needs of the pupil for
th e sake of planning his instruction, judging pupil m erit for the purposes
o f selection and grouping, acquainting the pupil with his own progress
and deficiencies.
3. Administrative regulation: judging how good the school system is,
how good individual teachers are, etc.
The Evaluation o f Curriculum 99
W e are here mainly - though not exclusively —concerned with the
first of these. B ut the second reminds us th a t in th e U nited States
evaluation has been closely associated w ith th e trad itio n of m ental
m easurem ent. And the th ird reminds us th a t in th e U n ited States, and
indeed in Sw eden, the administrative sphere is seen differently from
the way it has traditionally been seen in B ritain. W ithin the British
system decisions in all these three areas are tra d itio n ally seen as falling
w ith in th e province of the teacher and the school. T h is is m uch less so
in b o th th e U nited States and Sweden.
In th e U n ited States, curricula are subject to state adoption, or at
least to school board adoption. This means th a t explicit decisions about
th e w o rth of curricula have to be made at an ad m in istrativ e level o u t
side th e school by supervisors who see them selves, m uch m ore expli
citly th a n do the personnel of British local a u th o rities, as in positions
of educational leadership. So curricular decisions in th e Ui>ited States
are m o re focused on the question of w hat c u rric u la to recom m end
o th ers to use, less on w hat curriculum to use oneself, than they are in
B ritain. T h e contrast is of course not so sh a rp as it sounds here.
In S w eden the curriculum is centralized. T h e Sw edish M inistry o f
E d u c a tio n has th e task of making curricular decisions for the whole
school system .
N ow b o th these situations seem to me to have th e effect of making
a c u rric u la r decision m ore im portant than I w o u ld conceive it to>be. I t
is at least arguable that curriculum is not in any direct way the m ajor
variable in the school’s situation; but it is m o re difficult to argue th at
in th e U n ited States or Sweden. And fu rth e r, since a curriculum
w hich is widely recom m ended requires to b e justified, there is a
p ressu re to m ake m uch m ore ambitious claim s in th e U nited States
and Sw eden. I probably exaggerate the difference, being on the
extrem e teacher-centred wing in this country. B u t certainly, while it
seem s ju s t possible here to recommend a c u rricu lu m as having
in terestin g potential, in the United States a n d S w ed en there is a real
p ressu re to m ake stronger claims. And this is th e context of evaluation.
W ith in this context, the question posed by th e evaluator who uses
th e objectives model is a straightforward o n e : ‘W hat one really
w ants to know about a given curriculum is w h e th e r it w orks.’ (Gagne
1967, 29) In order to answ er this question it is im p o rta n t to be clear
ab o u t w hat a curriculum is trying to do. C la rity is to be achieved by
dem an d in g th at the developer of a curriculum state the aims of th e
c u rricu lu m m term s of behavioural objectives, each of which ‘m ust
describe an observable behaviour of the le a rn e r o r a product which
is a consequence of learner behaviour’. (P o p h a m 1969, 35) ‘Evalua-
io o A n Introduction to Curriculum D evelopm ent
tion is concerned w ith securing evidence on th e a tta in m e n t of specific
objectives of in stru c tio n /* (Bloom 1970, 28)
T h is approach to evaluation is essentially o n e o f m easurem ent.
T h e essence . . . is to make explicit the changes in behaviour accruing

through instruction, beginning with the writing of behavioural objectives
for student learning and followed by measuring changes in behaviour
toward these objectives.
For evaluating learning this approach has obvious advantages. . . . The
most im portant one is not the popular notion of writing behaviourally
defined objectives before beginning to instruct learners; instead it is a
logical result of writing these objectives - the use of an absolute rather
than a relative standard for measuring learning.
(Wittrock 1970, 13)
In m easu rem en t-b ased evaluation, it is a rg u ed , th e function of o b

jectiv es is to m ake it possible to develop c riterio n -referen ced , rather
th a n norm -referen ced , tests. N orm -referenced te sts tell us how an
ind iv id u al performs<as com pared with a g ro u p : criterion-referenced
tests tell us how an individual performs in re la tio n to a standard.
T h e tea c h e r or curriculum developer is in v ite d to nom inate, by
sta tin g his objectives, the standard by which he w ishes his work, to be
assessed, pro v id ed th a t the standard is couched in behavioural term s
w hich m ake it possible to develop criterion-referenced tests. He can
o p t fo r how th e cu rricu lu m is to be m easu red , b u t not for how it
is to b e ju d g e d . H e cannot, for example, ask th a t it be ju d g ed on its
in te rn al logic or by the judgem ent of teachers o r o f students. It is to
b e ju d g e d in th e light of th e m easurem ent o f th e perform ance of
s tu d e n ts on criterion-referenced tests.
G laser (1970) has distinguished six different ed u catio n al needs (the
first p h rase in each of th e numbered s ta te m e n ts below), and has
su g g ested ‘th e considerations for evaluation a n d m easurem ent th at
each raises’.
1. W ith respect to the specification of learning outcomes, the following
are required: (a) behavioural definition of goals, evaluating progress
toward these goals, and clarifying these goals in the light of evaluated
experience, (b) prior evaluation of educational procedures, insuring they
are in effect before assessing educational accomplishment, and (c)
development of techniques for criterion-referenced measurement.
• T he American term instruction is a difficult one for British readers to

interpret. Translate as teaching or education until a sense of its connotation
has been built up.
The Evaluation of Curriculum IOI
2. For the diagnosis of initial state, what is required is determination of

long-term individual differences that are related to adaptive educational
alternatives.
3. For the design of instructional alternatives, a key task is to determine
measures that have the highest discriminating potential for allocating
between instructional treatments.
4. For continuous assessment, discovery of measurements of ongoing
learning that facilitate prediction of the next instructional step is required.
5. For adaptation and optimization, the instructional model requires:
(a) the detailed analysis of individual-difference by instructional-treat
m ent interactions and (b) the development of procedures like the
optim izing methods so far used in fields other than education.
6. For evolutionary operation, we require a systematic theory or model
of instruction into which accumulated knowledge can be placed and then
empirically tested and improved.
(8 4 - 8 5 )
T h e first of G laser’s six statem ents covers w hat I have ju st w ritten
a b o u t behavioural objectives and criterion-referenced testing, but
adds an im p o rtan t point. If we are to m easure a curricular proposal,
we m u st find some way of m onitoring classroom s in o rder to verify
th a t th e curriculum is in operation. T h is is, in fact, no easy task,
p articu larly if we are dealing with many classroom s. M oreover, the
m ea su rem e n t of effects in classrooms where th e cu rricu lu m is im ple
m en te d takes no account of the possibility th a t it is im portant to
evaluate how difficult the curriculum is to im plem ent. P erhaps reality
c an n o t be brought to conform to the specification except in excep
tionally favourable circum stances.
T h e second point regarding the diagnosis of initial state or entering
b e h a v io u r (as it is sometim es called) means th a t we m ust test people
before th ey en ter upon th e curriculum . T h is has w ider im plications,
how ever, th an the p re-test/p o st-test experim ental m odel, for it points
tow ard s a diagnostic procedure by which stu d e n ts are sw itched on
to p a rtic u la r curricula or on to particular u n its or routes w ithin a
d ifferentiated curriculum . G laser’s third poin t is concerned w ith the
dev elo p m en t of these instructional alternatives and the need to
p ro d u ce diagnostic m easures which discrim inate betw een these
alternatives in such a way that we know w hich alternative to choose
on th e basis of the test of entry behaviour. F u rth e r (point 4) diagnostic
m easures of this sort need to form part of a continuous assessm ent
p ro ce d u re w hich allows us to predict the next u n it of instruction on
th e basis of w here the pupil stands now. A nd it is possible to work
tow ard s the optim ization o f a decision p ro ced u re ‘w hich defines an
in stru ctio n al strategy and is determ ined by th e functional relationship
betw een (a) long- and short-range history and (b) s tu d e n t perform
ance at each stage and at the terminal stag e’. (G laser 1970, 82)
Finally, G laser looks tow ards a model or th eo ry w hich allows work
w ithin this p a tte rn to become cumulative to w ard s a theory of cur
riculum and instruction.
G laser’s theory is som ew hat in advance of p ractice. T h e nearest
I know to a realization of this type of strategy is th e Swedish In
dividualized M athem atics Teaching - I.M .U . (U . — undervisning,
Sw edish for teaching). It is designed for th e u n stre a m e d and u n
graded Sw edish com prehensive school.
I.M .U . (u p p er level) is built of nine m odules w hich together cover
the u p p e r level course in mathematics, norm ally a th ree-y ear course.
T h e course has been described as follows:
Starting with a common curriculum for all pupils, the subject material
is then structured according to the degree of difficulty within each
module. T h e following diagram outlines the principles on which a
module is based. Each module comprises four parts, components, the
F ig. 2 D iagram sh ow ing principles of a m od u le in I .M .U . U p p er level -

version 3.
first three of which belong to the basic course. T hey are called compo
nents A, B and C. Component A is common for all pupils. T he B and C
components are divided into levels of difficulty, hereafter called booklets.
For the B component there are 2 or 3 booklets, called B i, B2, B3 or
B i, B2-3. T h e C component comprises 3 booklets, C i, C2 and C3.
T he degree of difficulty is easiest in the Bi and C i booklets, while
B2-3 or B3 and C3 are the most difficult. T h e different booklets cover
roughly the same material but the way in which the instructions are
presented and the number of extra tasks vary. T h e I) component is not
part of the basic course. It exists only in one level and comprises both
revision tasks and certain tasks of a more independent nature. Each
component except the D component is completed with a diagnostic
The Evaluation of Curriculum 103
test (D T ). The number of tasks in this test varies depending on which
booklet has been studied within the component. As a rule the number of
tasks is greater for the more difficult booklets. Each component also
includes diagnostic tasks that the pupils correct themselves. Each
m odule finishes with a prognostic test (PT) which exists in three
parallel versions.
T h e material is individualized in both the rate of work and the degree
of penetration. As a result pupils within one grade can reach different
points in the material. T he intended 'normal rate of study* is three
m odules per year.
In principle the pupils are free to choose which booklet they like.
T h e idea is that the pupils should, together with their teacher, go through
w hat they have achieved earlier and on the basis of this and other
experiences choose a suitable level. It is possible and permissible to
change level both within and between modules. T h e constructors of
the material have indicated certain figures for guiding the spread be
tween the different levels in a component, but neither pupils nor teachers
are obliged to follow these figures.
(Larsson 1973, 16-17)
I have given this account of I.M .U . because it is a good example of
a c u rric u lu m which accepts and is perm eated by th e view of evaluation
developed by Glaser. B ut its evaluation as su ch was m uch broader
th a n G la ser appears to be grasping for. In th e m ain evaluation study
th e effects on both pupils and teachers were stu d ie d . T h e re were also
th e follow ing studies w ithin the evaluation:
Goal testing study
M aterial study
Job analysis study
Parent study
Observation study
Study of anxious pupils
Studies of different ways of presentation
Studies of the work of project consultants
Study of 'single* pupils
T h e evaluation report is well w orth reading as an exam ple of a highly
developed design with the objectives m odel at its core.
W ith in the American tradition, Scriven (1967) points out the im
p o rta n c e o f evaluating goals rather than sim ply seeing evaluation in
te rm s o f goal achievement. T h e curriculum m u st be attem pting
so m e th in g worthwhile as well as achieving w h at it attem pts. H e
d istin g u ish es between ‘intrinsic’ evaluation - of th e content, goals,
g ra d in g procedures, teacher attitude, etc. - and ‘pay-off* evaluation -
o f th e effects of the teaching instrum ent on th e p u p il. H e notes that
104 Introduction to Curriculum Developm ent
d e fe n d e rs of pay-off evaluation support th eir a p p ro a c h by arguing
th a t all th a t really counts in education is its effects o n th e pupils, but
he believes ‘that an evaluation involving som e w eig h tin g of intrinsic
criteria and some pay-off criteria might be a w o rth w h ile compromise*
(54) an d he discusses the way forward tow ards su c h a procedure.
A n im p o rtan t point begins to emerge here. G lass (1970, 58) has
u rg ed th a t ‘T h e goal of evaluation must be to an sw er questions of
selection, adoption, su p p o rt and worth of edu catio n al m aterials and
activities.* It is the business of the evaluator, not m erely to accum u
late data, b u t to judge. T h is is Scriven’s assertion. S tak e (1967a, 527)
believes th a t evaluation m u st entail judgem ent, b u t observes:
W hether or not evaluation specialists will accept Scriven’s challenge
rem ains to be seen. In any case, it is likely that judgem ents will become
an increasing part of the evaluation report. Evaluators will seek out and
record the opinions of persons of special qualification. T hese opinions,
although subjective, can be very useful and can be gathered objectively,
independent of the solicitor’s opinions. A responsibility for processing
judgem ents is much more acceptable to the evaluation specialist than
one for rendering judgements himself.
W e stb u ry (1970, 2.41) com m ents: ‘T h e evalu ato r th u s becomes a
p e rso n directing an evaluation. But this su b terfu g e w ill not do.* H e
p o in ts o u t th a t ‘Evaluation m ay (and probably m u st) involve descrip
tio n , b u t description does n o t necessarily involve evaluation*. But if
th e ev alu ato r is to judge, how are we to evaluate his judgem ent?
M a cD o n a ld (verbal com m unication, 1972) has g o n e so far as to
su g g est th a t it is the m ark o f a good evaluation r e p o rt th a t it is in
conclusive in the sense th a t it will support div erg en t ju d g em en t.
S c riv e n ’s paper (1967) is also notable for in tro d u c in g th e im portant
d istin ctio n betw een ‘formative* and ‘sum m ative* evaluation. In
fo rm ativ e evaluation the evaluation exercise serves as ‘feedback and
guide*, influencing the shaping of a curriculum th ro u g h the suc
cessive revisions of the developm ental phase. S u m m a tiv e evaluation
is con cern ed w ith the appraisal of the em ergent c u rricu lu m as it is
offered to th e school system .
In an objectives-based program m e of c u rric u lu m developm ent
form ativ e evaluation is norm ally of two types. T h e re is th e continuous
assessm ent of goal or objectives achievement w hich enables the cu r
ric u lu m to hom e in on its goals. And there is a p ro cess o f diagnosing
an d feeding back inform ation about barriers to th e achievem ent of
goals w hich lie w ithin th e instructional system b u t are n o t directly
o rie n te d to th e go£ls. F o r example, failure to achieve th e goals of an
in te g ra te d team -taught science curriculum could b e d u e to the diffi-
culty o f g e ttin g the teachers to work to gether effectively as a team
on th e basis offered to them by the curriculum specification.
A good account of a form ative evaluation p ro c e d u re at work within
the objectives model, liberally interpreted, is given by W ynne Harlen
( I 973l)) in her report to the Schools Council on the evaluation of
Science 5 - 2 3. In this particular project th e evaluation enterprise
exercised a stro n g form ative influence on th e w ork of developm ent,
both at th e stage of initial planning and at th a t of revision and
refinem ent.
I t is in te restin g too that H arlen casts doubt o n th e role of m easure
m en t in th is context.
From the first set of trials it was learned that inform ation coming from
children’s test results was tentative and not readily usable for guiding
rew riting without being supplemented by other data. T he results played
a useful part in confirming that the general approach of the material was
effective in promoting achievement of its stated objectives, and the
developm ent of tests also had side-benefits for the production of Units.
But for indicating changes which would make the U nits more effective
they were of much less use than information from other sources. The
tests were also by far the most expensive item in the evaluation, both in
direct cost and in man/woman hours. Whilst it could not be said that the
test inform ation was without value for this Project, it can be said that
where resources are limited and it is necessary to concentrate>upon
gathering information to give the greatest return on money, time and
hum an energy, then the choice would be for teachers’ reports and direct
observations in the classroom and not for tests of short-term changes in
children’s behaviour.
(H arlen 1973b, 91-92)
T h is is a ra th e r shattering judgem ent, given th e A m erican emphasis

on te stin g . B ut perhaps th e difference is a d ifference between the
clim ate a n d assum ptions in the two countries. In th e U nited States
th e c u rric u lu m appears to be seen as a d irectiv e placed upon the
teachers. T h erefo re, the question seems to b e : ‘W ill it work?* In
B ritain, th e curriculum is seen more as a tool in th e hands of the
teacher. T h e questions are: ‘Can this c u rric u lu m offer som ething
w o rth w h ile?’ and ‘Am I as a teacher likely to be ab le to get the benefits
out of it? ’ Since the teacher is to a great e x te n t free to choose the
c u rricu lu m , th e evaluation m ust be addressed to him . And he trusts
teach er ju d g em e n t, which has more m eaning to him than test
results.
I f th is position were adopted within an objectives m odel, then the
best fo rm fo r stating objectives would no longer b e th a t which helped
106 A n Introduction to Curriculum D evelopm ent
to w a rd s criterion-based testing, but that w hich m o st strengthened and
s tr u c tu r e d teachers* judgem ents, which are p re fe rre d as data. So far
as I know , no one has followed up this line of th in k in g .
G iv e n this emphasis on th e teacher as the m o st im p o rta n t audience
of evaluation, I can see another reserve about th e A m erican tradition,
w h ic h can be illustrated from the quotation from G laser above (pages
i o o - i o i ). N o t only are G laser’s six points difficult to understand,
b u t th e paper, of which they are a concluding su m m a ry (G laser 1970),
is, if a n y th in g , more difficult. It seems to m e th a t th e m ore sophisti
c a te d in his m ode the A m erican objectives-type evaluator becomes,
th e less easy it is to com m unicate his evaluation to teachers. O f course,
if th e re is no remedy, we m ust put up w ith th e disease, b u t an
ev a lu a tio n strategy m ore accessible to p ractitio n ers w ould certainly
have im p o rta n t advantages.
T h e s e reserves about objectives-based ev alu atio n are not the
m ain lin e of attack on the tradition in the field o f evaluation itself. In
o r d e r to exam ine that, it is necessary first to c o n sid e r evaluation in the
c o n te x t o f decision-m aking.
W ile y (1970) cites tw o definitions of evaluation, th a t of H arris
(1963), w ho defines evaluation as ‘the system atic a tte m p t to gather
e v id e n c e regarding changes in student b eh a v io u r th a t accom pany
p la n n e d educational experiences*, and th at o f C ro n b a c h (1963), who
d e fin e d it as the ‘. . . collection and use o f in form ation to make
d ecisio n s about the educational programme*. W iley collapses the two
d e fin itio n s into one: ‘Evaluation consists o f th e collection and use of
in fo rm a tio n concerning changes in pupil b eh av io u r to m ake decisions
a b o u t a n educational programme.* (261)
T h e n th e question is invited: ‘Does data a b o u t pup il behaviour
give u s a good basis for making decisions a b o u t an educational
program m e?*
O n c e th a t question is answered in the negative, th e floodgates are
o p e n e d on th e meadows of objectives-based evaluation. T h a t is
w h a t h as happened in th e American educational landscape.
A n early index of the im pact of the line of th in k in g im plied by such
a n e g a tiv e answer is an im portant paper by S take (1967).
S ta k e argues for a fuller ‘countenance of educational evaluation*.
H e asp ires to an evaluation ‘oriented to th e com plex and dynamic
n a tu r e o f education, one w hich gives p ro p er a tte n tio n to the diverse
p u rp o s e s and judgem ents of the practitioner*. N o tin g the deficiencies
fo r a n evaluation so conceived of tra d itio n al tests which stress
re lia b ility of individual students* scores and pred ictiv e validity, he
su g g e sts th a t ‘attention to individual differences am ong students
The Evaluation o f Curriculum zoy
should give way to attention to the contingencies am ong background
conditions, classroom activities, and scholastic outcomes*.
A distinction is draw n between antecedent, transaction and outcome
data. ‘An antecedent is any condition existing p rio r to teaching and
learning w hich may relate to outcomes. . . . T ra n sa c tio n s arc the
countless encounters of students with teacher, s tu d e n t with student,
a u th o r w ith reader, parent with counsellor - th e succession of
engagem ents which com prise the process of e d u catio n . . . . Outcomes,
as a body of inform ation, would include m ea su rem e n ts of the impact
of in stru ctio n on teachers, administrators, co u n sello rs and others,* as
well as, of course, On students.
T h is is an imm ense expansion of the data range o f evaluation if one
sta rts from the objectives model as a benchm ark. I low is such a range
of observations to be organized?
Stake m akes a rather odd move in adopting th e term , intent. After
sta tin g th at he considers ‘goals*, ‘objectives* a n d ‘intents* to be
synonym ous, he includes among intents effects ‘w hich are antici
p ated , and even those w hich are feared*. A co llection of intents is ‘a
p rio rity listing of all th a t may happen*. I t w o u ld seem m ost natural
to use th e word hypothesis here. And yet in te n tio n a lity appears m ore
p ro m in e n t in Stake’s analytic scheme th an it a p p e ars to be in his
definition of intent.
H e offers the diagram on the following page. »
In this schem e the key relational concepts arc contingency and
congruence. Contingencies relate antecedents, tran sactio n s and o u t
com es, and the relationship may be logical or em pirical. It is notable
th at intended categories are allocated a logical contingency, and Stake
believes th at for the practitioner, ‘the contingencies, in the main,
are logical, intuitive, and supported by a h isto ry o f satisfactions and
endorsem ents*. A more adequate theory of teach in g w ould presum ably
lead to a m ore em pirical base for intentional contingencies.
T h e data for a curriculum are congruent if w h a t was intended
actually happens. Stake’s m odel focuses th e p ro b le m of the relation
of in ten tio n to realization which was located as c e n tral to curriculum
stu d y in the first chapter of this book. M y ow n view w ould be that the
object o f curriculum stu d y is to establish a co n g ru en ce of contin
gencies, th at is to bring anticipated and o bserved contingencies into
a g reem en t by achieving th a t blend of logical a n d em pirical which is
g ro u n d ed theory.
Stake seem s to me to be appealing to tw o reference points in
bro ad en in g out the data base of evaluation. O n th e one hand, he
argues explicitly that th is breadth is needed to give decision-m akers
F ig. 3 A representation of the processing of d escrip tive data.
D e sc r ip tiv e d a t a
I n te n d e d O b served
a n te c e d e n ts a n t e c e d e n ts .
----------- CONGRUENCE---------------
LOGICAL
♦ EMPIRICAL
♦
C O N T IN G E N C Y CONTINGENCY
* ♦
I n te n d e d O b served
tr a n s a c tio n s tr a n s a c tio n s
*+ CONGRUENCE--------------►
f
LOGICAL EMPIRICAL
I
C O N T IN G E N C Y CONTINGENCY
♦ ♦
In te n d e d O b served
o u tco m es o u tco m es
------------CONGRUENCE--------------►
th e d a ta th ey need. Ju st as clearly but less explicitly, he is advancing

th e case th a t theoretical developm ent of o u r u n d e rsta n d in g of the
c u rric u lu m process also requires breadth.
T h e appeal to the reality of the decision-m aking situation has led in
th e U n ite d States to a convergence betw een som e evaluators and
som e s tu d e n ts of educational adm inistration. T h e ir critical reaction
to th e p o v e rty of the traditional model of evaluation (they describe
evaluation as ‘ill’) is well represented in a m ajor re p o rt on Educational
E valuation and Decision M aking produced by th e P h i D elta K appa
N a tio n a l S tu d y C om m ittee on Evaluation. (P h i D e lta K appa 1971)
T h is is an im p o rtan t book, though for the B ritish re a d e r it has lim i-
The Evaluation of Curriculum lo g
ta tio n s because of the different structure and assu m p tio n s of educa
tional decision-m aking in the U nited States. It is also m arred by a
ten d e n c y to build elaborate models of decision-m aking processes
w hose congruence with reality appears doubtful. T h e real decision-
m akers, th o u g h a reference group, do not seem to be in the scholars’
dialogue.
In a d d itio n to theory building of this sort, th e broadening of the
base o f evaluation has led to a great deal of th o u g h t ab o u t the m etho
dological problem s, the craft of evaluation.
W eiss and Rein (1969), surveying the wreckage o f an attem pt to
ev alu ate on the objectives m odel a social program m e w hich contained
e d u c atio n a l elem ents, concluded that:
. . . a far more effective methodology would be much more descriptive
and inductive. It would be concerned with describing the unfolding
form of the experimental intervention, the reactions of individuals and
institutions subjected to its impact, and the consequences, so far as they
can be learned by interview and observation, for these individuals and
institutions. It would lean toward the use of field methodology, empha
sizing interview and observation, though it would not be restricted to
this. But it would be much more concerned with learning than with
m easuring.
(Weiss and Rein 1969, 142)
In s h o rt, in order to evaluate one m ust und erstan d . I t can be afgued
th a t conventional objective-type evaluations do not address them
selves to understanding the educational process. T h e y deal in term s
of success or failure. But a program m e is always a m ix tu re of both
and a m ix tu re which varies from setting to setting.
T h is line o f thinking has established itself strongly. H astings (1969),
in a p resid e n tial address to th e meeting of th e N atio n al C ouncil on
M e a su re m e n t in Education, suggested that such disciplines as anthro
pology, history, economics and sociology have m u ch to contribute to
e d u c atio n a l evaluation.
T h e w eakness of the objectives model from th e p o in t of view of
ev alu atio n has led to the developm ent of w hat H ouse (1973b) has
called a ‘co u n ter-cu ltu re’. Simultaneously - and initially at least
in d e p e n d e n tly - a num ber o f evaluators have developed alternative
a p p ro ach es. I shall review here a holistic ap p ro ach (M acD onald),
illu m in a tiv e evaluation (P arlett and Ham ilton), p o rtray al and respon
sive evalu atio n (Stake) and transactional evaluation (R ippey et al.).
M a c D o n a ld ’s holistic approach was a response to th e problem s
he faced as evaluator of th e H um anities Project. H e was appointed
in 1968, one year after the project started. H is position was in fact
no A n Introduction to Curriculum Developm ent
that of an evaluator, but his title, Schools* S tu d y O fficer, hinted that
in evaluation th e study of schools was expected to be given a position
of im portance.
T w o im p o rta n t conditions of his work were defined by the project,
rather th an by himself. F irst, it was held th at no c u rricu lu m could
be evaluated in its trial stage. The H um anities P ro ject was under
developm ent un til 1970 and M acDonald was com m issioned to study
it in its developm ental stage in order to design an evaluation for
execution after the project ‘w ent public’ in 1970. S econd, th e H um ani
ties P roject, as has been explained in the previous c h a p te r, did not use
objectives. In a climate in which the assum ptions o f th e objectives
m odel w ere virtually unquestioned (no one in B ritiain seem ed aware
of the A m erican criticism s), M acDonald was u n a b le to use it.
H is adoption of a holistic approach im plied th a t th e evaluation
w ould not sta rt from the assum ption that certain d a ta (such as pupil
outcom es) w ere its area of concern, but would accep t as potentially
relevant all data concerning the project and its co n tex ts. O f course,
selection w ould be necessary, but the criteria o f selection were to be
regarded as problem atic and would be evolved in c o n ta c t w ith em piri
cal reality.
D ata w ould need to be sought and selected in o rd e r to make sense
of the em pirical phenom ena. T h e evaluator fo u n d h im se lf confronted,
as he visited schools and classrooms, with p h e n o m e n a not readily
explicable. F o r example, in one school pupils re sp o n d e d to the dis
cussion situ atio n w ith enthusiastic participation, w hile in another
school, indistinguishable from the first in te rm s o f any accepted
sam pling typologies, pupils sat tense in agonized silence.
Case studies of eight schools were m ounted d u rin g the experi
m ental period and M acD onald (1971a) has listed so m e o f the proposi
tions arising from these case studies which the e v alu atio n intended to
e x p lo re :
1. H um an action in educational institutions differs widely because of
the num ber of variables that influence it. This is obvious, yet in curricu
lum evaluation it is sometimes assumed that w hat was intended to
happen is what actually happens, and that what happens varies little
from setting to setting.
2. T h e impact of an innovation is not a set of discrete effects, but an
organically related pattern of acts and consequences. T o understand
fully a single act one must locate it functionally w ithin that pattern. It
follows from this proposition that curriculum interventions have many
more unanticipated consequences than is normally assumed in develop
m ent and evaluation designs.
The Evaluation o f Curriculum I l l
3. N o two schools are sufficiently alike in their circumstances that pre

scriptions of curricular action can adequately supplant the judgement of
people in them. Historical/evolutionary differences alone make the
innovation gap a variable which has significance for decision making.
4. T h e goals and purposes of the programme developers are not neces
sarily shared by its users. We have seen the Project used as a political
resourse in an existing power struggle, as a way of increasing the
effectiveness of a custodial pattern of pupil control, and as a means of
enhancing the image of institutions which covet the wrappings, but not
the merchandise, of innovation.#
(166)
A n ad d itio n al element in th e design was developed from a concern
for au d ien ces.
I then explored the possibility of defining my responsibilities in relation
to likely readers of my report. The idea of evaluation for consumers
attracted me. In time ‘consumers’ became redefined as decision makers
and four main groups of them emerged - the sponsors, the local educa
tion authority, the schools and the examination boards. The task of
evaluation was then defined as one of answering the questions that
decision makers ask.
T h is definition was subsequently seen as unsatisfactory because it
assumed that these people knew in advance what questions were
appropriate. At the present moment we see our task as that of feeding
the judgem ent of decision makers by promoting understanding of the
considerations that bear upon curricular action. O ur orientation here is
towards developing an empirical rather than a normative model of
educational decision making and its consequences.
M a cD o n a ld had developed independently of Stuffelbeam (1971) a
m odel o f evaluation based on decision-m aking, b u t in contrast to
S tuffelbeam he was not prepared to accept a rational or norm ative
m odel o f decision-m aking.
As th e evaluation advanced it developed th eo ry w hich worked
tow ards ‘understanding of th e considerations th a t b ear upo n cu rricu
lar a c tio n ’. H ence its whole conception of the evaluative role broad
ened g reatly . T h u s , M acD onald can w rite: ‘P e rh ap s bo ld er evaluation
designs can give us a m ore adequate view of w hat it is we are trying
to change, and of what is involved in changing it. I t is this belief
that lies b e h in d a holistic approach to evaluation.’ (M acD onald 1971b,
167 )•
• I cannot accept MacDonald’s implication that the Project had intentions
which precluded these uses of the Project: it was made as clear as possible
that the Project intended to be docile to decisions of policy in schools.
W ith in th e fram ew ork of these ideas M acD onald w orked through
a co m b in atio n o f m easurem ent and case study, b o th o f schools and
of local authorities. A bulletin fed results and in sig h ts back to the
p articip atin g schools. T h is bulletin has been edited as a single volume
(H am ingson 1973). T eachers were asked to reflect a b o u t th eir own
experience and report it. T h e ir work has been ed ited , b u t is not yet
p u b lis h e d ; and the final evaluation reports are no t yet available.
Since th e H um anities Project ended, M acD onald has gone on to
direct th e central evaluation o f the National D ev elo p m en t Program m e
in C o m p u te r Assisted L earning. In his proposal he describes the job
of th e ev alu ato r in these term s:
His job is to identify those who will have to make judgem ents and deci
sions about the programme, and to lay before them those facts of the
case that are recognised by them as relevant to their concerns. T hat is
the view which underlies the following definition of evaluation, which is
the one adopted in this proposal.
Evaluation is the process o f conceiving, obtaining and communicating
information for the guidance o f educational decision making with regard
to a specified programme.
It is not implied that this concept of evaluation, or the activities referred
to within it, are value-free. T his cannot be. But w hat is implied is that
the evaluator aspires to be a reliable and credible source, accessible to
the judgem ent of all those who seek information about the programme.
(M acD onald 1973b, 1-2)
T h e re a re distinct resem blances between M a c D o n a ld ’s position
a n d th a t o f P arlett and H am ilton, who aspire to a sty le o f evaluation
w hich shall illum inate the audience about a p ro g ra m m e . T h e y su m
m arize th e ir position in the following term s:
Characteristically, conventional approaches have followed the experi
m ental and psychometric traditions dominant in educational research.
T h e ir aim (unfulfilled) of achieving fully ‘objective methods* has led to
studies th at are artificial and restricted in scope. W e argue that such
evaluations are inadequate for elucidating the complex problem areas
they confront, and as a result provide little effective input to the decision
making process.
Illum inative evaluation is introduced as belonging to a contrasting
‘anthropological* research paradigm. Attempted m easurem ent of ‘edu
cational products* is abandoned for intensive study of the programme
as a w hole: its rationale and evolution, its operations, achievements and
difficulties. T h e innovation is not examined in isolation, but in the
school context or ‘learning milieu*. . . . Observation, interviews with
participants (students, instructors, administrators and others), ques
tionnaires, and analysis of documents and background information
are all combined to help ‘illuminate* problems, issues, and significant
program m e features.
(Parlett and Ham ilton 1972, 1)
In th e face of the com plexity of real educational settin g s the authors
take th e p o sitio n that ‘tidy* results can rarely be generalized to an ‘u n
tidy* rea lity , and they com m ent on the im p o rtan ce of studying
atypical resu lts and problem s. They are co n cern ed to give an
intelligible account of a curriculum initiative ra th e r th an sim ply to
m easure it.
T he aim s of illuminative evaluation are to study the innovatory pro
gram m e; how it operates; how it is influenced by the various school
situations in which it is applied; what those directly concerned regard
as its advantages and disadvantages; and how students* intellectual
tasks and academic experiences are most affected. It aims to discover
and docum ent what it is like to be participating in the scheme, whether
as teacher or pupil; and, in addition, to discern and discuss the innova
tion’s m ost significant features, recurring concomitants, and critical
processes.
(Parlett and Hamilton 1972)
In P a rle tt a n d H am ilton’s m odel two concepts are central; the
‘in stru c tio n a l system* and the ‘learning milieu*.
A n ‘in stru ctio n a l system* corresponds p retty closely to the defini
tion o f a c u rricu lu m specification offered in th e first c h a p te r of this
book. I t is th e blueprint. In offering that definition I trie d to em pha
size th e difficulty of realizing the idea in practice an d th e way in
w hich ideas and practice w ere modified in th e a tte m p t to do so. As
P arlett a n d H am ilton com m ent: ‘an in stru ctio n al system , when
adopted, undergoes m odifications that are rarely trivial. T h e in
stru c tio n a l system may rem ain as a shared idea, a b stra ct m odel,
slogan, o r sh o rth an d , b u t it assumes a d ifferent form in every
s itu a tio n .’ T h e y are interested in the process o f im plem entation,
w hich involves interpretation and re-interpretation.
In th is p ro cess the instructional system in teracts w ith th e ‘learning
m ilieu’, th a t is, ‘the social-psychological and m aterial environm ent
in w h ich stu d e n ts and teachers work together.* T h is interaction is
crucial fo r th e illum inative evaluator. It is his m ain focus of attention,
because it is w here the action is. ‘T he in tro d u ctio n o f an innovation
sets off a ch ain o f repercussions throughout th e learn in g milieu. In
tu rn th e se u n in te n d e d consequences are likely to affect th e innovation
itself, c h a n g in g its form and m oderating its im p a c t.’ P a rle tt and K ing’s
work o n concentrated study (1971) docum ents an exam ple of this
process. C ru cial to the approach is that the ev alu ato r is n o t attem pting
114 A n Introdtiction to Curriculum Development
to c o n tro l th e situation he is studying. H e does n o t try to hold it still
w hile h e looks at it. In this he is like the anthropologist o r the historian
ra th e r th a n like the laboratory psychologist.
S take, w hose conception of evaluation as p ortrayal (Stake 1974)
a n tic ip a tes Parlett and H am ilton’s notion of illum ination, is also
re a c tin g against the tradition of attem pting to c a p tu re tig h t experi
m en ta l control over the innovatory situation. H e describes this
ev alu atio n strategy as ‘preordinate’ in th at it relies on pre-specification
a nd em phasizes statem ent of goals, use of objective tests, standards
held b y program m e personnel and research-type reports.
H e advocates ‘responsive evaluation’, w hich he defines in the
follow ing w ay:
And educational evaluation is a ‘responsive evaluation’ if it orients more
directly to programme activities than to program me intents, if it re
sponds to audience requirements for information, and if the different
value-perspectives present are referred to in reporting the success of the
program m e.
(Stake 1972)
P a rtic u la rly interesting, since it reflects an A m erican experience
likely to be replicated elsewhere, is Stake’s em phasis on the presenta
tio n o f results. If evaluation is addressed to decision-m akers rather
th a n research workers, th e evaluator m u st a tte m p t to portray the
p ro g ra m m e in a way that comm unicates to an audience m ore naturally
a n d m o re effectively than does the traditional research report. H e is
c la im in g th a t research style information m ay n o t be the kind of
in fo rm a tio n which is useful for decision-m akers.
T h e task which Stake presents to the evaluator is not an easy one;
a n d h e is certainly no wide-eyed optimist. A fter co n trastin g responsive
e v a lu a tio n w ith preordinate evaluation, he co m m e n ts:
T h e re are many reasons why preordinate evaluation can be ineffective.
It is likely to be underfunded, understaffed, and initiated too late. But
even under optimum conditions it will often fail. A collection of specific
objectives will understate educational purposes. Different people will
have different purposes. Side effects - good ones and bad - get ignored.
Program m e background, conditions, transactions are likely to be poorly
described. Standardized tests seldom m atch objectives, criterion
referenced tests oversimplify and fail to measure transfer, and custom-
built tests are poorly validated. And people cannot read many of the
reports or do not find them useful.
Responsive evaluation is not likely to overcome all of these obstacles.
But it is an approach that is attentive to them. T here arc problems with
the responsive approach too. Not enough time or resources may be avail
able to measure key outcomes. The results may be seen as too subjective.
T h e assets and liabilities of the two approaches need to be weighed before
and during an evaluation study.
(Stake 1972)
In D ecem ber 1972, a small invitational con feren ce of evaluators
was convened by M acD onald and Parlett. Stake and two other
A m ericans were am ong the fourteen p articip an ts. W allin attended
from Sw eden, and the D .K .S., the Nuffield F o u n d a tio n and the Centre
for E ducational Research and Innovation (C .E .R .I.) of O .E .C .D . were
rep resen ted . T his conference led to the follow ing statem en t or m ani
festo, w hich represents well enough the position o f w h at one might call
th e ‘new wave’ evaluators.
O n December 20, 1972 at Churchill College Cam bridge, the following
conference participants concluded a discussion of the aims and pro
cedures of evaluating educational practices and agreed
I. T h at past efforts to evaluate these practices have, on the whole, not
adequately served the needs of those who require evidence of the
effects of such practices, because of:
a. an under-attention to educational processes including those of
the learning milieu;
b. an over-attention to psychometrically measurable changes in
student behaviour (that to an extent represent the outcomes of
the practice, but which are a misleading oversimplification of the
complex changes that occur in students); and
c. the existence of an educational research climate that Rewards
accuracy of measurement and generality of theory but overlooks
both mismatch between school problems and research issues and
tolerates ineffective communication between researchers and
those outside the research community.
II. T hey also agreed that future efforts to evaluate these practices be
designed so as to b e :
a. responsive to the needs and perspectives of differing audiences;
b. illuminative of the complex organisational, teaching and learning
processes at issue;
c. relevant to public and professional decisions forthcoming; and
d. reported in language which is accessible to their audiences.
I I I . More specifically they recommended that, increasingly,
a. observational data, carefully validated, be used (sometimes in
substitute for data from questioning and testing);
b. the evaluation be designed so as to be flexible enough to allow
for response to unanticipated events (progressive focussing
rather than pre-ordinate design); and that
c. the value positions of the evaluator, w hether highlighted or
constrained by the design, be made evident to the sponsors and
audiences of the evaluation.
IV. Though without consensus on the issues themselves, it was agreed
u 6 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
that considered attention by those who design evaluation studies
should he given to such issues as the following:
a. the sometimes conflicting roles of the same evaluator as expert,
scientist, guide, and teacher of decision-makers on the one hand,
and as technical specialist, employee, and servant of decision
makers on the other;
b. the degree to which the evaluator, his sponsors, and his subjects,
should specify in advance the limits of enquiry, the circulation
of findings, and such matters as may become controversial later;
c. the advantages and disadvantages of intervening in educational
practices for the purpose of gathering data or of controlling the
variability of certain features in order to increase the gen-
eralisability of the findings;
d. the complexity of educational decisions which, as a matter of
rule, have political, social and economic im plications; and the
responsibility that the evaluator may or may not have for
exploring these implications;
e. the degree to which the evaluator should interpret his observa
tions rather than leave them for different audiences to interpret.
I t was acknowledged that different evaluation designs will serve different
purposes and that even for a single educational program m e many differ
ent designs could be used.
(MacDonald and Parlett 1973, 79-80)
A lth o u g h I am entirely sym pathetic to th e c ritic ism o f the old-
style, p ro d u c t-te stin g evaluation from which th e new -w ave evaluators
s ta rt, I have som e reserves a b o u t their position as it em erges. I am
c o n c e rn e d a b o u t the problem of criteria, and I feel th a t the general
p o sitio n w hich is apparently being assumed by ev alu ato rs is likely to
b lo ck p ro g ress in research-based innovation.
T h e p ro b le m of criteria is a complex one. T h e classical m odel of
ev a lu a tio n w orked on criteria of success and failu re, as judged by
m e a su re d s tu d e n t behaviours. In respect o f a c u rric u lu m specification,
I do n o t th in k th at such criteria are ap p ropriate. T h e best way to
e n s u re ‘success* is to aim low. Any am bitious c u rric u lu m will produce
u n iq u e b len d s o f success and failure in each in stitu tio n w hich responds
to it.
T h e new w ave of evaluators still seem to m e to be concerned with
‘m erit* o r ‘worth* in a cu rricu lu m or educational p ractice, b u t their
c rite ria are n o t clear and th e ir concern w ith a u d ien ces and presenta
tio n o f re su lts appears to m e to mask th eir p ro b le m . T h e y aspire to
‘tell it as it is*, and they o ften write as if th a t is p o ssib le if they allow
fo r so m e d isto rtio n due to th e ir own values. B u t th e re is no telling
it as it is. T h e re is only a creation of m eaning th ro u g h th e use of
The Evaluation of Curriculum iij
criteria a n d conceptual frameworks. The task o f briefing decision

m akers in language they readily understand can to o easily lead to the
casual im p o rta tio n of unexam ined assumptions and criteria. Audience
response can be seductive, especially if the au d ien ce is politically
pow erful. A n d it is too easy for the evaluation w hich aspires to the
condition o f th e novel to degenerate into the novelette.
I w ant to suggest, tentatively, five criteria w hich m ig h t be used in
the estim ate o f a curriculum or an educational practice. T hey are
derived from a consideration of the new wave o f evaluation. T hey a re :
m eaning, po ten tial, interest, conditionality and elucidation.
I can b est consider m eaning as a criterion by refe rrin g to a paper
by M a n n (1969). M ann is working with th e idea o f ‘curriculum
criticism ’, th e possibility of ‘talking about c u rricu lu m as if it were a
literary o b je c t’. (27) Like a literary object, a c u rric u lu m orders chaos
by selection and by form. M ann speaksof a cu rricu lu m as having in one
of its aspects th a t quality of a work of art w hich he describes as u n
conditionedness. I take him to mean that the n a tu re of a curriculum
is not en tirely explained by reference to the c o n d itio n s w hich influ
ence its p ro d u ctio n - th at is, in term s of the sociology of know ledge. It
has a form an d m eaning which is logical and it can be considered in
itself. F o r M a n n ‘the function o f the curricular c ritiq u e is to disclose
its m eanings, to illum inate its answers’. (29) ‘T h e critic discloses
m eaning by explaining design.’ (30)
In o rd e r to do this the critic m ust select those designs and meanings
which he will atten d to, and this implies a basis o f selection. M ann sees
this basis in th e personal knowledge of the critic as disciplined by or
grou n d ed in a field of public knowledge. F o r h im , this field is
principally know ledge about ethical reality. T h is em phasis I would
question, em phasizing rather epistemology.
M a n n ’s a rg u m en t is difficult and abstract. I shall draw on him to
feed m y ow n argum ent w ithout fairly rep resen tin g his views, for
which th e read er m ust be referred to the original.
A c u rric u lu m can be discussed critically in th e light o f knowledge
criteria as a th in g in itself. Such a discussion im plies w hat M ann calls
a ‘disclosure m o d el’ (ethical in his argument) w hich ‘is ju d g ed for its
capacity to continue generating new propositions th a t reveal the
p h en o m en a’. (37) T h e data for citicism of a c u rric u lu m are not re
vealed by th e curriculum specification or by the m aterials of study but
only by th e observation of the curriculum in action in various class
room settings.
L et m e p u t th is more concretely by taking an exam ple fam iliar to
me. T h e H um anities C urriculum Project m ay be view ed as an
XzS A n Introduction to Curriculum D evelopm ent
exploration of the relationship of knowledge to th e au th o rity of the
teacher. An exam ple of w hat is at stake is co n tain ed in th e problem of
w h eth er a stu d e n t accepts a proposition as know ledge because his
teacher says th a t it is so, or whether he attem p ts to te s t it by criteria
o th er th an th e teacher’s authority. T his p ro b lem is b u ilt into the
logic o f the curriculum on paper, but the e x te n t to w hich it is a
problem in th e classroom can only be verified b y em p irical observa
tion.
As a curriculum critic, I am entitled to a p p ro a c h th e curriculum
w ith a declared epistem ological model, but I c a n n o t ap p ly th a t model
w ith o u t observing the curriculum in action.
In th e H um anities C urriculum Project th e c ritic a l dialogue about
th is issue has been built into the developm ent ra th e r th a n into the
evaluation (though the evaluators have c o n trib u te d to it), and I
th in k th a t th is is generally the situation. I t m ig h t be argued th at
an evaluation team oug h t to contain a philosophical c ritic working on
M a n n ’s m odel.
I t is interesting th at th e Humanities P roject h a s h ad its philo
sophical critics, b ut th a t th ey have generally sh o t w ide o f the m ark
because they have m ade assum ptions about th e em p irical reality in
th e classroom which are n o t borne out by o b se rv a tio n . T h u s, for
exam ple, th ere is nothing logically problem atic a b o u t teach ers giving
th e ir views on a controversial issue on the u n d e rs ta n d in g that they
are open to criticism and discussion on the sam e basis as any o th e rs;
and critics have advocated this. T he problem is th a t it does not seem
possible to m ake good th a t understanding in p ractice.
I have argued th at an im portant element in an a d e q u a te evaluation
o f a curriculum is a philosophical critique. T h e ob ject of silch a
c ritiq u e should be to disclose the meaning o f th e c u rric u lu m rather
th a n to assess its w orth, though disclosure o f m ea n in g naturally
invites assessm ent of w o rth . T he data for su ch a c ritiq u e are to be
fo u n d in the observation o f classrooms w hich are re sp o n d in g to the
cu rricu lu m . Such a critique, if attempted at all, has usu ally been the
task of th e developm ental team . Often evaluators have p aid insufficient
a tte n tio n to this aspect, a n d there is some d a n g e r th a t th e grow th
o f in te rest in the policy orientation of evaluation w ill continue this
tre n d . Philosophers of education have not generally m ade the con
trib u tio n they m ight have done because they have b e e n reluctant to
accept as th eir data the reality of the classroom .
T h e second criterion I proposed was th a t o f ‘p o te n tia l’. In order
to exam ine the potential o f a curriculum or e d u c atio n a l practice, one
m u st answ er the q u estio n : potential for w hat? A nsw ers can be
The Evaluation of Curriculum ng
accu m u lated either by reference to iheory o r by reference to the
in te rests o f decision-m akers, or both. H aving o n e ’s questions -
‘W h at is th e potential for the improvement o f reading ability?’ or
‘W h at is th e potential for creating teacher stress?’ for exam ple - one
focuses o n e ’s attention on data which bears on th e particu lar variable
involved. T h e object is not to be predictive. T h e evaluator is not
a tte m p tin g to answer the question: ‘W hat will h a p p e n if this school
resp o n d s to th a t curriculum?* b u t rather: ‘W h at degree of X could
we get o u t o f that curriculum when the X effect is m axim ized, and
w hat does th a t look like?* T h is is the study o f p a tte rn cases or ideal
types w ith in th e range of im plem entation. A nd a c u rricu lu m may have
p o ten tial w hich it is very difficult to realize in practice.
‘I n te r e s t’ as a criterion refers to the problem s a curriculum raises
in p rac tic e . T h e problem s are interesting in so far as they recur from
situ atio n to situation in education or in so far as th ey have im portant
relevance. A problem in the handling of resources o f m anpow er or
m aterials m ay be interesting because it recurs. A p ro b lem of criteria
by w h ich to ju d g e children’s work in a given c u rric u la r context may
be in te re stin g because it raises fundam ental q u e stio n s of quality of
wide significance.
‘C o n d itio n a lity ’ as a criterion asks of the ev alu ato r th at he relate
the p o te n tia l and interest of the curriculum to th e contextual con
ditions o f schools and classrooms. He explores th e factors which are
likely to m ake for success or failure in realizing given potentials and in
developing insights through the analytic approach to interesting p ro b
lems. G iv e n th e uniqueness and particularity o f educational settings,
p red ictio n s as to the likely effects of responding to a curriculum or
ad o p tin g an educational practice (such as u n stre a m in g , for example)
can only be m ade by those informed about th e local variables. A
study o f th e conditionality of a curriculum o r p ractice helps the
d ecision-m aker to anticipate the consequences o f his decision by
assessing how th e conditions apply in his own settin g . T h is elem ent
of co n d itio n ality is emphasized by the new-wave evaluators.
F inally, th e acceptance of ‘elucidation’ as a criterio n poses the
q u e s tio n : to w hat extent does response to this c u rric u lu m or adoption
of this p rac tic e throw light upon the problem s of change in education?
Does it c o n trib u te to the construction of a th eo ry o f innovation at a
general level o r for our particular school?
T h e se c riteria are perhaps presented as too discrete, and they are not
refined. M y m ain concern here is to express th e fear th a t too m uch
atten tio n to th e political dimensions of evaluation a n d to the presenta
tion o f re su lts in vivid and acceptable but often o b liq u e form s, may
120 A n Introduction to Curriculum D evelopm ent
tend to m ake the discussion of such criteria p a rt o f th e p riv a te talk of
evaluators. T h e issues are too im portant to be re g a rd e d as dom estic
issues in th e evaluation household.
T h is recognition of evaluation as a household w ith its boundaries
leads m e to m y concern that the position being a ssu m e d by evaluators
is likely to block progress in research-based in n o v a tio n .
T h e classical objectives m odel of evaluation d id j u s t th is. In this
m odel, th e innovator is seen as a man with a m ission o r at least w ith a
policy proposal. H e offers a solution. He has a sta k e in having found
th e rig h t answ er. How are we to assess his claims? T h e p ro d u c t testing
m odel deploys educational scholarship and re se a rc h p ro ced u res to
criticize his pro d u ct and assess its merit.
I t seem s to me odd (though the observation is o fte n b o rn e out in
practice) th a t innovation is seen as coming fro m o u tsid e educational
sch o larsh ip and research.
T h e crucial criticism of th e objectives m odel is th a t it assesses
w ith o u t explaining. In this respect it is unlike rese a rc h . H ence the
developer o f curriculum cannot learn from it. H is sto c k in trade is
deem ed to be the inspired guess. But the styles o f e v alu atio n developed
by th e new -w ave evaluators are in fact the sty les o f c u rricu lu m re
search. In d e e d , it is perhaps only the structure o f c e n tra liz e d adoption
of c u rric u la — a condition w hich need not a p p ly in B ritain - w hich
forces th e adoption of the role of the evaluator r a th e r th a n o f the re
search er. C ertainly, new-wave evaluators can te a c h th e developer ju s t
as rese a rc h e rs could.
I tak e th e view th at curriculum developm ent s h o u ld be handled
£s e d u c atio n a l research. T h e developer sh o u ld b e an investigator
ra th e r th a n a reform er. H e should start from a p ro b le m , n o t from a
Solution. A n d he should not aim to be right, b u t to b e com petent.
* I t is, o f course, extrem ely difficult in the p re s e n t clim ate to make
th is g o o d in practice. It seem s to me quite clear th a t th e H um anities
P ro je c t w as prim arily concerned with exploring th e parad o x th at in
c o n tro v ersial areas some teachers might want to b e n e u tra l, and facing
th e p ro b le m that we had no pedagogy to m ee t th e n eed s of such
tea c h e rs. M o st people apparently see it as ad v o catin g th a t th e teacher
be n e u tra l rath e r than as attem pting to give him th e choice of being so.
N ew -w av e evaluation could help to im prove th is clim ate, to stim u
late c u rio sity about teaching and mute o ver-confident advocacy. Such
ev alu atio n is research into the nature and p ro b le m s o f educational
in n o v atio n and the betterm en t of schools. A nd it is research w hich is
relatively non-technical and accessible. T h is m ak es th e definition of
th e p o sitio n of the developer as a research w orker m o re accessible too.
A know ledge of evaluation research seems to m e the m ost desirable

qualification for the director of a curriculum project. O therw ise the
project is likely to go for solutions rather than for pro b lem s, and the
crucial p ro b lem s which lie in th e way of educational advance will
continue to be neglected. A project director sh o u ld have th e same
qualifications as an evaluator.
M oreover, since curriculum research of the kind I am advocating
here is closely relevant to the needs of teachers and educational adm in
istrators, and is potentially th eir tool, they should be at hom e w ith it.
M acD o n ald (1975) appears to be addressing ju s t th is problem w hen
he advocates a tradition of ‘democratic* - as opposed to ‘autocratic* or
‘b u rea u c ratic ’ - evaluation.
Democratic evaluation is an information service to the community about

the characteristics of an educational programme. It recognises value
pluralism and seeks to represent a range of interests in its issue formu
lation. T h e basic value is an informed citizenry, and the evaluator acts
as a broker in exchanges of information between differing groups. His
techniques of data gathering and presentation must be accessible to non
specialist audiences. His main activity is the collection of definitions of,
and reactions to, the programme. He offers confidentiality to inform
ants and gives then control over his use of the information. T h e report is
non-recommendatory, and the evaluator has no concept of information
misuse. T he evaluator engages in periodic negotiation of his relation
ships with sponsors and programme participants. T h e criterion of success
is the range of audiences served. The report aspires to ‘best-seller’status.
T he key concepts of democratic evaluation are ‘confidentiality’, ‘negotia
tion* and ‘accessibility*. T he key justificatory concept is ‘the right to
know*.I
I do n ot th in k he goes far enough. Given that th e re are ‘professional

evaluators* and two publications by the Schools C ouncil (1973b,
i 975a) suggest th a t such a profession is em erging in th is co u n try -
he w ants th em to work for an informed citizenry ra th e r th an for
an in fo rm ed bureaucracy or for their own position as autocratic
judges. T h is is fair enough up to a point, and a w holly acceptable
ethical position for a professional evaluator. B ut I w ould question
the desirability of the em ergence of the evaluator as a professional
role.
T h e existence of the evaluator implies the existence o f th e developer,
an o th er role of which I am sceptical. I w ant to a rg u e against the
sep aratio n of developer and evaluator and in favour o f integrated
cu rricu lu m research.
S p a rro w (1973, 1) describes the role of the developers in the follow
ing te r m s :
In the early 1960s the men and women of imagination and insight who
were responsible for curriculum development were determined to intro
duce new materials, new subject content and new methods of teaching
into the schools. The first disciplines selected for change were science
and m athematics; latterly the movement has spread to the humanities.
T h e developers were certain that much irrelevant and out-of-date
m aterial was being taught in the schools, and that they could replace
this outm oded curriculum with something m uch better - more relevant
to the times and more interesting. The ideas for new content came from
both outside the classroom and within it, from the universities and
colleges, and from teachers who were called upon to help introduce the
new materials. Indeed, the Nuffield projects were run by teachers for
teachers.
T h e first concern of the developers was the production of teaching
materials, and the urgency of the task left little opportunity for them to
make a cool and careful evaluation of their product, or to formulate
precise hypotheses to be tested by patient educational research of the
traditional kind. It can be argued that m uch of the strength of the
curriculum development movement stemmed from the stress that was
placed on immediate needs in an essentially practical situation.
S p a rro w m ay be right - though I am d o u b tfu l of this - in his
h istorical ju d g em e n t th a t th e stress on p ractical responses to im m e
diate n eed s was a source o f strength. How ever, I w ould argue that this
phase o f w ork in curriculum ought to be o u tg ro w n as soon as possible.
T h e w o rk e r in curriculum ought to form ulate h y p o th eses to be tested
by p a tie n t research. But not research of th e tra d itio n al kind: c u r
ricu lu m research gives access to problem s w h ich elude traditional
m eth o d s.
W e know enough now to shun the offer o f ready solutions. C u r
ric u lu m research m ust be concerned with th e p ain stak in g exam ination
of p o ssib ilities and problem s. Evaluation s h o u ld , as it were, lead
d ev elo p m en t and be integrated with it. T h e n th e conceptual dis
tin c tio n betw een developm ent and evaluation is destroyed and the
tw o m erg e as research. C urriculum research m u st itself be illum inative
ra th e r th a n recom m endatory as in the earlier tra d itio n of curriculum
d e v elo p m en t.
In th e n ex t chapter I look towards a research m odel in curriculum
w hich is an attem pt to express in practice th e aspirations for the
c u rric u lu m field which I have declared above.
9
TOWARDS
A RESEARCH M O D E L
T h e p u re form of the objectives or engineering m odel is that of

testin g a curriculum as a p ro d u ct against a specification it is designed
to m eet. T h a t of the process model is the evaluation of th e impli
cations o f a proposal which has a high degree of flexibility w ithin the
lim itatio n s imposed by a broadly stated purpose.
T h e evaluative response to the process m odel, ten d in g as it has
done to research, and the grow th of sophistication in o th er forms of
evaluation, suggest a fu rth e r possibility w hich I shall call here the
research model.
As far as I know, this possibility has not been explored elsew here;
and it m ay well be that th ere is a link betw een th is m odel and the
B ritish assum ption that th e curriculum is an area o f decision to be
delegated to individual schools. In a system in w hich curricular
decisions are m ade centrally, the problem is seen as finding the right
c u rricu lu m to prescribe. In a system where c u rric u lu m decisions are
seen as restin g with the individual school, th e school becom es the
focus o f c u rricu lu m developm ent, and a process o f co n tin u o u s organic
d ev elo p m en t becomes possible. On this a ssu m p tio n every school
should have a broad developm ent plan. F rom year to year the cur
ricu lu m will be modified as p art of a continuous process o f adjust
m en t a n d im provem ent.
W h a t kind of work in curriculum research an d developm ent is
best a d a p te d to feeding su ch a system? T h e p h rase used by the
Schools C ouncil to express the aspiration b e h in d its program m e
was ‘to e x te n d the range of choice open to te a c h e rs’. H ow do we do
this?
O n e m odel is th at of the superm arket. W e place co m p etin g products
on th e shelves. T h e school th en has a choice am ong these products.
I t m ay o p t for curriculum A or curriculum B. E ach curriculum will
have its ow n identity, th o u g h it may offer alternatives w ithin itself,
being m o re of a construction kit than a finished p ro d u c t w hich m ust
124 *4 n Introduction to Curriculum Development
be accep ted as a whole. It m ay be that the kit inclu d es variations so
th a t th e u ltim a te outcom e is a choice rather like th o se offered by car
m an u fa ctu rers - you may have various bodies, various degrees of
luxury, a n d various powers o f engine - or it m ay be m ore flexible
still, m ore like a M eccano set from which m any d ifferent things can be
built. B ut even in this, the m ost flexible case, th e choice offered is
prim arily, o n e betw een prod u cts: Meccano or Lego?
A n o th e r possibility is th at the principles on w hich a p ro d u ct is
built are so clear that it is open to teachers b o th to criticize the
c u rricu lu m in term s of its principles and as a re su lt im prove it in
practice, o r to extend the range of materials a n d teach in g strategies
by b u ild in g on th e curriculum offering in th e lig h t o f principles. I t
is th is k in d of flexibility which Link (1972) has in m in d in referring
to th e A m erican social science curriculum M a n : A Course o f S tu d y
(w hich is an elaborate package of materials and te a c h e rs ’ books) as an
‘u nfinished cu rricu lu m ’.
Y et a th ir d possibility, fashionable in Britain, is a c u rricu lu m offer
ing w h ich suggests principles for the developm ent o f curricula in a
p a rticu la r area and provides u n its of material w hich serve as exam ples
o f these principles in action, b u t do not, and are n o t intended to,
provide th e raw m aterials o f a fully structured c u rricu lu m . T h is is the
p a tte rn a d o p te d by the Liverpool-based project w h ich is developing
possibilities in th e integration o f geography, h istory a n d social studies
in th e m iddle-school age range.
All th ese approaches have about them the im plication th a t in som e
sense o r o th e r a curriculum is a policy reco m m en d atio n expressed
in a fram ew ork of action. T h e curriculum developer is seen as one who
offers so lu tio n s rath er th an as one who explores problem s. A nd his
success d ep en d s upon his finding the right so lu tio n , his advocating
th e ‘c o rre c t’ course of action - or at least the b est available course of
action. H e n c e th e need often seen for the sep aratio n o f th e function
o f d ev e lo p e r and evaluator, perhaps even of a w holly in dependent
evaluation. T h e developer is seen as the creative a rtist o r th e m an w ith
a m ission. T h e evaluator is th e critic or the practical m an who tem pers
e n th u sia sm w ith judgem ent.
N ow , it m ay well be th at this relationship b etw een developer and
ev alu ato r is som etim es, or even often, justified, b u t th e re m ust be an
asp iratio n to grow beyond it to a more scientific p ro ced u re w hich
b u ild sa actio n and criticism into an integrated w hole. T h e dialectic
b etw een p ro position and critique which is personified in th e relation
ship o f a rtis t and critic is integrated in th e scientific m ethod. C on
je c tu re s a n d refutations (P oppper 1963) are w oven in to one logic.
Towards a Research M odel 125
In o rd e r to move from p ro d u ct or process m odels o f curriculum

developm ent tow ards a research model, it is necessary first to cast the
developer n o t in the role of the creator or m an w ith a m ission, b u t in
that o f th e investigator. T h e curriculum he creates is th e n to be
jud g ed by w h e th e r it advances o u r knowledge ra th e r th a n by w hether
it is rig h t. I t is conceived as a probe through w h ich to explore
and test h y p o th eses and not as a recom m endation to be adopted.
A n o th e r way to look at the situation is to c o n tin u e to regard the
c u rricu lu m as a policy, but to take a Popperian view o f policy, assert
ing th a t policies evolve and im prove continuously a n d progressively
by th e s tu d y o f their shortcom ings and their gradual elim ination. On
such a view th e concepts of success and failure becom e irrelevant. A
cu rricu lu m w ithout shortcom ings has no pro sp ect o f im provem ent
and has th e re fo re been insufficiently am bitious. W h a t we ask of a
cu rricu lu m offering is not th a t it should be rig h t or good b u t that it
should be intelligent or penetrating. Its dilemm as sh o u ld be im portant
dilem m as. I ts shortcom ings should reflect real a n d im p o rta n t diffi
culties.
In th e field o f curriculum th ere are some w ho w o uld im m ediately
react a g a in st th e idea that a project might develop a c u rric u la r line of
attack w h ic h is experim ental an d which is expected in som e sense to
have sh o rtc o m in g s and to encounter difficulties. T h e y w ould argue
th at th is im p lies that we are experim enting w ith p u p ils and th at we
are p u ttin g th e ir education at risk.
T h is view seem s to me to be misjudged. I n th e first place, the
present ed u catio n al system is itself a policy, and it is clear th a t it is a
policy w ith th e m ost troubling shortcomings. M o re o v e r, th e sh o rt
com ings d o n o t seem to have been defined and tackled in ways which
lead to a continuous process o f betterm ent. W e c a n n o t be content
with o u r p re s e n t perform ance in education. If we a tte m p t to im prove
the situ a tio n , w e cannot expect to leap for a so lu tio n to the complex
of e d u c atio n a l problem s: we can only aim to em bark on a line o f policy
d ev elo p m en t w hich will give promise of a fairly long process of
system atic a n d thoughtful im provem ent. Such a developm ental style
points to w a rd s a tradition of curriculum research w h ich focuses on
the stu d y o f problem s and responses to them ra th e r o n th e invention
of a m b itio u s solutions before the problem s have been properly
studied.
I d iscu ssed in the last ch ap ter the developm ent o f a tradition in
evaluation w h ich is research oriented in that it aim s at un d erstan d in g
rather th a n m erely judgem ent o f m erit. It seem s possible to build on
the e x p e rien c e gained in this tradition by letting th e evaluation, as it
w ere, lead th e curriculum rather than follow it. T h e c u rricu lu m would
be designed with its potential contribution to research strongly in
m in d . O f course it would have to be justifiable on educational grounds
as well as on research grounds, but it w ould have the function of a
research probe.
T h is m ay well mean th at schools taking p a rt in a cu rricu lu m project
w ould do m ore self-consciously and system atically w hat they w ould
have done anyway. For example, an integrated stu d ies project m ight
w ork w ith schools introducing integration on various different logics
a n d w ith various different organizational principles.
T h e full im plications of the shift of em phasis involved are not easy
to see at th is point in tim e. I can best p u t flesh on th e bones of a
difficult argum ent by describing a project w hich has reached to
w a rd s a research model. T h is is a project on th e p roblem s and effects
o f tea c h in g about race relations, which is s u p p o rte d by the Social
S cience R esearch Council and the Calouste G u lb en k ian F oundation.
I t sta rts from two prem ises:
1. th a t nobody knows how to teach about race re la tio n s;
2. th a t it is unlikely th at there is one way of teaching about race
relations which can be recom mended.
A n u m b e r of approaches to teaching about race relations (taken in
th e b ro ad e st sense) have been attem pted in th e U n ited States. T hese
ra n g e fro m black studies - often taught th ro u g h th e m edium of
fo rm al academ ic curricula and in clear in ten tio n ta u g h t from a black
p o in t o f view - through controversial issues program m es (O liver and
S h a v e r 1966, Epstein 1972), to encounter groups in racially m ixed
situ a tio n s. N one of these approaches has been established by evalua
tio n as having a potential which clearly m arks it o u t from the others.
M o re o v e r, the racial scene is so different in B ritain th a t it is doubtful
if resu lts w ould transfer.
O n e o f th e m ore widely reported experim ents in B ritain is th at of
M ille r (1967, 1969), who worked with day-release stu d e n ts in fu rth e r
e d u c a tio n using a wide range of teaching m eth o d s intended to attack
racial prejudice. He found that prejudice was high in his group and
th a t it increased during the experiment. M iller is the first to adm it
th e lim itations of his findings, which cannot be reliably generalized.
N ev erth eless, they do suggest the existence of considerable problem s
in h a n d lin g race relations through education. M oreover, the results
h av e h ad som e influence in making te a c h e rs'd o u b tfu l of the wisdom
o f te a c h in g about race relations at all.
O n th e basis of personal experience - w hich should not be u n d er-
estim ated —th ere appear to be a fair num ber o f p eo p le both in the
field o f race relations and in education who have s tro n g views about
how tea c h in g about race relations should or sh o u ld n o t be conducted.
T h e re a p p e ars however to be little consensus o f view am ong them .
T h is p ro b ab ly indicates m ore clearly than th e lim ited research that
there is no basis for any claim th at we know how tea c h in g about race
relations sh o u ld be conducted. Such a situation p o in ts clearly towards
a research approach.
So to o does the observation that no suggestion fo r teaching is
likely to hold for th e full range of circum stances w hich obtain in
schools. I t is clearly highly unlikely that the sam e m aterials and the
sam e tea c h in g strategy would be desirable in a m u lti-racial inner
u rb an school in which two racial groups are stro n g ly represented, a
m u lti-racial school in which th ree racial groups are strongly repre
sented, a n d a rural school in w hich pupils have little co n tact w ith any
cultures o th e r than th at of th e ir own locality. M o reo v er, if a school
has a m u lti-racial neighbourhood to serve, it p ro b ab ly m a tte rs for the
design o f curriculum and teaching whether th ere is in th a t neighbour
hood relative harm ony, an uneasy truce or acute ten sio n . In education
we are dealing w ith situations w hich contain m any variables, and over
a w ide ran g e o f subjects it holds true that the c u rric u lu m is not the
m ost im p o rta n t variable to be taken into account in attem pting to
u n d e rsta n d th e results of curriculum developm ent. F a ilu re to recog
nize th is is th e greatest weakness in curriculum research . All sugges
tions a b o u t curriculum are conditional suggestions an d th e conditions
need to be sp elt out.
It is against th is background th at the project on th e problem s and
effects of teaching about race relations should be view ed. A nd it had
an a n teced en t in the work on race relations done in th e context of the
H u m an ities C urriculum Project.
W h en th a t project was asked by the Schools C o u n cil to take race
relations as one of its them es, there was some h e sita tio n on th e part
of the team . T h e problem was th a t the project had given its attenion
to controversial issues which were considered o p e n issues. Race
relations, th o u g h certainly controversial in ou r society, was sharply
distinguished from our other them es in that th e p ro ject team them
selves w ere firm ly com m itted to the promotion of inter-racial respect
and th a t th ere existed in legislation an apparent w a rra n t for a pro
gram m e o f teaching towards th a t end.
T h e aim of the H um anities Curriculum P roject was ‘to develop
an u n d e rsta n d in g of social situations and h u m an acts and of the
controversial value issues which they raise’. (H u m an ities C urriculum
Project 1970, 1) In teaching about race relations sh o u ld one aim m ore
directly a t influencing attitudes in the direction of g re a te r inter-racial
tolerance a n d respect?
T w o considerations tipped the balance in fav o u r of tackling race
relations w ith in the project. It seemed arguable th a t in th e context
of e d u c atio n any attem pt to foster inter-racial re sp e c t should be
founded on understanding. Respect, it might be claim ed, should be
reasonable and intelligent. It was recognized th a t this position
im plied a respect for the p u p il’s autonomy and h ence his freedom to
develop his ow n view, but it was felt that this d ilem m a could not in
reality be avoided.
T h e se co n d point was a m atter of classroom p rac tic e . I f the teacher,
w hen co n fro n ted w ith racial prejudice, so ught b y th e use of his
au th o rity to lay dow n the law to a pupil, w ould h e in fact change
attitudes? I t seem ed likely th at prejudice w ould tak e shelter in a
psychological u nderground bunker. Perhaps an a tte m p t should be
m ade to face it, rath er th an to drive it under cover.
W e w ere n o t aware at th e tim e of closely parallel approaches being
m ade in th e U n ited States, and reported later. (E p ste in 1972) T h e
p ro ject d ecid ed to proceed cautiously with a lim ited experim ent
co n d u c te d b y a task force in w hich J. Hipkin h e a d ed th e developm ent
and B. M a cD o n a ld and G. K . Verma undertook th e evaluation. T h ey
w orked w ith a m ini-pack of teaching m aterials (th e contents of
w hich are listed in Parkinson and M acD onald 1972) in six schools,
th re e o f w h ic h w ere new to the project style o f teach in g . I t seem ed
necessary to look at the situation of schools w hich em barked on the
them e o f race w ithout m uch experience in th e p ro je c t.
T h e ex p e rim e n t was m onitored both by c a se -stu d y a n d by a small
m ea su rem e n t program m e. T hose involved in th e exercise would be
th e first to acknowledge th at it had the lim ita tio n s o f an ad hoc
response to a problem w hich had arisen w ith in th e context of a
large p ro je c t. T h e instrum ents to hand were used.
T h e c ase-stu d y work was briefly reported b y Parkinson and
M a cD o n a ld (1972). Som e of the problems in th e classroom obviously
req u ired sensitive handling by the teachers, an d it was clear th at in
som e circum stances im plicit conflicts were m ad e explicit. Pupils
appeared to be prepared to defend this. In general th ey
m aintained that their attitudes had not been modified as a result of the
study, although many added that their understanding had been
enhanced . . . What seems clear is that there were no marked differ
ences in term s of personal relationships between the pupils involved . . .
several boys said that they did not feel that their relationships with
Towards a Research Model 129
their peers were in any way threatened . . . One of the English boys
in the group expressed the view that the study had helped ‘the welding
of the school community’.
(Parkinson and M acD onald 1972, 306)
A fuller re p o rt of the case-study work is in p re p a ra tio n and a
prelim inary version o f this has been made available to tea c h e rs taking
part in the p re se n t project.
R eports on th e m easurem ent results (Verma and M a cD o n a ld 1971,
Bagley and V erm a 1972, and Verm a and Bagley 1973) are su m m ed up
as follows :
We conclude that the present results do not contradict those of Miller
(1969) since the subjects in our present study were younger, generally
better educated, and held less highly prejudiced attitudes than Miller’s
day-release apprentices. In addition, teaching was longer, more con
centrated and more carefully prepared and standardized than teaching
in M iller’s study, and occurred in the context of full-tim e rather than
part-tim e education. This experimental study has shown that teaching
designed to enhance inter-ethnic attitudes in the school setting* can, at
least, be moderately successful.
(Verma and Bagley 1973, 58)
Verma and M acD onald were cautious in their co n clu sio n s:
The combined picture of the results seems to indicate that there was
no general tendency towards intolerance after a seven- to eight-week
teaching programme. There is no evidence to suggest th at the students
generally became less sensitive to or tolerant of m em bers of other racial
groups. T hese results cannot be considered as constituting proof. Analysis
of the pilot study along other lines is incomplete, but a decision has
already been made to proceed with the editing of a full collection of
materials on race, on the grounds that none of the problem s encountered
in the course of the study would justify the abandonm ent of further
research. No teacher involved in the programme abandoned the course,
or found it necessary to reject any of the premises described earlier. In
February 1971, each of the schools which participated sent team mem
bers to an evaluation conference at which they expressed willingness to
undertake the teaching of race with other students in the future/}*
(Verma and M acDonald 1971, 199-200)
T h e p ro je c t prepared for publication a collection o f teaching
m aterials on race relations sim ilar to those on its o th e r them es.
* This is not strictly accurate since the aim of teaching within the H.C.P
framework is not as direct as this suggested.
t In the event this statement has not been justified. One of the six schools
now seems hesitant in continuing the teaching.
I jo A n Introduction to Curriculum D evelopm ent
As it tu rn e d out, th e program m e committee o f th e Schools* Council,
after considerable deliberation and for com plex reasons, vetoed the
pu b licatio n of these m aterials.
F u r th e r research was n o t abandoned, how ever. S u p p o rt was
a ttrac ted fro m the Social Science Research C ouncil a n d the G ulben-
kian F o u n d a tio n for a pro ject on ‘T he P ro b le m s a n d Effects of
T e a ch in g a b o u t Race R elations’. One of the H u m a n itie s Project team
(L . S ten h o u se) and one of th e Evaluation team (G . K . V erm a) passed
on to th is project.
I t is p ro b ab ly necessary a t this point to m ake c le a r th e position
taken u p as a result of the experience of the H u m a n itie s P roject and its
evaluation.
F irst, th e re seem ed reason to believe th a t som e positive effects,
m o d est th o u g h they m ight be, might accrue from te a c h in g to adoles
cents in th e area of race relations for from six w eeks to one term , and
fu rth e r th a t m uch m ight be learned about th e p ro b le m s of teaching
a b o u t race relations in th e context of such tea c h in g . T h is is not to
deny th a t th e re is a need fo r a m uch more th o ro u g h -g o in g program m e
of e d u c atio n for a m ulti-racial society. H ow ever, w e believe th at an
e x p erim en tal approach to th e problem w ith ad o lescen ts is not only
ju stified in itself, b u t is also likely to stim ulate reflectio n about needs
fa rth e r dow n the school.
Second, th e H um anities Project strategy does n o t stan d or fall
on th e case o f race relations. W e feel that we have n o vested interest
in th a t strategy in this context. Moreover, o u r h y p o th esis is that a
v ariety o f different strategies will be found u sefu l in a variety of
different contexts, though in view of the research evid en ce we do feel
som e reserve about authoritarian approaches to te a c h in g in this area.
T h ird , experience in th e field of curriculum su g g ests to us that
th e co n tex tu al variables in th e school and its e n v iro n m e n t are so
im p o rta n t th a t th ere can be no basis for general recom m endations.
E ach school will have to assess its own problem s a n d evolve its own
policy. A research on problem s and effects o f te a c h in g about race
relatio n s sh o u ld concentrate on collecting th e d a ta w h ic h schools will
n eed to s u p p o rt them in exercising their ow n ju d g e m e n t.
F o u rth , in th e field and style in which we are w orking, materials
are n e e d ed in m any cases to support teachers, b u t th e y are not the
m ajo r variable.
A ny research would necessarily be ten tativ e a n d exploratory.
R esearch design m ay be su b tle to a degree, b u t it sh o u ld be robust
ra th e r th a n elegant.
T h re e groups of schools are taking p art in th e p re se n t project.
Towards a Research Model 13*
F o u rteen schools are following Strategy A, sixteen are following
Strategy B, and ten are following Strategy C (D ram a). T eachers from
each strateg y came together for a strategy-based conference before
em barking on the teaching.
T h e first group to m eet were the Strategy B schools. T h e ir problem
was to find som e consensus w ithin which they could w ork together. In
the end th e consensus was em bodied in a conference paper. It is not
possible to qu o te this in full here, and the result m ay be to make the
statem en t ap p ear more abstract th an it is. Here are th e aim , some agreed
principles o f procedure, and a definition of the role o f th e teacher:
Aim
to educate for the elimination of racial tensions and ill-feeling within
our society - which is and will be multi-racial - by underm ining pre
judice, by developing respect for varied traditions, and by encouraging
m utual understanding, reasonableness, and justice.
Principles o f Procedure
1. W e should help pupils become aware of their own attitudes.
2. W e should assist pupils to detect bias and the motives behind this.
3. W e should help pupils become aware of the emotional content in
racial tension or conflict.
4. W e should make clear the historical and social factors which help
explain the presence of racial/ethnic groups in society.
5. W e should help pupils to see that many problems which appear to
stem from racial causes may be predominantly social.
6. W e need to help pupils to see the possibility of organizing for change.
Role o f the Teacher
T he teacher should be an example of a person critical of prejudiced
attitudes and opinions held by himself and by society at large and trying
to achieve some degree of mutual understanding and respect between
identifiably different human groups.
T w o po in ts of im portance need to be made a b o u t this position.
F irst, th e teachers we recruited on to Strategy B w ere not prepared
to take an authoritarian line or even to assum e th a t they were not
preju d iced w hile their pupils were. They saw p reju d ice as a social
problem in w hich everyone is involved. W h e th e r th is rather open
p o stu re of the teachers who joined the project is typical of com m itted
teachers we have no m eans of knowing. It is possible th at the project
was generally associated w ith non-authoritarian view s and attracted
teachers w ho were inclined in that direction, b u t it should be
noted th a t in m ost cases schools were selected by local authorities. If
the p ro je c t w ere a laboratory experiment it m ig h t be argued that it
JJ2 A n Introduction to Curriculum Developm ent
would have been m ore fruitful to have an au th oritarian S trateg y B, but
curriculum experim ent does n o t allow us to overrid e te a c h e r ju d g e
m ent for th e sake of experim ental neatness or to p u rsu e policies which
do not a p p e a r to offer prom ise (in the view of the rese a rc h w orkers and
teachers involved).
Second, th e specification of aim, principles, a n d role reached
by th e S trateg y B teachers is complex and subtle. W e do not know
exactly how to play consistently in the classroom th e role they
have defined. T h e H um anities Project took tw o years, w orking with
150 teach ers, to begin to define the criteria w hich a p p lie d to a role
of sim ilar com plexity. W ithin th e present project th e re is no oppor
tunity fo r intensive developm ental work of this kind. T h e Strategy B
specification has an ethical base. I t represents an a m b itio u s aspiration
whose pedagogical im plications would take tim e to w o rk o u t. I t m ust
be reg ard ed m ore as an expression of intention th a n as an em pirical
specification. Accordingly, we m ust expect a good d eal o f diversity
in S trateg y B schools. T h is m eans that the process a n d th e results
in each school m u st be stu d ied separately. S tra te g y B probably
represents teach ers using a n d building out fro m e x iste n t skills,
having h a d o ne conference opportunity to th in k o u t th e ir position.
I w ould conclude th at w ithin the experiment, c o m p a riso n s of the
effectiveness o f Strategy B w ith other strategies are in v alid . T h is is an
im p o rta n t p o in t. T h e natural b u t naive assum ption m ig h t be th a t an
ex perim ent o f th is sort is directed to testing th e stra te g ie s against
one a n o th e r. A s I shall explain m ore fully below , it is n o t.
S trateg y A is relatively straightforw ard since it d e riv e s from the
H u m an ities P roject. T h e aim is ‘to develop in th e area o f race relations
an u n d e rsta n d in g of social situations and h u m a n acts an d of the
controversial value issues w hich they raise’. T h e h o p e is th a t this will
in general conduce to b etter race relations. T h e te a c h e r su b m its his
teaching to th e criterion of neutrality, and can draw o n th e techniques
and in sig h ts provided by th e w ork of the H u m an ities P ro ject.
S trateg y C is concerned w ith teaching about race rela tio n s through
dram a. T h e potential of such an approach is o b v io u s. T h e schools
will be w orking m ainly th ro u g h situational im p ro v ised dram a. T h e
m ain divergence w ithin the group concerns th e issu e o f w hether to
approach racial situations directly or within th e c o n te x t of a study
of h u m an relations.
In each o f th e schools, teaching about race rela tio n s will be part
of a m o re general course - in social studies, h u m an itie s, o r dram a -
and th e em p h asis on race relations will fall in th e s p rin g te rm o f 1974
(January to M arch).
So m u ch for th e action. W hat of the research?
Leaving research design on one side for the m o m en t, th ere is a
logistic p ro b lem for the central team . How is one to s tu d y the w ork of
forty schools a n d about a h u n d red and twenty teachers w ith th e lim ited
resources available? T h e task may appear to verge on th e im possible.
And yet, given the fact th at our previous research was criticized for
including only six schools and one teaching strategy, it can perhaps be
taken th a t th is is the typical problem of curriculum research. I do not
think th a t it has been solved yet, nor that we shall solve it w ithin the
project. T h e m o st we can hope for is progress in th e developm ent of
better ways o f coping w ith it.
T e a ch e r participation in research is a key factor. O u r sta rtin g point
for this p o sition is tw ofold: the logistic problem of covering the large
n um ber o f schools and our working within a trad itio n (in th e C entre)
which is concerned for teacher participation in research as a basis for
the b e tte rm e n t of teaching.
H ow ever, W ild, who carries w ithin the present p ro ject th e m ain
responsibility for the developm ent of field study strategies, is now
ad u m b ratin g an approach in w hich teacher p a rticip a tio n is m ore
intrinsic to th e study.
O riginally he suggested, in a paper addressed to th e project
conference o f teachers, th e following conditions for teach er partici
pation in rese a rc h :
1. Research should be located in the reality of the particular school and
the particular classroom.
2. T h e research roles of the teacher and of the project team member
should complement one another.
3. T h e development and maintenance of a common language is a
prerequisite.
4. T h e role of the teacher as a researcher must relate closely to the role
of the teacher as teacher.
Q uestions raised and tentatively discussed by W ild a re:
1. Can the teacher sustain the dual role of teacher and researcher?
2. W hat is the availability of time for research work?
3. W hat form should the research take?
4. How wide should the span of research be?
5. How far can research be open in its findings?
T h e m odel o f research adopted by the project is b ased on the follow
ing a s su m p tio n s :
1. T h e responsibility for research work within the classroom rests largely
upon the teachers concerned.
IJ 4 -4 /z Introduction to Curriculum Development
2. It is n o t p o ssib le to prejudge which classroom d im e n sio n s will be
m o st u se fu l for an understanding of the p rocess tak in g place.
3. T h e te a c h e r ’s com m itm ent to teaching lim its tim e available for
research .
4. S im p lic ity o f d esign w ould seem to be an ad v a n ta g e.
5. T h e r e sh o u ld be som e attem p t to link ca se-stu d y w ork w ith m easure
m en t.
O n th is basis W ild is now reaching towards a m ethodology which

places c e n tral em phasis on the teachers’ ow n p e rc e p tio n of their
work an d th e ir situation. T h is is a matter of b u ild in g u p a m ap of the
conditions, problem s and effects of teaching a b o u t race relations as
seen th ro u g h teachers’ eyes. T h e perceptions o f individual teachers
serve as trian g u latio n points for such a m ap. It is at this stage too
early to define the elem ents of continuity and reap p raisal relating his
work to o th e r case-study approaches.
In a d d itio n teachers are accumulating data a b o u t the actual
process o f teaching. H ere the basic desideratum is th a t the teacher
should tap e -re c o rd his teaching and a reasonable p ro p o rtio n of the
teachers tak in g p a rt in the project have agreed to tape all their
teaching in th e area of race relations for the e n tire team . T h ese tapes
are valuable to th e teachers themselves. T h e y p ro v id e a m eans of
m o n ito rin g and reflecting on their own work. I t is, o f course, clear
th a t th e c e n tral team cannot listen to all the tapes a n d process all the
data. N evertheless, they can sample adequately and they can study
p a rtic u la r g ro u p s of pupils longitudinally.
In a d d itio n to taping, some teachers are u n d e rta k in g research
tasks in stu d y in g their schools and their c a tc h m e n t areas. In at
least one instance a second teacher is observing th e work of the
ex p erim ental teacher and keeping running notes.
T h e fu n ctio n s of the central team in relation to th e stu d y of schools
is tw ofold. F irst, W ild will undertake detailed s tu d y of a limited
n u m b e r of schools in collaboration with th e teach ers. Second, the
team will act as research consultants in other schools and interview
teachers a n d pupils. At this stage the team has d ro p p e d the term 'case-
stu d y ’ in o rd e r to leave open certain m ethodological questions and
questions of presentation w hich the use of the te rm m ay seem to pre
em pt.
In o rd e r to set the m easurem ent program m e in its context it is
necessary to consider problem s of experimental design.
In th e H u m an ities Project Evaluation, M a c D o n a ld (1971) spoke
of ‘briefing decision m akers’. A report on a c u rricu lu m project
should offer decision-m akers data on which to m ake decisions. T he
array of decision-m akers was a broad one and in clu d e d sponsors,
L .E .A .s, h ead s, and teachers. Teachers were cetainly not neglected
in th e w ork o f the evaluation project or as an audience for its reports
b u t tw o circum stances led to th eir being given a ra th e r less central
place in th e design rationale th an in the present p ro je c t on the p ro b
lems and effects of teaching about race relations. F irst, th e H um anities
Project offered, however tentatively, a proposed c u rricu lu m which
could be a d o p te d . T h is led to an emphasis on th e ad o p tio n as a decision
and a n eed to brief L.E.A .s and heads. T h e seco n d circum stance
was th a t th e H um anities Project was so stru ctu red a n d so developed
th at th e task o f briefing teachers as decision-m akers w as a responsi
bility sh a re d betw een the project team and the evaluation team .
T h e p re se n t project aspires to integrate som e o f th e roles of the
project team an d some of th e roles of the ev aluation team in the
H u m anities Project in an attem p t to evolve a research m odel in
c u rricu lu m . T h is appears to be possible only w hen, as in the present
case, th e p ro je c t has no curricular recom m endation. T h re e strategies
are being explored in the expectation that eclectic responses will
em erge. T h e aim of the project is to develop an u n d erstan d in g of
the P ro b lem s and effects of teaching about race relations in all
the p a rtic ip a n ts and to transm it th at understanding to others.
W h a t others?
P rim arily to teachers. T h is is not to say th at L .E .A .s, for example,
may n o t have to make crucial decisions about th e teach in g of race
relations. Som e of these decisions will have to be m ad e taking into
account th e grow ing body of data and theory a b o u t problem s of
change in educational settings. C ontributions su ch as those of Ship-
m an (1968) a n d Richardson (1973) will have to be w eighed alongside
those of M acD o n ald (1971) and M acD onald and R u d d u c k (1971) and
of M a c D o n a ld ’s current project studying success a n d failure in recent
innovation. T h e present project may make som e c o n trib u tio n to a
theory of innovation but its over-riding concern will be to address
itself to teach ers as decision-m akers who will design a curriculum in
race relatio n s and control its implem entation from m o m e n t to m om ent
in th e seq u en ce of classroom decisions which c o n stitu te the fabric of
teaching.
T h e p ro je c t will study the classroom experience of teachers working
in th e area o f race relations against contextual data a b o u t schools and
env iro n m en ts. T h is is not an attem pt to define th e lim its o f what is
useful, b u t a ju dgem ent about the contribution w hich can best be
m ade w ith in th e resources available and taking into account the
co n trib u tio n s of com plem entary research.
Ij6 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
M acD onald (1971) has em phasized that ‘no tw o schools (or
classrooms) a re so alike in their circumstances th a t p re sc rip tio n s of
curricular action can adequately su pplant the ju d g em en t o f th e people
in th em ’. T h is im plies considerable restrictions on g eneralization. W e
can p erh ap s generalize about variables likely to be im p o rta n t and
needing th e re fo re to be m onitored. Certain concepts m ay prove of
general value. B ut w hen it comes to causal links we are likely to have
to say sim ply th a t X or1Y or Z appear to have effects A o r B or C, the
intervening variables controlling th e links between X , Y, Z and A, B,
C being insufficiently understood for us to narrow a n d define th e
prediction. T h e research produces alternative h y p o th eses betw een
which it is n o t possible to discrim inate because of th e v ariability of
cases.
C u rricu lu m research is not fully replicable at p ro je c t level. T h e
field situ a tio n in w hich the action takes place is u n ique. N o a tte m p t to
replicate it c a n succeed. A nd th e uniqueness of th e situ a tio n is not
nominal, b u t significant.
N or docs c u rricu lu m research generalize readily fro m school to
school. T h e p rese n t project is concerned with th e p ro b le m s and
effects o f te a c h in g about race relations. Neither p ro b lem s n o r effects
are likely to b e sim ilar in a rural school in L incolnshire a n d a m u lti
racial school in D erby. W hat is needed is a grasp o f th e range of
problem s a n d effects w ith enough contextual data to allow schools
em barking o n teaching about race relations to an ticip ate w h a t sorts
of things a re likely to happen and to know how o th e r tea c h e rs have
handled th e po ten tial and problem s of these situations.
A ccordingly the research m u st aspire to situational verifiability.
T h at is, th e findings m ust be so presented that a teach er is in vited not
to accept th e m b u t to test them by m ounting a verification pro ced u re
in his ow n situ atio n .
T h e p ro je c t is concerned w ith th e problems and effects o f teaching
about race relations. T h e prim ary data for the study o f p ro b le m s are
derived fro m th e study of classroom s and schools. So too is m u ch of
the in fo rm a tio n about effects. D a ta drawn from s u c h stu d ies in
schools a n d classroom s are in a useful sense hard d a ta . T h e y are
rooted in re a l situations and have a high degree o f verisim ilitude.
Above all, conclusions draw n from them and in te rp re ta tio n s o f them
are verifiable by teachers in a way that data from te s tin g are not.
M oreoever, in so far as generalizations about p ro b lem s a n d effects
drawn fro m th e m define only th e range of problem s a n d effects to be
expected a n d n o t th eir d istribution, they are well fo u n d ed . T h e
accum ulated experience of curriculum research casts d o u b t on
Towards a Research Model *37
whether a h ig h er degree of predictive generalization can p en etrate the
specificity of teaching situations.
If such a position is assum ed, what is the place of a testin g p ro
gramme?
Again let us look at the classical model of curriculum developm ent
and evaluation. T h e curriculum represents a proposal w hose inten
tion is expressed by the proposer in term s of hehavioviral objectives or
intended learning outcom es. T h e curriculum is th en tre a te d as an
experim ental procedure and a p re-test/post-test design is em ployed to
assess th e effectiveness of the curriculum as com pared w ith the
perform ance o f control groups. T h e specification of objectives p ro
vides a basis for th e design of criterion-referenced tests o r th e selection
of norm -referenced tests which are judged to be relevant. T h e
emphasis is on m easurem ent of the effects of the pro g ram m e or
curriculum .
For th e p u rp o se of the m easurem ent exercise th e teacher and
context arc n o t taken into account as variables b u t are regarded as
constants. In th e H um anities Project Evaluation it w as recognized
that the variability ignored by this conventional assu m p tio n would
have to be exam ined in th e light of case-study. N o objectives were
offered by th e project, b u t an attem pt was m ade to focus on the
effects of th e cu rricu lu m by asking those who had experience of it to
offer hypotheses about th e effects it was having or by g e n e ra tin g such
hypotheses th ro u g h case-study. T h e emphasis was still on the
m easurem ent o f th e effects of the programme.
T he m easu rem en t results of th e Humanities E valuation have not
been fully re p o rte d , though a prelim inary report is available. (H am -
ingson 1973, 406-453) A large battery was used and unexpectedly
marked tre n d s were throw n up. Among the m ost ro b u st results
were correlated shifts on the M anchester Reading T e s t, th e M ill Hill
Vocabulary T e s t and m easures of pupil self-esteem. A lth o u g h these
shifts w ere significant only in H um anities Project schools w hich had
access to tra in in g , it could be argued that the h ypothesis th a t the
three variables correlate in a w ider range of settings is w o rth exploring.
T hat is to say, p attern s am ong observed effects are n o t necessarily
linked to the se ttin g of a particular curriculum.
T he place o f th e testing program m e in the design of th e project on
teaching a b o u t race relations is a first attem pt to resp o n d to this
observation.
T he project has no objectives in the strict sense. T h e aim s and
intentions o f th e teachers in the teaching situation are n o t influenced
by a detailed consensus on intended learning outcom es. W ithin
Ij8 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
a very gen eral aim there will be divergence of teach er intention and
teacher set. H ence there is no rigorous way of assignng to any effect
a logical relationship to the teaching. And since tests have to he
selected w ith in the project before the teaching has been studied
em pirically, th e link would have to be a logical link. W e cannot assert
prim a fa c ie th a t the tests will m easure the effects o f the experim ent.
T h e y w ill m easure changes in pupil perform ance on those tests.
W h at m ig h t cause such changes? Since schools are engaged in the
p ro m o tio n o f a wide range of cognitive, affective and attitudinal
changes in pupils, it is not unreasonable to expect th a t during the
course o f th e experim ent (which represents only a sm all proportion
of th e te a c h in g the pupils receive) changes will take place as a function
both o f th e experim ental treatm ent and of the co n tex tu al treatm ent
w hich th e school is offering at th e same tim e. I f th is is so, there is
likely to be interaction betw een experimental a n d co n tex tu al effects.
I t is th e re fo re w orth attem p tin g to design a b a tte ry w hich will
m o n ito r b o th th e experim ent and the context.
T h is p o sitio n has been reached during th e design of the test
battery , a n d its im plications for the design of te stin g program m es
in c u rric u lu m research and development will take tim e to work
out. I t m ig h t well be possible in the future to design and justify a
b a tte ry w h ich m onitored a range of changes likely to result from
schooling. If for exam ple there were a significant correlation in the
context o f a m athem atics project between increm ents in m athem atics
scores a n d increm ents in reading scores, it w ould te n d to indicate
th a t th e p ro je c t produced its strongest effects w h en placed in a
school w h e re the teaching of reading was relatively effective.
W e m ig h t look tow ards a battery which, placed alongside tests
o rie n ted o n a particular program m e, gave an in d icatio n of the con
tex tu a l variables in any one setting. W ell-standardized tests exist
w hich w o u ld be strong candidates for inclusion in such a battery.
T h is is n o t th e place to pu rsu e these m ethodological considerations
fu rth e r. I t is sufficient to say th a t they have influenced the design of
the te s t b a tte ry in the present project.
T h e d a ta from the m easurem ent program m e are soft data in two
senses. F irst, the tested variables are no m ore th a n indicators and
a p p ro x im atio n s. T h e tests are not criterion-referenced in term s of
th e p ro je c t, b u t derive their validity from o th er co n tex ts. Second, the
te stin g p ro g ram m e is not replicable in term s of th e experim ent, since
th e ex p e rim e n tal situation cannot be replicated. T h u s the m easure
m e n t p ro g ra m m e m ust be opened to verification by tw o strategies: its
tra n s la tio n into hypotheses w hich teachers can verify in th e class-
Towards a Research Model *39
room a n d its expression as theory about schools as educational con
texts w hich can be verified in settings other th a n th is experim ent.
T h e g re a t advantage of m easurem ent data is th a t they are quanti
fied an d can therefore be processed in ways th a t field study data
cannot. F ield study data are data ‘strong in reality* w hich are difficult
to organize. T e s t data are data ‘weak in reality* w hich are susceptible
to organization.
A gainst th e background assum ptions which have been prevalent
in edu catio n al research, this position may seem paradoxical. It
is in m an y w ays liberating. Its recognition invites one to use testing
in a sp ecu lativ e and suggestive style. If it is th e case-study data
rather th a n th e test data which consolidates, th e n th e tests can be
in stru m e n ts o f exploration. If results prove to be statistically signi
ficant - a n d th e re is no doubt th at the enterprise, th o u g h w orthwhile,
is risky in th a t respect - then data from the testin g program m e will
be o p e ra tin g on the boundaries of our knowledge o f the relation of
teaching in attitu d in al areas to its contexts.
T h e b a tte ry contains four tests of inter-racial a ttitu d e s. One of
these is a standardized test, the adolescent version o f th e Bagley-
Verma T e s t. T h e others are m ore risky m easures: a com prehension-
type te st (E . Peel), an opinion questionnaire (L . S ten h o u se) and a
perception te st with am biguous pictures (G. V erm a). Betw een them
these te sts sh o u ld give some indication of sh ifts o f in te rra c ia l
attitude.
H ow ever, since the teachers are not teaching to p resc rib e d objec
tives w h ich tally with the instrum ents used, even w here th e tests
have c o n te n t validity (face, logical and factorial), th ey have low
em pirical valid ity in term s of f i t with the teaching. T h e extent to
which th e m ovem ents of attitude recorded on these tests correspond
to or act as indicators of w hat is desirable m ust to a large extent lie
within th e ju d g e m e n t of the reader of the research. T h e y do not
adequately rep resen t w hat the teaching is about, b u t concessions are
made in th is respect for the sake of data which can be processed. I
would m y self believe th at significant m ovem ents on these tests are
indicators of, b u t not descriptors of, movements in a ttitu d e likely to be
of general significance.
T h e te sts o f inter-ethnic attitude draw th eir m ain significance,
however, fro m th e ir relation to the other tests in th e b a tte ry . T h ese are: 1
1. C a te ll’s J R - S R H igh School Personality Q uestio n n aire, which

claim s to m easure fourteen dimensions and tw o second-order
factors.
2. C o o p ersm ith ’s questionnaire designed to m easure th e self
esteem of adolescents.
3. A test in ten d ed to m easure various aspects of p u p ils’ a ttitu d e s to
school life (S um ner, N .F .E .R .).
4. T h e V erm a-S u m n er questionnaire designed to m easu re p u p ils’
attitu d es to school authority.
5. T h e H im m elw cit-S w ift version of the.authoritarianism scale.
6. T h e B rim er W ide-Span Reading Test.
It is q u ite clear th a t none of these tests is related to th e aim s or

objectives o f th e project. R ather th eir inclusion is, as has been ex
plained, an a tte m p t to grasp after contextual and related variables.
Do pupils w ith certain personality profiles change a ttitu d e m ore
readily th an others? Is a shift of racial attitude associated w ith shift
on the au th o ritarian ism scale? Are schools which are succeeding in im
proving reading m ore likely to be able to foster in te r-e th n ic tolerance?
T hese questions becom e accessible because of th e p a tte rn of
control g ro u p s in experim ental schools. W here we have shifts in
both experim ental and control groups in the sam e school — for
example in read in g achievem ent — we have data a b o u t th e school
context ra th e r th an about the experim ental procedure.
W e hope th a t b o th at pupil level and at school level th e tests will
throw u p im p o rta n t hypotheses and spotlight issues w hich can be
explored th ro u g h field study and in other research.
One p ro b lem o f this approach is of course th e size o f th e battery
required. T h e re are also problem s with reading levels in th e tests,
though in th is case th e reading test can be used as a screen.
From th e above account it will be clear that we have a tte m p te d to
integrate action and evaluation into a unified research m odel. T h e
aim is know ledge about the problem s and effects o f tea c h in g about
race relations. T h a t knowledge is intended to form a basis for the
local d evelopm ent o f curricula relevant to those problem s.
T h e p ro ject does n o t aspire to recom mend a p a rticu la r program m e
or approach. T h e teaching strategies within the p ro ject are lines of
action a d o p te d by th e teachers in order to gain greater know ledge and
u n d erstan d in g .
T h e m ea su rem e n t program m e is directed tow ards u n d e rsta n d in g
the com plex relationships betw een inter-racial a ttitu d e s, school
variables an d personality variables. It is not intended to com pare the
effectiveness o f strategies. Any such comparison w o u ld b e possible
only if th e relationship betw een the strategy an d its contextual
variables w ere not complex.
T he key to th e whole approach is the role of the te a c h e r as a re
searcher. N o t only is th e project a study of teachers w ho are studying
them selves: th e application of its results depends on teachers’
testing its te n ta tiv e hypotheses through research in th e ir own
situations.
A p articu lar kind of professionalism is im plied: research-based
teaching.
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 ent
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 of 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 discourse 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 laboratory, 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 the origins of the proposal or 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 uniqueness 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 teaching.
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 role o f the
teacher as a researcher in his ow n teaching situ atio n . W h a t does
this conception of 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 of 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 one’s o w n teach in g
as a basis fo r d ev elopm ent;
T he c o m m itm en t an d the 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 classroom 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 technique is that of in te ra c tio n analysis,
which has in o ne form or another 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 of this kind is a useful b u t an extrem 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 of 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 tic 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 for 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 the 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 technique 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 any of its
weaknesses com e from th e attem pt 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 understan 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 the 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 hig h schools,
and successively ad o p ted two different category system s for th e ir
analysis.
In their 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 conditions 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 kin 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, bu 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 ent in the 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 teaching.
As W alker (1971) com m ents:
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 he 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 crucial 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 com plexity of the classroom.
T he alternative approach which has been most a ttra c tiv e to re
search w orkers m ay be called ‘social anthropological*. I t ‘has used
direct observation of classroom events as a starting p o in t in the
development o f th e o ry [and] . . . it rather 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 bove all it
attem pts not m erely generalization b u t also the characterization 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, generalization
and sum m ary are difficult. But the product, 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 the 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 orto 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, the 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 of 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 and 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 process 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 oints.
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 the 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 of 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 necessary 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 of the
first also ta u g h t fo r a sh o rt tim e in the 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 the other hand he felt th a t his
teaching validated him w ith the 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 this 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 open
negotiation and hence definition of th e teacher’s role. S uch a definition
is of course a gradual and progressive definition because it is learned
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 resent 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 this 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 the 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 participant observers: ‘R ecognize th a t
research relations are facilitated if th e observer can find som 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 the research tradition, a n d the
limited openness h e negotiated w ith the 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 the
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’ understanding 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 evelop
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 ne’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 selves in the
role of researchers. G iven th a t they can define themselves in this way,
what theoretical an d m ethodological problem s do they face?
It is im portant to m ake the point th at the 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 onsequently,
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 of his
understanding of .his w ork.
Concepts w hich are carefully related to one another arc needed
both to capture a n d to express th a t understanding. T h e adequacy
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 should be
testable; and th e th eo ry should be rich enough to throw up new a n d
profitable questions.
Each classroom sh o u ld not be an island. Teachers w orking in su ch
a tradition need to com m unicate w ith one another. T hey should re
p ort their work. T h u s a com m on vocabulary of concepts and a syntax
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 synthetic 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 of 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 and not with an asp iratio n
towards an u n attain ab le objectivity. T h is is difficult enough. Illusion,
assumption and h a b it m ust 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 the
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 hab 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 verting
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 nd 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 recording. 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 the classroom
situation from th e pupils. T h is strategy has exciting possibilities and
progress in it has been 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 professional
performance is personally threatening; and the social clim ate in
which teachers w ork generally offers little support to those w ho m ight
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 ainder 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 the cu rricu lu m .
T hus in M an: A Course o f Study, 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 urriculum 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 that 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 the 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 of 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 support 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 hypotheses
must be ad d re sse d to teachers, th at is, they m ust invite classroom
research responses ra th e r than 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 the 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 uch 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 penetration into classroom s.
In the F ord T e a ch in g Project, E lliott and Adelman have been
working closely w ith teachers 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 action, are

the joint responsibilities of the 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 of teaching. W ith th e pupils*
permission, tapes of interview s were played back to th eir teachers.
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 dev elo p m en t
of a researcher role w hich supports 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 plem enting
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 how
curricular proposals can be evaluated w ithout self-m onitoring on th e
part of teachers. A research tradition 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 iven 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 capacity
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 good 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
that 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 helps
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 paren 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 and schools are pushed towards th em .
At present m orale in B ritish schools is often low. T h is is by 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 needed 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 the basis of b e tte rm e n t, a n d
given reasonable conditions, what barriers to change exist in th e
schools them selves?
I believe th a t th e m o st im portant barrier is that of control.
Schools are - w ith th e possible exception of the arm ed forces in
war-time - th e only institutions 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 teacher’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 control elem ent in the relation of teachers 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 ust 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 curriculum 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 take 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 by ‘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 here
departm ental au to n o m y is a strong tradition.
The School and Innovation i6 g
T hese observations do not im ply that effective change is n eces
sarily based on consensus. C hange m ost often comes through c o n
flict within a staff; bu t it is im portant 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 change 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 the w ay
th at power is used. As a consequence schools often assume a p osition
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 ubts 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 concede
‘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 of 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 the innovation they are a b o u t
to embark on. T h is leads 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 innovation 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 teacher 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 and o fte n it is upon these th a t his professional se lf-
respect is based. M o st innovation changes both subject content a n d
m ethod. As innovators teach ers are asked to take on, initially a t
least, the burdens o f incom petence.
ijo A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
One teacher, who was thinking of joining the HCP team in his school,
made the following remark after a spell of classroom observation:
‘It seemed to be stretching the staff in all sorts of ways. Had they gone
into a class to teach their ordinary subject and been so put about one
would say they were incompetent or they’ve only done three months
on the job. But in f a c t ------is an experienced teacher as well as a
competent teacher, as are the others. None of these people have the
signs of being green or incompetent yet this was suddenly Standing
them on their ears. T hey had problems which I could not understand.*
Incompetent pupils, incompetent teachers. Incompetent Project? Not
necessarily. G enuine innovation begets incompetence. It deskills teacher
and pupil alike, suppressing acquired competences and dem anding the
development of new ones. . . . In the end the discomfort will be resolved
one way or the other, by reversion to previous practice or by achieving
new skills, and new frameworks. But the discomfort and dismay are
built in; they are defining characteristics of innovation. . . . Perhaps if
the relationship between innovation and incompetence were better
understood, teachers would be less anxious about their performance,
observers would employ more appropriate response criteria, and fewer
people would be surprised when a process that looks and feels like failure
yields evidence of significant achievement.
(MacDonald 1973a, 91-92)
Dale (1973) has described how teachers often enter u p o n innova

tion, especially w ith in th e fram ew ork of a curriculum d ev elopm ent
project, w ith q u ite unrealistic expectations. ‘We expected to take
back an educational package th at we would introduce in to o u r re
spective classroom s, w hich w ith th e pack of m aterials available,
would mean successful lessons and involved and com m itted s tu d e n ts .1
The disparity b e tw e en these expectations and the reality — p ar
ticularly w hen th e expectations are held by heads and advisory staffs -
constitutes a m ajo r b a rrie r to innovation.
The control p ro b le m of the school, its moralism and n eed for
rectitude, an d th e stra in which genuine innovation places on the
identity and c o m p e ten c e of teachers seem to me to be m ajo r b arriers
to be faced by a n y school attem pting innovation. T h e re are also
problems in th e organization of schools.
In most schools w hich are going concerns (as opposed to new
schools) th ere are com plex organizational arrangem ents w h ich hold
the educational p a tte rn in place. It seem s doubtful if it is advisable
to attem pt to rev o lu tio n ize a large school which is in o p e ra tio n . T o o
great a load o f in n o v atio n may be taken on. If this view is correct,
then gradual a d a p ta tio n is required. U nstream ing w orks upw ards
The School and Innovation 171
from the first year. P u p il options are gradually extended in th e fo u rth
and fifth.
In this process th e tim etab le is crucial, and it is the m odification
of the tim etable year by year w hich dictates the rhythm o f change.
I t also represents the bargain struck in negotiation over th e resources
of staff, of tim e and o f room s. I t is a m ajor focus of the b a ttle for
innovation.
In viewing th is b a ttle it is im p o rtan t to bear in m ind th a t m o st
innovations have stro n g im plications for the internal politics o f th e
school. T h e school has a hierarchy of status and power. C u rric u lu m
and organizational change d istu rb s th at allocation of sta tu s. I n te
gration threatens the po w er base of subject departments. T h e in tro
duction of new subjects increases th e competition for resources a n d
may create new o p p o rtu n itie s for prom oted posts. Pastoral e m p h asis
also creates new pow er stru c tu re s. T h e re is strong evidence o f ten sio n
in many schools betw een staff w ith pastoral and staff w ith c u rric u la r
responsibilities.
In the face o f these political conflicts m ost schools develop a ‘p a rty
system ’ as well as p ressu re groups and lobbies.
Innovators and rebels become leaders of groups pressing for change,
opposing authority and resisting official influences. Ritualists and
retreatists form withdrawn minorities. In both cases, whether active or
passive, groups form and develop their own subculture, frequently
clashing among themselves and with the dominant group.
(Shipman 1968, 79)
T he m anagem ent o f innovation in a school is a m atter o f o rch e s
trating these different voices and negotiating the right to e x p e rim e n t.
In most B ritish schools th e head assum es the responsibility for th e
general direction of policy and for such management. M ore a n d m o re
commonly he consults an d takes advice, often from staff assem blies
and com m ittees, b u t in th e last resort he is responsible to th e local
authority and few are p rep a re d to take responsibility for decisions
which go against th eir b e tte r jud g em en t. T he governm ent o f m o st
British schools is consultative rath e r th an democratic.
The head o f a school com m only has great power in m aking a p p o in t
ments and he can use th is to endorse conservatism or in n o v atio n .
Particularly im p o rta n t are posts of deputy-headship, in w hich th e
pattern appears to be changing. M usgrove has this to say o f d e p u ty
headship:
The deputy headmaster specializes in internal communication. In
particular, he is the link between the headmaster and the assistant staff:
‘he is classically poised between the head’s study and the classroom’.
IJ2 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
(Burnham 1968) H e is the communications expert, although the
head may see him as primarily concerned with routine organization -
timetables, room allocation and examination schedules. A study of 277
deputy heads in secondary modern and grammar schools showed that
they conceive their duties differently. They see their job as requiring
first and foremost skills in dealing with school staff, listening to their
problems, suggesting solutions, and interceding with the head on their
behalf. They do not see themselves primarily as organizers; they con
sider that ‘concern for teachers’ is the most important part of their job.
(Musgrove 1971, 119)
Another com m entator sees the head as stressing his in stru m en tal
role with the deputy h e a d ’s role taking a m ore expressive cast; and
he comments of the d e p u ty ’s position:
In a grammar school this role is a terminal one since further promotion
is not common. One of the main criteria for appointment is long service.
When a vacancy occurs, usually through death or retirement, external
recruitment is rare. T hus, deputy heads tend to be older graduates who
have been in the service of their school for some time and who have
thoroughly learnt the-norm s of their school. As a consequence, they will
tend to have a conservative influence.
(Musgrove 1968, 48)
As we shall see later, in large com prehensive schools with m u ltip le
deputy headships th e role o f the deputy head is changing. Inn o v ativ e
heads are deploying d e p u tie s as ‘change agents’ with responsibilities
fo r curriculum dev elo p m en t or staff developm ent. We know too
little of changing p a tte rn s in school organization. T he whole q u e stio n
o f new m anagem ent styles is raised.
T hese styles generally te n d tow ards th e establishm ent o f an
‘innovative’ or ‘creative* school. T h ey face the dilemma p o in te d u p
by Hoyle (1972a): ‘C u rric u lu m innovation requires change in th e
internal organization o f th e school. C hange in the internal o rg an iz a
tio n of the school is a m ajo r innovation.’
T h e tendency is to seek a change of organization w hich in sti
tutionalizes innovation in th e school and opens the way to a co n
tinuous program m e o f b e tte rm e n t rath er th an the attem pt to leap at
a sudden and radical so lu tio n of problem s.
T h e question as to w h a t organization and climate is im plied by th e
notion of a creative school is a difficult one. Miles (1965) h as p r o
posed the concept o f ‘organizational h ealth ’ which he defines as ‘th e
school system ’s ability n o t only to function effectively, but to develop
and grow into a m ore fully functioning system ’. His c riteria of
organizational health a r e :
The School and Innovation *73
clear goals;
adequate communications;
optimum equalization of power between leadership and teachers;
optimum use of resources;
cohesiveness;
high morale;
innovativeness;
autonomy;
adaptiveness to change;
adequate procedures for resolving internal problems.
T h is strikes me as an analysis relatively uncontam inated by contact
w ith empirical reality. I n particular I am doubtful if innovative
schools do tend to have clear goals and cohesiveness, and w h eth er
equalization of pow er does n o t lead to a stalem ate. It is by no m eans
apparent what styles are m ost favourable to the betterm ent o f a
school.
I t is clear that in B ritain th e ultim ate decisions about decision
m aking lie with th e head, w ho is legally responsible to his governors
and the local education a u th o rity . Four styles of decisions have been
distinguished:
- ‘tell decisions* which are either trivial or so vital to the accountable
person that he had to make the final decision himself;
- ‘sell decisions’ are such that the accountable person can contemplate
only one possible course of action but clearly realizes that its success
depends upon its acceptance by others;
- ‘consult decisions’ for which the accountable person before choosing
an alternative seeks to get maximum input from everyone concerned
or with special knowledge, but is not prepared to share the ultimate
responsibility for deciding; and
- ‘share decisions’ where the accountable person is willing to let some
one else share in the decision, accepts the joint decision and shares
accountability with others.
(Loubser, Spiers and Moody 1971, 239)
T h e ‘tell’ style is not in freq u en tly encountered in the adoption o f
curriculum projects by schools. I t appears to lead frequently e ith er
to apparent, but n o t real, com pliance or to compliance with a degree
of determination to p ro v e th e decision wrong.
T h e ‘sell’ style is n o t uncom m on. A lthough it can possibly be
brought off by som e personalities, it tends to. produce a situation in
which an innovation has b een so distorted by th e sales talk th a t those
involved in it can n e ith e r sustain difficulties n o r achieve d e p th and
quality. In many cases th e innovation is assimilated to the existing
assumptions to produce ‘innovation without change*. (M acD onald
and Rudduck 1971, 151)
The ‘consult* style may well be the emergent one in England today.
Given the right decision-maker arid given that the consultation is one
from which he learns rather than merely camouflage for a ‘sell*, this
seems a strong m odel in the British situation. Accountability is clear
and decisions may be m uch more open to critical review than when
they are the result o f hard-won democratic majorities. A good con
sultative leader can often look after the rights of a minority and pre
serve their com m itm ent whereas they may be alienated when they
have been outvoted.
The ‘share’ style is probably in fact rare, though Countesthorpe
is a good example. In England such a style can only be initiated by
the head.
The initial paradox at Countesthorpe, therefore, is that McMullen has
employed the traditional authority of his status to divest himself of his
authority within the bureaucratic organization of the school, and though,
at this early stage, pupil participation in school government is limited,
there is a very strong framework of staff democracy.
(Bernbaum 1973, 51)
Countesthorpe w ill probably tend to develop both because the
staff were appointed for their innovativeness and because the school
is subject to a good deal o f debate and public discussion to w hich it
tends to need to respond. One might predict that in the end a dem o
cratic regime is alm ost certain to become conservative of what it has
established, but there is rather slender evidence for this.
One of the problem s is that both consultative and sharing styles
involve much more responsibility and work for the staff as a whole.
This may be the cost o f thoughtful innovation, but there is som e
evidence that it is not always welcome and that staff are prepared to
let the head take a good many decisions. (Musgrove 1971, 73 -7 4 )
This is borne out by personal observation.
It is difficult to deny the centrality of the head in innovation. H oyle
points to:
(a) his traditional authority;
(b) the opportunity which he has to view the school as a whole and hence
to perceive the need for innovation;
(c) his contact with the ‘messengers* of innovation, e.g. inspectors,
lecturers in education, etc.;
(d) the expectation that he will be an innovator held by L.E.A. officers
and others.
(1972, 26)
The School and Innovation *75
It is equally difficult to offer prescriptions about how he should
play his role.
On the one hand, p e rh a p s because the values pressing tow ards
democracy in schools appeal to those interested in c u rricu lu m
innovation, th ere is a ten d en cy to associate innovation w ith ‘a col
legial pattern of a u th o rity w hereby professional equals govern th e ir
affairs by internal dem ocratic procedures*. (Hoyle 1972a) O n th e
other,
There is little doubt that innovation owes much to the most progressive
of British headteachers. T he question must be asked whether the same
initiative can be given by the collective leadership of teachers or whether
self-cancelling ‘veto-groups’ might not inhibit innovation.
(Hoyle 1972a)
T here is little em pirical study which helps to settle the question of
leadership styles. In d ee d , although there is an increasing n u m b er o f
studies of schools* responses to particular innovations, and som e
studies of problem schools, I know of only two studies of schools th a t
m ight be reckoned innovative.
One is a rath er sketchy account by B ernbaum (1973) of C o u n tes-
thorpe College. C o u n te sth o rp e was started from scratch as an in n o
vative enterprise. T h e plan n in g was based on the idea th a t ‘th e
opportunity is being offered by the foundation of the new school to
rethink the total process o f learning w ithin the school. . . “ it should
m ean that we do n o t autom atically repeat an established practice
w ithout considering w h y ’* \ (34) T h e building is radical, th e school
‘attracts teachers w ho are especially com m itted to change an d in n o
vation* (36), th e head w as specially chosen w ith this in m ind. B ern
baum com m ents: ‘a v a rie ty of new ideas has been put into practice at
Countesthorpe. E ach o n its own is probably not totally novel, th o u g h
the accum ulation of innovation in one school most certainly is.* (45)
In short, C o u n testh o rp e is in a sense an experimental school a n d
perhaps the first radically experim ental school in the state system .
Bernbaum ’s account w as w ritten too early in the life of the school to
be more than a sketch a n d a speculative prediction. P erhaps th e
crucial question if C o u n testh o rp e achieves marked successes is:
how can these experiences be m ade relevant to other schools in m ore
typical situations?
T he other B ritish s tu d y is th at of Nailsea by Elizabeth R ichardson
( x973 )- This stu d y is executed in great detail, but it is restricted in its
purpose since it is concerned not to study the school as such, b u t
its management. R ichardson reveals clearly the complexity of th e
Ij6 An Introduction to Curriculum Development
management process in a large com prehensive school in the process
of change. She raises issues, but she does not draw prescriptive
conclusions, and her w ork casts doubt on th e m odels for innovative
leadership which are som etim es offered. So m uch inevitably d epends
upon the com bination o f keeping purposes and goals under review
and negotiating w ith staff w ith responsive sensitivity.
I am inclined to believe th a t the key quality needed in a school, if
development is to take place, is reflexiveness: a capacity to review
critically and reflectively its ow n processes and practices. T his seem s
to imply review s tru c tu re s, and a language and style of review. I n
Nailsea this language an d style was developed by the use of E lizabeth
Richardson as an in te rp re ta tiv e consultant. I t should be possible to
achieve a parallel basis for reflexiveness th ro u g h school-based r e
search and developm ent founded on a school’s own program m e o f
in-service training.
School-based in-service train in g is, however, in its infancy a n d
there is little experience to guide us.
In an all-too-brief acco u n t of in-service training at the T h o m a s
Calton School, Peckham , th e head of the school, Ron Pepper (1972),
gives some inform ation a b o u t a program m e w hich began by e s ta b
lishing ‘areas of n e e d ’. T h e s e were:
1. Use of audio-visual equipm ent.
2. Development of team -teaching and integrated studies.
3. Visits to other schools.
4. Co-ordination and communication.
( 15 )
Audio-visual e q u ip m e n t training sessions were staffed by visitin g
teachers and took place a fte r school.
T h e developm ent o f team -teaching and integrated studies w as a
co-operative task u n d e rta k e n by interested staff.
What emerged from the weekly meetings of the teams was that they were
learning as they went along. For the first time some of us were having to
justify to our colleagues our teaching approach and methods. T h e m ere
act of working together has itself been a training process, one which
promises invaluable returns as our work and experience develop. One
other aspect of this ‘self-training’ programme has been the way in which
individuals have become aware of the gaps in their own past training and
experience; . . .
(16)
O ut of a feeling o f n eed to extend experience came visits to o th e r
schools. And th e g a th e rin g o f ideas and experience threw up th e n eed
for com m unication a n d co-ordination.
T he School and Innovation 177
In all that we are doing and intend to do communication and co
ordination of effort are essential. Gaining information and experience on
a personal basis is valuable: its value is multiplied if this information and
experience can be shared. W e have a fortnightly Staff Bulletin which not
only carries reports of m eetings and group activities but also articles
from members of staff who have attended particular courses or lectures
which are thought to be of interest to the rest of the staff. Likewise, we
include press cuttings and comments on developments. We arc also
building up a comprehensive library of relevant books and publications.
T he Staff Association invites visiting speakers to lead discussions on
educational topics.
(16-17)
T h e account from th e T h o m a s Calton School gives neither in fo r
m ation about the adm in istrativ e arrangem ents for staff training n o r
m uch detail about the activities. In A shm ead School, Reading, th e
head, Peter Judge, has b u ilt school-based in-service training in to
the form al structure of th e school by appointing a Training D e p u ty
H ead. T h e situation w hich has been created is sufficiently in terestin g
to justify extensive q u o tatio n from prim ary sources - the school's
internal papers.
T h e job specification fo r th e T raining Deputy Head w as as
follow s:
1. T he organizing of teaching practice for student teachers and the
setting up of any necessary counselling of such students.
2. T he forging of close links with Berkshire College of Education and
the University of Reading School of Education both for assisting
their students at Ashm ead and gaining help in training Ashmead
staff.
3. T he supervision of probationary teachers during their first year,
including the setting up of induction courses and the briefing
and training of senior experienced teachers as individual supervisors
to new staff.
4. T he arranging of courses for existing Ashmead staff. These will need
to be of a wide variety of subject matter, approach and duration.
Some may be residential and it is expected both the school’s own
cottage and the local authority’s centre could be used for this
purpose.
5. T he counselling of all staff with problems (e.g. housing, health,
discipline, etc.) and the setting up where appropriate of support
groups.
6. T he arranging of all interviews for new appointments, in consul
tation with the Head and heads of department where appropriate.
7. T he induction of all new arrivals (e.g. advice on housing, tim etable
details, etc.).
I j 8 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
8. The introduction of regular job appraisal sessions and the training
of senior staff in their use.
9. The regular appraisal of inter-staff communication and suggestions
for improvement (i.e. supervision of staff bulletin, close consultation
with Staffroom Com m ittee etc.)
10. Liaison with the Curriculum Development Centre.
T he incum bent o f th is post, John Bull, works through an in-
service training com m ittee on which the following serve u n d e r his
chairmanship: a Y ear H ead w ith counselling skills; a young teach er
with links to staff discussion groups; a probationer designated
annually; an experienced teacher; a m id-career teacher with special
ized careers know ledge; and a head of departm ent involved in
curriculum training p ro b lem s.
T h e comm ittee’s fu n ctio n s were defined in the following te r m s :
1. Proposing and designing Staff Support. With the co-operation of
Heads of Departm ents and Year Heads, arranging ongoing support for
members of Staff in several ways.
(a) In defining their roles and, thereafter in helping Staff members to
receive the kind of help they may need in carrying out these roles.
This function may in some cases arise as the result of specific requests
from individuals, or from those involved with them in their work. In
its enactment, it m ight - if a generalized need is indicated (c.g. Role
of the Form Teacher) - entail the setting up of a study group to look
at the problems and offer practical advice. If a more specific need, then
less formal remedial help would depend very much on that need but
would aim essentially at helping people to cope rather than making
critical judgements against preconceived standards. This cannot be a
remote function and in many cases may prove to be best enacted by
close colleagues rather than by members of the committee itself,
whose role in this would be facilitatory to that end.
(b) In setting up relevant courses in school, and in advising the local
A.T.O. (through the school’s contact with it), Berkshire College of
Education (very interested in the problems of school-based training),
the Curriculum Development Centre and our H.M .I. on the perceived
needs for more formal courses outside school. In school-based courses,
it may become desirable for the committee to co-opt other staff
members for working out course strategies and content, or in some
cases to act as separate working parties for this purpose. Such courses
might materialize as Workshops, or as series of sessions aimed at
producing a particular organizational programme (e.g. to inform next
year’s timetable structuring).
2. Informing School Organization. Because of its proposed contact with
Staff, and the hope th at such a contact might evoke a confidence in its
work, the committee m ight well see itself as concerned to look at
The School and Innovation 17 9
organizational factors in the school and recommend appropriate changes
(e.g. the means by which policy decisions are made and thereafter con
veyed meaningfully through the Staff). Again, this particular advisory
function, led by the D eputy Head (Training) might prove of value in
pursuing organizational changes with the L.E.A. in matters of financial
support and employment information. Within the school, there may be
organizational needs to be channelled to Heads of Departments and
other senior managers on things like resource production facilities, better
support for particular curriculum development plans and so on. And, of
course, for acquiring tim e for In-Service activities.
3. Staff Welfare. Subsum ing the kind of welfare areas that the role of
the Deputy Head (Training) has already encountered -- from staff salary
problems to housing: m atters which in industry might fall largely
within the personnel welfare system - this function to some extent cuts
across that currently seen as operated by the elected Staff Room Com
mittee, and far from taking over any work currently assumed to be that
body’s, the Committee on In-Service Training might instead sec itself
as supportive of the form er’s work. There are numerous gaps at present
in that area concerned with what happens to Staff who are ill, short on
salary, baffled by the travel-claim system or simply and miserably out of
social contacts in a large and not-too-well-endowed town.
4. Curriculum Development. T he Deputy Head (Training) is formally
closely-linked, role-wise, with the Deputy Head (Academic) in this area.
With strong, and often seemingly conflicting, pressures for curriculum
reform in the school, curriculum development becomes not sirqply a
matter of timetable and financial provision, but also one involving
training problems and the dissemination of information amongst those
groups of teachers involved in what may otherwise become discrete and
quite isolated pockets of teaching. It may be a legitimate function of the
Committee to take upon itself, with the co-operation of Heads of
Departments and the D eputy Head (Training), a review of Curriculum
Development in the school from the standpoint of disseminating infor
mation about it in the hope that this may provide a better framework
than they have at the m om ent for their own thoughts and plans on their
teaching.
In his Annual R ep o rt to the school governors on in-service

training in the year 1972-3, Bull makes this comment:
The basic In-Service T raining problem at Ashmead is that of recon
ciling the processes of fundamental organizational changes with the
more complex difficulties of hum an adjustment that inevitably follow.
We tend to think pessimistically about the human costs of change, b u t
in fact it is generally only when we are unable to understand the nature
of a change process that we find its implications deeply disturbing. At
Ashmead, the scale of change has been such as to produce a range of
adjustment problems. T h e task of I.S.T. is seen to be that of two
remedial activities: first to provide a pastoral-support function for Staff
who are necessarily in an intermediate stage of adjusting their per
spectives from the old to the new regimes in the school; and, second, to
try to identify specific retraining needs and to provide the right styles of
training to facilitate sensitive and effective teacher-development. Both
are complex processes, rendered perhaps more so by the traditional
assumption that subject-knowledge is the teacher's stock-in-trade, and
that bringing any dem ands for refusing this assumption into the teacher’s
workplace is both a professional insult and a threat.
One essential feature of I.S .T . at Ashmead is its implied formal
status. Instead of opting for the James’ Report proposition of the P ro
fessional Tutor, which in theory seems an attractive idea, the Ashmead
principle of appointing the T rainer to a nominal Deputy Headship gives
the incumbent some responsibility in policy-making and - more im
portant perhaps - an access to both the Head and the three other D epu
ties that is probably vital if he is to effectively perceive the full cause-
and-effect syndrome of training problems in the school. (Interviews
with Professional T u to rs confirm the view that their relatively low for
mal status in their schools seriously inhibits any attempts to consider
the retraining of experienced high-status staff. At Ashmead, we feel
more free to include such teachers in our purview.)
One of the problems thrown up is the financial provision for an
ambitious scheme o f school-based in-service training of this sort,
though its advantages and strengths may well make it more cost-
effective than cheaper programmes of centralized in-service work
which do not face the realities of particular school situations.
In any event it is clear that the reflexive school with its own pro
gramme of research, developm ent and training needs to be supported
and fed by agencies outside itself.
1 2
S U P P O R T FO R SCHOOLS
T h e critical problem s in evolving an effective system of su p p o rt fo r

schools are those of p o w er and authority.
Power is at stake because su p p o rt implies the allocation of resources.
On the one hand, an innovative school may require material resources
and financial support. O n th e other, it may w ant to use the tim e o f
advisers or consultants a n d this too is a scarce commodity. A cco rd
ingly, support is necessarily selective support. Some ideas and som e
schools are likely to get m o re su p p o rt than others. The right to m ake
decisions about th e allocation of resources constitutes pow er a n d
implies a degree of control.
A uthority is involved because schools derive support from access
to ideas and expertise. T o an extent ideas and expertise are available
from books. But they also depend on experience, and given th e fact
that teachers have lim ited tim e for study, it is often economical fo r
schools to gain access to ideas th ro u g h persons who act as consultants
or advisers rather th an th ro u g h books. Such people readily a cq u ire
the authority o f experts. A nd as pow er m ay imply control, so
authority may im ply dependency.
Issues of pow er and au th o rity have a particular nuance in th is
country. In England a n d W ales teacher autonom y is seen as th e
ethical basis of professionalism and a cornerstone of the educational
tradition. T he extent to w hich such autonom y exists in practice is a
m atter for discussion, b u t th e tradition is certainly strong en o u g h
for any teacher to appeal to it.
T h e origins of this au to n o m y have been analysed by Owen (1973).
T h e transition from th e R evised Code system of payment by resu lts,
which was adm inistered by H er M ajesty’s Inspectorate as an a rm o f
governm ent, to th e organization and financial supervision of e d u c a
tion by local education a u th o rities led to a conflict between the c e n tra l
and th e local pow er. I t w as out of this conflict that the teacher w o n
his autonomy. Ow en d escribes th e situation very neatly.
In 1905 the original edition of A Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers
in Public Elementary Schools told schools that the only uniformity of
practice that the Board of Education wished to see was that every
teacher should think for himself and should work out for himself such
methods of teaching as would use his powers to the best advantage. It
was also added that in this way it was hoped that the capacity of teachers
would be best suited to the particular needs and conditions of individual
schools. It was denied that uniformity in detail of practice - apart from
the mere routine of school management - was in any way desirable; it
was even denied that such uniformity might be attainable. Nevertheless,
the moral was driven home quite hard - any freedom which the teacher
might acquire from this line of reasoning would imply a corresponding
responsibility in the use of that freedom.
Although, then, the teacher was taking part in a conflict which he did
not fully understand, there were two influences at work: the one was
influence which we could describe as political. The battle between the
Board of Education and the new local education authorities could be
claimed to have led the Board to the point of doing one of two things.
It could lay down a form of government which would ensure the type of
uniformity which would secure comparability of standard, of m ethod,
and of the content of curriculum throughout England and Wales, or,
alternatively, it could deny a comparable power of influence to the local
education authorities. It could do this by insisting that true profes
sionalism for the teadher meant that he should make up his own m ind.
T he second major influence which was at work on curriculum was not a
personal one; it was connected wholly with professionalism in itself -
and not simply with professionalism as a catchword. . . .
Essentially the professionalism of the teacher in deciding upon the
appropriate curriculum for his pupils is concerned not with subjects
but with what were then known - and remained with the same title for
many years - as activities.
(*9)
T he intention was less that the teacher should decide which su b
jects to teach than that he should have a freedom and a responsi
bility to interpret the subjects as classroom activities. In doing so
he would take account o f the individual needs and experiences of
the children, and o f the problems and opportunities which presented
themselves in the classroom . In short, teaching is an art, and as such,
highly individual. It can be sustained only in individual freedom.
There are a num ber of factors which make this highly individual
istic conception of teacher autonomy difficult to maintain in present
circumstances.
At the time when this autonomy was forged, there was a consider
able consensus within the teaching tradition. For example, the m ethod
o f teaching reading by phonics was virtually universal. Accordingly,
individuality did not express itself in gross disjunctions of practice in
Support fo r Schools 183
a single school. N ow th e re exist reading schem es radically divergent
in assumptions and s tru c tu re . W e cannot have three teachers su c
cessively facing ch ild ren w ith Words in Colour, I.T .A . and B rea k
through to Literacy. O n th ese grounds it w ould appear that a school
needs a policy, and this is a co n strain t on the autonom y of its teachers.
Som e have argued th a t given population m obility with consequent
school transfers, we n e e d a national policy at some points. I am u n
certain of this, feeling th a t we m ight well lose m ore than we gain.
T h e line betw een su b je c ts and activities has also become b lu rred .
You change the n atu re o f c o n te n t w hen you change the approach to
teaching. We have seen th a t instructional teaching tends to tra n sm it
a rhetoric of conclusions w hile enquiry-based teaching inculcates a
speculative approach to know ledge and ways of knowing. T e a ch e r
individuality no longer rests u p o n and is integrated by a com m on view
of knowledge. Again w e need eith er a policy w ithin the school or at
least a negotiated in te g ratio n o f teachers’ contributions.
T h ird , the privacy o f th e classroom has been broken down by th e
developm ent of styles o f co-operative and team teaching. I t is q u ite
clear that teachers a d o p tin g such approaches are aware of the sacrifice
of autonom y in th e in te re sts of co-operation w ithin a teacher group.
Finally, many inn o v atio n s now being adopted have im plications for
both the ethos and th e organization of schools. They affect w hat
Hoyle has called (by analogy w ith the sociologists’ use of th e ,term
‘deep structures of kno w led g e’) th e ‘deep structure* of the school,
th at is, the assum ptions w hich su p p o rt its surface practices a n d
organization. He argues th a t ‘changes in this “ deep stru c tu re ” are
being stim ulated by th e cu rricu lu m innovations themselves’, su g
gests that ‘attention sh o u ld be given to the supports which th e school
m ay need to effect this m o re fundam ental shift without undue strain
and anxiety for th e sta ff’, and concludes th at ‘professional develop
m ent of the individual a n d th e im provem ent of the creativity of th e
school proceed sim u ltan eo u sly ’. (Hoyle 1972a) This position is
consonant with m y ow n in th e previous chapter.
T h e conclusion seem s inescapable. I value highly the trad itio n o f
professional autonom y as th e basis of educational quality but it seem s
th at this must now be n eg o tiated at school level. Concessions m u st be
m ade in individual au to n o m y in o rd er to provide a basis for collabora
tive working, for th e school staff can no longer be seen as a federal
association of teachers a n d d ep artm en ts: it m ust be a professional
comm unity. And it is w ith th a t com m unity th at professional au to n
om y m ust lie.
F rom this position tw o consequences seem to follow.
First, teachers m u st be given and m u st accept a m uch h ig h e r
degree of participation in th e shaping of th e policy of th eir school.
Such participation m ay be th ro u g h a consultative system or th ro u g h
a democratic system . I n e ith e r case it involves heads and senior staff
in accepting accountability to th eir colleagues for their use of p ow er.
T h is seems the only acceptable basis for a m oderation of the claim
to individual autonom y.
Second, such a s tru c tu re involves negotiation and negotiation
im plies the existence o f a public tradition w hich supports discussion
and a common ap proach to planning. I t is a central argum ent o f th is
book that such a tra d itio n should be one of research and developm ent.
T h e appeal in n egotiation should be to procedures for increasin g
understanding and for evaluating and developing proposals. A m ajo r
instrum ent of a rb itratio n should be inquiry.
But of course policy issues cannot be settled simply by research.
Value issues are involved. T h e criteria of evaluation are at stake. L e t
m e say two things a b o u t th is problem . F irst, I believe there is a g re a t
deal of divergence w ith in schools w hich masquerades as v alu e
divergence though it is in fact disagreem ent about issues su scep tib le
to empirical elucidation. Second, where the value divergence is a b o u t
m an, knowledge o r society, I know of no way to resolve it in practice.
I t is for this reason th a t I incline to consultative rather th a n d e m o
cratic modes of school governm ent. I can see no alternative to th e
assertion of certain basic values on which th e school is based.
W hite (1973) has n o t only argued a value position b u t has s u g
gested that the policy it im plies should be centrally enforced o n
schools. And this o f c o u rse is the assum ption in such a c o u n try as
Sweden. M oreover, m an y o f the argum ents I have used to su g g est
th a t professional a u to n o m y should rest w ith the school ra th e r th a n
w ith the individual co uld b e used to su p p o rt a plea for centralization.
M y belief in decentralization at school level rests on th e p ro p o si
tion that a rich and com plex cultural tradition of co-operation th ro u g h
research and developm ent can only thrive in a group which fu n ctio n s
as a fully interacting com m unity. T h e quality of schools d ep en d s o n
th e quality of involvem ent of the individuals in them. ‘E fficiency'
can be pursued in large bureaucratic organizations only w hen q u a lity
of involvement is not a n im p o rtan t factor. A nd industrial relations in
large industries ten d to suggest th at the p u rsu it of efficiency w ith o u t
involvement may tu rn o u t to be an illusion.
T h is position is o f th e greatest significance for the p ro b le m o f
support for schools.
I f we back the in d iv id u al professional autonom y of teachers, s u p -
S u p p o rt fo r Schools 185
p o rt is a matter of s u p p o rtin g individuals. T h is has been the practice
in o u r tradition. F or ex am ple, teachers have attended in-service
courses and conferences o r have been released to take higher q u ali
fications. They have se ld o m been asked to report back to th eir col
leagues; and this is still tru e .
I f we take the system atic efficiency model, then accountability is
substituted for responsibility. In this sense accountability is resp o n
sibility without freedom . T e a c h e rs and schools have little control o f
th e criteria of accountability. T h e y are tested, usually in terms o f th e ir
‘p ro d u ct’, as in paym ent b y results. S upport for teachers th en rests
oh a deficit model. T h o s e w ho fail to m eet the criteria are given
access to training to im p ro v e th e ir perform ance. I do not think th a t
this model exists in p u re fo rm , b u t there is a strong flavour of it in th e
courses offered to te a c h e rs in som e centralized systems to enable
them to meet the d e m a n d s laid upon them by curricular legislation.
T h e acceptance of th e p o sitio n argued here, th at the school is th e
unit for development a n d also th e unit of professional autonomy, has
strong implications for s u p p o rt. It means th a t supporting agencies
should aim to help schools to build traditions of autonomous, self-
critical improvement. A n d th is means th a t supporting agencies
cannot simply take people o u t o f school for in-service training: th ey
m ust go into schools a n d w ork w ith problem s where they are an d in
th eir context. ^
W e have in Britain a w ide range of supporting agencies: H e r
M ajesty’s Inspectorate, local advisory services, teachers* centres,
research and developm ent u n its, in-service training agencies a n d
initial training in stitu tio n s. I t is m y thesis th a t they and the schools
should be united in a co m m o n research and development trad itio n .
L e t us consider each o f th ese su pport resources in turn.
T h e role of H .M .I. seem s to be am biguous and changing:
Certainly H.M.I. have throughout the greater part of the present century
remained steadfast to their first duty of being independent arbiters of
the quality of schools, of teaching and of teachers. They have admittedly
lost their role of inspecting the attainment of children. Both teachers and
L.E.A.s are, however, still comparatively unclear as to whether H .M .I.
have, in fact, dropped their function of inspecting. It is insisted by
the Department of E ducation and Science that H.M.I. do not inspect
L.E.A.s; by implication this means that they inspect schools. However,
since the mid-1960s it has been accepted that schools are no longer to be
regularly inspected by H .M .I. and there is even doubt whether any
schools would within the next half decade be inspected at any time by
those who work nationally.
This raises the question of whether H.M .I. are employed in order to
help schools or to help L.E.As, or simply to act as informants of the
Secretary of State for Education and Science about the quality of the
system over which he or she presides at any one time. And even this
definition of the function is one which would be difficult for cither the
department or for the Inspectorate as an independent or quasi-inde
pendent corps d*elite to accept.
T h ere are strong in d ic a tio n s th at the Inspectorate is review ing its
role and position and it is n o t easy to see what will emerge. B ut th ere
are certainly a n u m b e r o f p o in ts at which they have great stre n g th .
T h e Inspectorate is th e only body w ith an opportunity to view th e
whole system. H ence it is able to make judgem ents of tre n d s and
tendencies which are fre q u e n tly of considerable use to b o th local
education authorities a n d schools and to help school or locality to a
clearer self-appreciation. M oreover, as in a recent survey of gu id an ce
services in schools, th e In sp ecto rate is able both to highlight w eak
nesses in the system a n d to rep o rt good practices.
A nother function o f th e Inspectorate concerns in-service train in g ,
w here again they are able to in terp ret trends and needs and resp o n d
to them . Their effectiveness here has recently been increased by
regulations su p porting jo in t courses arranged by the D .E .S . an d
A rea Training O rganizations.
I t seems to me a p p a re n t th a t H .M .I. could be crucial for a tra d itio n
of research-based schools. Its capacity to work at a national level in
surveying problem s, in com m unicating inform ation and insights
across local authorities, a n d in bringing together for in-service c o n
ferences and w orkshops teachers from all over the country, is an
invaluable elem ent in th e creation of a public tradition. M oreover,
th e breadth of experience of H .M .I.s should enable them to see
possibilities of dev elo p m en t w hich elude those with a more intensive
view. They would, how ever, have to cultivate a more co n sisten t
research stance. T h e re are th e roots of this in some of the work u n d e r
taken in support o f g o v e rn m e n t comm ittees.
T h e local inspectorates and advisory services are quite d istin c t
from H .M .I. ‘T h e re is very little connection between the work of th e
tw o kinds of in sp e c to r; th e re has been practically no consultation
un til very recently a b o u t th e ways in which national and local in sp e c
to rs might work to g e th e r or supplem ent one another’s e ffo rts.’
(O w en 1973, 102)
T h e local advisory services vary enorm ously in resources a n d
structure. Often th ey are overw eighted in physical education, m usic,
art and home econom ics, areas in which prim ary school teach ers
Support fo r Schools i8 y
have traditionally req u ire d a good deal of help and support. R e
organization and re g ro u p in g of local advisory services m ig h t be
expected to follow on th e recen t local authority reorganization b u t at
present financial co n strain ts im pose narrow limitations on th e p o s
sibilities. This is a pity. L ocal advisory staffs are probably critical
for the im provem ent of schools (w hether the view about the way o f
advance taken here be accepted or not).
Local advisory staffs have th e advantages and disadvantages o f
being seen by teachers as having real power in the system, th ro u g h
th eir influence in a p p o in tm e n ts and prom otions, through th e ir c o n
trol of such rew ards as release and financial support to attend courses
and conferences, and in m any cases through their access to fu n d s
w hich can be used to s u p p o rt particular innovations by s u p p le
m enting the resources o f individual schools. Moreover, they often
share with teachers’ c e n tre w ardens the role of gate-keepers in th e
flow of information m ed ia tin g research and curriculum projects to
teachers in the area. T h e y are clearly key figures in innovation.
T his key position involves th e problem s o f power and a u th o rity
w hich are inseparable fro m responsibility.
So far as power is co n cern ed , there appears to be every advantage
in openness in its use so far as this can be achieved. It is not alw ays
possible politically to sta te criteria for the allocation of resources, b u t
it seems im portant to avoid th e situation where advisory, staffs
allocate their tim e and resources to schools on a courtier system . I t
does sometimes h appen th a t access to such resources is felt to d e p e n d
on grace and favour a n d th is sets the context for personal in trig u e
on the part of heads a n d teachers. T h e situation is not helped by th e
persistence of th e fiction th a t L.E .A .s have no curriculum policy.
Rudduck (1974) has sh o w n th e im portance of local authority actio n
for a particular line o f c u rricu lu m developm ent. Geography fo r the
Young School Leaver has gone straight for L.E.A.s alm ost as an
Am erican curriculum p ro je c t seeks school board adoptions; and it
seem s to have w o rk e d !
T h e use of a u th o rity is p erh ap s m ore delicate than the use o f
power. Owen says o f advisers th at they have been m ost u seful
w hen
. . . They have not assumed that teachers could venture on comparatively
new ground without any assistance; nor have they truly accepted any
sense of right in their own participation in local work. It is not by
stealth that the local adviser or inspector reaches the point where he or
she is trusted by the teacher. Rather, it is on the exercise of sensitivity,
on a realistic sense of practical needs and practicable methods by which
teachers may learn to meet their own needs that the good adviser can
best base his efforts.
(Owen 1973, 104)
Rudduck (1974, 30), re p o rtin g the experience of a particular c u r

riculum project, com m ents th a t advisory staffs do not easily succeed
in casting themselves in th e role recom m ended by Owen. ‘T h ere are,
alm ost inevitably, p ro b lem s of authority. W hat aspires to be a
balanced presentation o f a curriculum possibility to teacher ju d g e
m ent, is construed as an L .E .A . recom m endation or m a n d a te /
However, given the im p o rtan ce of local advisory staffs for local
developm ent, there is no alternative but for them to work th ro u g h
these problems.
All in all there is considerable evidence that it is through the local
authority and its advisory services th at the opportunities open to
schools and teachers are created , defined and negotiated. Cave (1974,
57), himself an L .E .A . C h ie f Inspector, refers to ‘the pinching,
scraping, comm ittee p e rsu a sio n and sheer hard slog necessary for
exam ple in getting C u rric u lu m D evelopm ent Centres and Schools
Council Projects off th e g ro u n d ’, and this picture rings true w ith m y
ow n experience of th e conscientious local adviser.
In addition to local advisory services, L.E .A .s now have tea c h e rs’
centres. T heir fo u ndation w as stim ulated by the Schools C ouncil
W orking Paper N o. 10, Curriculum Development: Teachers' Groups
and Centres (1967), w hich d eclared:
The Council’s hope is that teachers will, more and more, meet in groups
to discuss curriculum problem s and that local education authorities will
do all that is practicable to encourage such groups, and in particular
help them with the use of accommodation, apparatus and secretarial
assistance as may be necessary.
( 3)
Owen (1973) com m ents o n th e unconventional origin of tea c h e rs’

centres and the problem s th is can cause:
T he Schools’ Council, after all, was acting independently of the D epart
ment of Education and Science. It was also acting independently of the
Inspectors. This is in contrast to the way in which local advisers and
inspectors had, from the beginning, been involved in the growth of local
systems of curriculum development.
(1 0 4 )
T h ere is great variety in th e sources available to teachers’ c e n tres

and also in their staffin g :
S u p p o rt fo r Schools i8 g
T he Centre may have a full-tim e warden, a part-time warden or no
warden at all. The warden may be a part-time adviser; he may have the
title of Curriculum Development Officer. He may have been a teacher or
headmaster in a school in the locality and he may still be teaching part-
time. He may be young and ambitious and see the post as a short-term
stepping stone to higher responsibilities, or he may be playing out his
last years before retirement. T h e leader may see himself as a Jack-of-all-
trades, a well-informed entrepreneur or he may act as a specialist,
shaping his programme according to his interests and expertise. He may
be a supporter or a leader of teachers.
(Rudduck 1975, 96-97)
T h u s with teachers’ cen tres th e re came teachers’ centre w ardens
or leaders, new personnel seeking new roles in the system. Som etim es
advisers and teachers’ c e n tre w ardens co-operated wholeheartedly.
Som etim es there was tension.
Collins (1971) has d istin g u ish e d four roles of the adviser in c u r
riculum developm ent:
that of ‘change agent’, the stim ulator and supporter of change in the
curriculum in schools,
that of a depository of knowledge about the curriculum,
that of director and organizer of in-service work,
that of assisting schools to evaluate new curricular ideas.
A nd he declares: ‘I co n sid er th a t the A dviser and the T e a ch e rs’
C entre W arden do exactly th e sam e jo b ’ in relation to curriculum
developm ent. In so far as th is is tru e , it can clearly be a basis fo r
co-operation or com petition. W h e n tensions occur, advisers w ill
often capitalize on their closeness to decision-m aking and real p o w e r:
w ardens will respond b y p lay in g their closeness to teachers.
Collins hints at this division. ‘O bviously they do not do the sam e jo b
when it comes to inspectorial a n d adm inistrative tasks and I v e n tu re
to th in k not many W ardens w ou ld wish to be involved in such w ork
because o f the threat this co uld pose to their special relationship w ith
teachers.’
T h e re are m any problem s in designing an integrated s u p p o rt
system for schools at local a u th o rity level. In prosperous A m erican
school districts, each of w hich enjoys a high degree of autonom y,
there often exists a fairly large team of supervisors and curriculum
specialists. T heir role is tw ofold. T h e y are concerned with the s u p
port o f schools and also w ith th e control of schools. In the U n ite d
States the practical and ethical p roblem s of this link between su p p o rt
and control are often d eb ated th ro u g h an exploration of the concept
of ‘educational leadership’. T h is concept figures in the proceedings
ig o A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
and publications o f th e national professional organization w hich
caters for educationally oriented school-district personnel, th e
Association for S upervision and C urriculum Developm ent. T h e re is a
m arked tendency to stress th e need for styles of leadership w hich
minimize the form al a u th o rity of the supervisor, but m aintain it in
informal guise. A n d on th e whole there appear to be traces of a
manipulative a ttitu d e to w ard s teachers.
Perhaps what is n eed ed is a consideration of the idea of ‘educational
leadership’ in an E n g lish context. It may be th at our style is less
leadership in action th a n leadership in creating a climate in w hich
action takes place. I have already m ade it clear that I believe th is
climate should be one favourable to inquiry and research.
One possibility is th a t th e new local authorities should have team s
capable of giving rese a rc h and developm ent support. Such team s
would then be the n a tu ra l links betw een research conducted nationally
and local program m es. T h e re are many im portant theses about e d u
cation being argued at p re se n t and m any problem s are being th ro w n
up. The optim um c o n d itio n s for innovative developm ent will occur
w hen any school w ish in g to explore the possibilities opened u p by
these theses, or to attack system atically one of its problems, can tu rn
to the local a u th o rity for th e same su pport, research-backing and
research consultancy as experim ental schools now draw from a
national research a n d developm ent project. I t would th en be an
im portant part of a n atio n al projects’ jo b to make that response
possible for L .E .A . research and developm ent units by evolving
methodologies o f school study, of evaluation and of in-service
training.
An excellent acco u n t o f w ork based on teachers’ centres o f a type
which throws up th e n eed a n d the possibility of developm ents of th e
kind suggested above is given by Cave (1971, C hapter 3). W h a t is
quite striking is th e te n d e n c y of teachers to evolve agenda for th e ir
groups which raise q u ite explicitly research questions, and w hich do
not anticipate easy answ ers. Cave instances the agenda developed in a
group of teachers c o n c ern e d w ith language developm ent:
1. Is language developm ent the result of faulty education?
2. Should the emphasis be on conversation or enrichment by stories?
3. Does ‘family grouping’ allow a greater opportunity for language
development?
4. Does television act as a stimulating and enriching influence on
language development?
5. How far can adults (parents, students, etc.) be brought into the
classroom to help the teacher by listening and talking to children?
Support fo r Schools ig i
6. Do our schools provide a suitable environment for speech develop
ment? are there enough tactile materials? does the child hear enough
adult conversations?
(32)
T hese are not basically how -to-do-it questions. They d em an d
explanations towards u n d e rsta n d in g , not prescriptive answers. A n d
indeed no firm answer can be given to them .
T h e approach of th e teach ers in this situation was experim ental.
T h e movement was to w a rd s th e design of inquiry and research.
Arising from the point regarding the use of parents in schools, three
members of the group took positive steps to contact a number of parents
and invite them into the schools to talk with the children. One head
master, Mr. J. Golightly of Swaffham Bulbeck C.E. Primary School,
subsequently reported that by using one parent per group of three
children the results had been quite significant. Children who had pre
viously not been very forthcoming in a free classroom situation re
sponded well to this small family set-up. Other members reported great
interest shown by the parents in the work and it was felt that by using
adults, students and older schoolchildren, some headway into problems
of language development could be made. We then began tape recordings
of young children talking with and without their teachers and studying
transcripts of their conversations. W ithout any additional information
it was often clear which children had come from disadvantaged back
grounds. An interesting point arising from this investigation was that in
free association, children of similar linguistic ability tended to collect in
their own peer groups.
(Cave 1971, 32-33)
O ne could hardly find a clearer exam ple of the kind of study a n d
experiment, characteristic o f th e best teachers’ centre work, or indeed
of leadership, creating a clim ate in which genuinely teacher-based
inquiry can be naturally p u rsu e d .
I t is interesting th at p a rt o f th e im pulse w ith which this language
development group s ta rte d is a ttrib u ted by Cave to a lecture b y
Bernstein, and th at the g ro u p later called in as a consultant a specialist
in language developm ent from C am bridge University D epartm ent o f
Education. Those who w ork in college departm ents and schools o f
education are also a p o ten tia l source of support for schools a n d
teachers.
H ere again there are p ro b lem s in realizing the potential th a t is
there, and they are p a rtly problem s of authority and status. T h o s e
involved in teacher tra in in g an d th e teaching of education are in a
vulnerable position. O n th e one hand, since they are not teaching in
schools they can be seen by teachers as rem oved from reality, th e
ig 2 An Introduction to Curriculum Development
occupants of ivory tow ers. O n the other hand, their reference point
in the context of their ow n in stitu tio n s is the academ ic establishm ent
of the University.
I m u st concede that m any 'educationists’ succeed in overcom ing
the problem s set them by th is situation, b u t many do not. T h e
educationist is inclined to validate himself to the academic estab
lishm ent through research w hich attem pts to prove itself by th e ir
canons, and through e ith e r talk o f education as a discipline (currently
unfashionable) or identification with the constituent disciplines
(cu rren tly fashionable) H e is also inclined to validate himself to
teachers by appealing to experience, often through anecdote. H is
research aspires to be p u re w hile his anecdotes aspire to be applied.
B ut o f course the opposite sh o u ld be the case. T h e contribution he
can m ake to the im provem ent of teaching is th ro u g h the close ap p li
cation o f his research skills, an d this is also the basis for organizing
an experience in classroom s w hich is extensive where the teacher’s is
intensive. He has little to offer by recalling his experience as a teacher
or by reducing his experience as a worker in m any classrooms to th e
level o f anecdote.
T h is is an argum ent for research in curriculum and teaching. But
such research is th re a te n in g in another way. W hile many kinds of
academ ic work are readily re p o rte d and contained in academic books,
w hich are relatively self-co n tain ed and insulated from the day-to-day
realities of the school, research in curriculum and teaching is b est
expressed through c u rric u la r proposals and research techniques
w hich can be operationalized only by the teacher. T his means th a t
th e teacher gains a u th o rity in th e field w here the 'educationist’ is
w orking.
Accordingly, in o rd er to offer su p p o rt for schools, the ‘educationist’
needs to assume a co n su ltan cy role in the fullest sense. He needs to
see him self as notionally em ployed by the teacher, and as accountable
to him . T h is is not an easy position for many ‘educationists’ to take up.
I believe, however, th a t th e e x ten t to which th ey can do so governs
th e extent to which th ey can w ork in a genuinely supportive role.
In th e support of schools, H .M .I., L .E .A . advisers, teachers’
centre personnel and ‘academ ic educationists* need to avoid building
th eir ow n status and p erso n al security on a conviction that they are
su p erio r to teachers. I re tu rn to where I started this chapter: th e
problem s of power and au th o rity .
C om petent curiosity is a b e tte r basis for w orking with schools th a n
the wisdom of experience an d th e tone of goodwill. In this field it’s
heads, no t hearts, in th e school.
1 3
MOVEMENTS
A N D I N S T I T U T I O N S IN
CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT
In this chapter I w ant to co n sid er som e changes, still under way, in

the perception of the n a tu re o f curriculum innovation. I see a m ove
from the idea of a c u rric u lu m reform m ovem ent to that of insti
tutionalized curriculum research and developm ent. Towards th e e n d
o f the chapter I shall c o n sid e r briefly the principal institution w hich
has em erged in E ngland a n d W ales, the Schools’ Council, and som e
of the problems it faces. O n e is a problem in perception.
It seems to me th a t th e p ro b le m in perception can best be thro w n
into relief by considering educational innovation first as a function
o f social movements b ased on beliefs, and th en contrasting this style
o f innovation with th a t b ased on research and development. F o r it
is m y thesis that m any o f th e m isperceptions of research and develop
m en t arise because of a d isp o sitio n to see educational change in term s
of movements. T h is ev en afflicts people engaged in research and
developm ent.
H eberle (1951) defines social m ovem ents in these terms.
Social movements are a specific kind of concerted-action group; they
last longer and are more integrated than mobs, masses and crowds, and
yet are not organized like political clubs and other associations. . . .
Group consciousness, th at is, a sense of belonging and of solidarity
among members of a group, is essential for a social movement, although
empirically it occurs in various degrees. . . . By this criterion social
movements are distinguished from ‘social trends’ which are often re
ferred to as movements and are the result of similar but unco-ordinated
actions of many individuals.
(439)
Gusfield distinguishes th e d irected segm ent of a movement w hich
ig 4 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
em braces members a n d th e undirected segm ent which em braces
p a rtisa n s:
. . . there is a mixture of formal association and informal, diffuse be
haviour encompassed in the concept of a movement. A significant dis
tinction can be made between ‘directed* and ‘undirected* movements or
segments of movements. T h e directed segment of a movement is charac
terized by organized and structural groups with specific programmes, a
formal leadership and stated objectives. Its followers are members of an
organization as well as partisans to a belief. T he undirected phase of a
movement is characterized by the reshaping of perspectives, norms, and
values which occur in the interaction of persons apart from a specific
vocational context.* T h e followers are partisans but need not be members
of any association which advocates the change being studied.
(Gusfield 1968, 445)
I n th e present context I take a m ovem ent to describe a collection
of people distinguished by c ertain convictions or beliefs. A m ovem ent
has a doctrine. A n ed u catio n al m ovem ent has convictions or beliefs
a b o u t an educational d o c trin e. A n excellent exam ple of such a m ove
m en t is ‘Progressivism ’. A n d it is w orth looking at progressivism in
som e detail since it is th e m ovem ent to w hich curriculum research
and developm ent is o fte n assim ilated by its opponents.
C rem in (1961) characterizes A m erican progressivism as follow s:
First, it meant broadening the programme and function of the school to
include direct concern for health, vocation, and the quality of family
and community life.
Second, it meant applying in the classroom the pedagogical principles
derived from new scientific research in psychology and the social
sciences.
Third, it meant tailoring instruction more and more to the different
kinds and classes of children who were being brought within the purview
of the school . . .
Finally, Progressivism implied the radical faith that culture could be
democratized without being vulgarized, the faith that everyone could
share not only in the benefits of the new sciences but in the pursuit of
the arts as well.
(viii-ix)
T h e re is, of course, m u c h m ore to it th an th at. In England c h ild
centredness, of a kind n o t adequately covered by Cremin’s th ir d
* Educational movements are in a sense vocational movements; but
partisans (as opposed to members) do not have membership of associations
for which the movement is a ‘vocation', e.g. the New Education Fellow
ship.
Movements and Institutions in Curriculum Development 195
point, has been im portant as has, recently, the notion of ‘openness’.
T h e Plowden Report is o ften taken as an up-to-date statem ent of
progressive education as it is interpreted by British primary schools.
I am not concerned h ere to estim ate progressive education, b u t
to consider its nature as a ?novementy som ething which it shares w ith
the Black Paper ‘trad itio n alists’. Crucial to both is a strong conviction
or belief about what ed u cato rs ought to do; and second, the idea th a t
the main problem in im p ro v in g schools is th a t of converting people
to th at belief. Typically, evidence is not taken account of to m odify
that belief, but used to s u p p o rt it.
Later, I am going to c o n tra st w ith this posture of conviction and
belief that of curiosity a n d dou b t, which I see as the desirable a tti
tudes in research and developm ent. But it is instructive, before
moving on, to consider C re m in ’s diagnosis of the failure of progres-
sivism in America (a p o st-m o rte m which m ay have been p rem atu re
if current American in te re st in British progressive primary schools
is anything to go by).
‘W hy’, asks Crem in, ‘th is a b ru p t and rather dismal end of a m ove
m ent that had for m ore th a n a half-century comm anded the loyalty
of influential segm ents o f th e A m erican public?’ (348)
H e offers seven reasons.
First, distortion. H e a ttrib u te s this to internal dissension w ithin
the movement. ‘T h e strife m ade the headlines,1 and within j these
headlines lay the seeds o f m any a cartoon version of progressive
education.’ (348) D eath by slogans!
Second, he cites negativism , and com m ents:
Like many protesters against injustice, the early progressives knew better
what they were against than what they were for. And when one gets a
true picture of the inequities of American schools during the half-century
before World War I, he realizes they had much to be against; the physical
and pedagogical conditions in many schools were indescribably bad, an
effrontery to the mildest humanitarian sentiments. Yet, granted this, a
protest is not a programme. Shibboleths like ‘the whole child’ or ‘crea
tive self-expression* stirred the faithful to action and served as powerful
battering rams against the old order, but in classroom practice they were
not very good guides to positive action. At least the generation that
invented them had an idea of what they meant. T he generation that fol
lowed adopted them as a collection of ready-made cliches - cliches which
were not very helpful when the public began to raise searching questions
about the schools.
(3 4 8 )
Theory is to unite th e m o v e m e n t: it is not closely related to p ractice.
ig 6 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
C rem in’s third point is closely relevant to British curriculum
reform :
. . . what the progressives did prescribe made inordinate demands on the
teacher’s time and ability. ‘Integrated studies’ required familiarity with a
fantastic range of knowledge and teaching materials; while the commit
ment to build on student needs and interests demanded extraordinary
feats of pedagogical ingenuity.
(348)
F o u rth , Cremin claim s, ap p arently contradicting his previous
point, th a t the progressive m ovem ent, ‘incorporated into schools at
large', was a victim o f its ow n success. I think it was vocabularies
which were incorporated in to discourse rather th an practices adopted
in schools.
F ifth, Cremin cites a g en eral sw ing to conservatism in post-w ar
political and social th o u g h t.
Sixth, the professionalization o f the m ovem ent, that is, its loss o f
lay su p p o rt and adoption as a tea c h e rs’ creed.
Seventh, and perhaps r a th e r tritely, progressive education ‘failed
to keep pace with th e c o n tin u in g transform ation of American society’.
(35)
A t th e root of the failu res o f a m ovem ent th ere seem to m e to be
tw o linked weaknesses: a n insistence on ‘hearts, not heads', and th e
lack o f a public tradition o f im provem ent by system atic self-criticism .
U nfortunately, good-w ill a n d th e ‘rig h t’ aspirations are not enough in
education, yet when ideas - p e rh a p s sound enough in them selves —
are spread through a m o v e m e n t it is the aspiring good-will w hich
seem s to be catching. T h e ideas often seem m ore im portant for th e
personal and professional id e n tity o f the teacher th an for his practice.
A nd, partly because of a w id esp read and persistent lack of h o nesty
about th e difficult realities o f teaching, success is reported publicly
b u t problem s, difficulties a n d failures are features of private ra th e r
th a n public experience. A p a rt from Dewey, very few progressives
learned from failure. A n d in th e im provem ent of practice th ere are
narrow limits to w hat w e ca n learn from success.
I t is one of the problem s o f research and developm ent in curriculum
th a t it is continually th re a te n in g to tu rn into the C urriculum R eform
M ovem ent. If those o f u s w h o are interested in the im provem ent of
schools by research - th a t is, by reflective questioning and c o n
structive criticism - a re to avoid this fate, we m u st address ourselves
to heads as well as h e a rts, w e m u st deal in hypotheses rath er th a n
slogans, we m ust e n su re th a t th eo ry is about practice and we m u st
ensure th at techniques a re developed to m atch aspirations.
Movements and Institutions in Curriculum Development ig y
W hat is at stake is th e close association of research with practice.
I do not intend by ‘re se a rc h ’ a body of techniques, though te c h
nique is important. I m ean ‘Investigation, inquiry into things . . .
h abitude of carrying o u t su c h investigation.’ (O .E .D .) The m eth o d s
m ust be those appropriate a n d practical in the case.
T h e application of research to education should be seen as the
investigation of our ex p erien ce as educators and the attem pt to
verify hypotheses draw n fro m w ork in the ‘constituent disciplines’
of philosophy, history, psychology and sociology. W hen it is regarded
as a m atter of applying th e findings of these disciplines, the result is
generally disastrous. L e t m e give tw o examples.
G overnm ent reports have frequently attem pted to apply research
findings in this way. T h e S p e n s R eport is the classic example:
T h e Spens Report is dom inated by psychological ideas, or probably
misconceptions of these psychological ideas, and divided the pupils into
three imagined categories of academic, technical and ‘practical*. C ur
riculum from that time onwards has been distorted by the notion of
separate kinds of curriculum for separate kinds of children.
(Lawton 1973, 91)
L aw ton’s survey h ig hlights th e continuity of this with the T a u n to n
R eport (1864-8): ‘F irst G ra d e Secondary Schools were suitable fo r
the u p p e r middle class c h ild r e n ; Second G rade Secondary Schools
were a proportion of th e respectable upper working classes spen as
possible pupils and allow ed to m ix with the children of the low er
m iddle classes for th e k in d o f education which they them selves
described as “a clerk’s e d u c a tio n ” .’ (87) T h e pattern is still there in
the C row ther and N ew som R eports.
I t is not only policy w h ich is afflicted by this kind of application o f
research. So is teacher e d u c atio n . O ver the past years I m ust have
read as external exam iner h u n d re d s of student essays which, draw ing
m ainly on the work o f B ern stein (who denies the implication) a n d
o ther sociologists, paint a p ic tu re of working-class educational d is
advantage based on bad hom e background and linguistic deprivation.
In only one case has a s tu d e n t argued that her careful study o f six
working-class children a n d th e ir hom es flatly contradicted w hat she
was being taught in college.
I draw two conclusions. F in d in g s from research are not to be
accepted but to be tested, a n d to be tested by attem pting to overthrow
them . A nd whenever findings ra th e r than investigation are taken to
be th e basis of practice th e y will be selected and interpreted to fit o u r
prejudices; for w ithout a ‘h a b itu d e of carrying out investigation’
research findings can n ev er b e called to account.
ig 8 An Introduction to Curriculum Development
C urriculum research will be useful to the extent that it is able by
testing theory against practice to avoid th e excesses of the m ovem ent
and th e complacencies o f rationalizing practice by reference to
‘findings’. How does ‘the state of th e a rt’ m easure up to that dem and?
It will help us to look at the rec e n t history of curriculum developm ent
in o rder to take stock. T w o th em es are interwoven. One is caught
in the words research, developm ent, renewal, innovation: the o th er
in the words diffusion, dissem ination, utilization, im plem entation.
N o adequate history o f c u rricu lu m developm ent has been a t
tem pted, and it would be a m ajo r research enterprise to provide one.
I shall have to content m yself w ith snapshots.
M odern curriculum dev elo p m en t can be taken to be characterized
by the setting up of ‘p ro je c ts’. A n d this trend started in the U n ited
States. T h u s I open up m y a lb u m at an A m erican snapshot dating
from 1966, when the initial A m erican effort was at its flood.
Curriculum Improvement a n d Innovation: a Partnership o f Students,
School Teachers and Research Scholars is a w ell-bound volume edited
by W . T . M artin, the H e a d o f th e D epartm ent of M athem atics,
M assachusetts Institute o f T ech n o lo g y , and D an C. Pinck, D eputy
D irector, Educational Services Incorporated, an organization w hich
later became the E ducational D evelopm ent C entre. T he form at
speaks of confidence and estab lish ed status; and big names are
involved.
I w ant to quote extensively fro m th e preface, as a prim ary source,
to docum ent the spirit and stra te g y of th e tim e.
From 1956 to 1958, Professor Zacharias and his colleagues on the Physi
cal Science Study Committee, most notably the late Professor Francis
\ j . Friedman, worked to develop a new high school physics course which
through its integrity, style, and precision of content created a pattern of
educational development subsequently followed by curriculum reform
groups throughout the world. One of its essential characteristics is the
partnership of university research scholars, teachers, and students -
enough of them working for long enough periods of time to attain the
precision and style that they wanted.
I t was intended that the new course would include an original text,
teachers* guides, motion picture films, laboratory experiments with
specially designed inexpensive equipment with appropriate guides,
tests and examinations, and institutes for high school physics teachers.
A set of paperback books for collateral reading was begun as a hedge
against success and independent adoption. In 1958, after two years of
intensive work by more than fifty professional physicists and more than
one hundred high school physics teachers, the PSSC course was ready,
in its preliminary form, for trial use and evaluation in the schools. It
Movements and Institutions in Curriculum Development ig g
was not until i960 that the course was ready for extensive trial use in
the schools.
As the work advanced, it became evident that a new organization
should be established to handle arrangements for publication and dis
tribution. Consequently a private, non-profit corporation was formed,
called Educational Services Incorporated, with a membership drawn
partly from M IT but including representatives from other institutions
of learning throughout the nation.
As soon as ESI was formed, requests began to come from scholars
and teachers for ESTs assistance in attempting to improve curricula in
other disciplines, in both schools and universities. ESI now has respon
sibilities for nine school curriculum projects, in the sciences, mathe
matics and social sciences; five university curriculum projects, in the
physical and life sciences and in several branches of engineering; and
two university research and development projects(in India andAfghanis-
tan); and the ESI Film Studio is now making films for ten separate
curriculum projects. EST s course materials are being used in schools
and universities throughout the United States and in many nations
overseas. About 450 faculty members from 228 colleges and universities
and 400 school teachers have worked either full or part-time on E S I’s
programmes in curriculum development and teacher education. T hey
have come from over twenty-five countries. Eighty-four faculty mem
bers from M IT have worked on ESTs programmes.
L et m e interpret the evidence.
1. Curriculum developm ent began in science. (Mathematics also

came into the p ictu re early.)
2. T h e centre of concern w as th e renew al of content.
3. T h ere was a considerable involvem ent of content experts in th e
shape of university p erso n n el, who worked outside education
faculties.
4. Teaching m aterials w ere p roduced, they were elaborate, a n d
th ere was some em p h asis o n audio-visual presentation.
5. M aterials were su b jected to field trials before final publication.
6. Special institutions o r g ro u p s were set up for dissemination,
th a t is, publication an d distrib u tio n .
7. Success was attested by th e num ber and range of schools
adopting the cu rricu lu m .
T h e re is another, m ore m u te d strand represented later in th e
P re fa c e :
8. ‘Education is an e x p e rim e n t and by its nature an incom plete

one; the course m aterials them selves are for the most p a rt in
transition; on the basis of fu rth e r teaching in the classroom
m any of them will be m odified or changed.’ (vi)
In M artin and Pinck (1966) we catch curriculum development
m oving out from science and m athem atics into other areas. There are
articles on history curricula, ‘M en and Ideas’, ‘From Subject to
C itizen’ and ‘The D eath o f th e R om an R epublic’. T here is the
‘N ew ton Social Science S e q u e n c e ’ (N ew ton, M assachusetts, is a
w ealthy and progressive su b u rb a n Boston school district). Basically
th e m odel here is sim ilar to th a t in th e hard sciences.
In addition to these su b ject developm ents, som e specific attention
is given to innovation in m eth o d s, b u t this is concentrated on ‘L earn
ing by T eaching’, the involvem ent o f stu d en ts in the education of
o th er students. There is, how ever, notice of problem s of teaching the
new curricula. Frank, in an article on ‘T h e C o-operative Program me
in T each er Education’, has th is to say:
Wc now find ourselves in the situation where there is real danger that
the very large investment, both in money and in talent, in generating
first-class course-content improvement projects will be largely wasted
unless adequate numbers of teachers are educated to teach effectively
both the currently developed new materials and those that will emerge
in the future. . . .
One approach to the solution to the problem of finding capable
teachers is to retrain teachers in service to handle adequately the new
curriculum materials. T his has been and is being done with the help of
special summer institutes, in-service institutes and the exhibition of
teacher-training films. . . .
It is clear . . . that the crux of the problem of providing large numbers
of competent teachers lies in the adequate education of these teachers
while they are still in college. . . .
There must emerge first-rate courses that prepare the student ade
quately, not only to teach the new educational material effectively but
also to exercise critical judgem ent of such material and to contribute to
its future growth.
(i79-i8o)
A lready, in the U nited S ta te s in 1966 m uch of the experience we
have subsequently gathered in B ritain is foreshadowed, and this is
n o t surprising.
C urriculum developm ent in E ngland was influenced by the m ove
m en t in the U nited States, th o u g h it differed from it in spirit. I t laid
less em phasis on bringing ‘sch o lars’ to th e assistance of the teachers.
M aclure and Becher (1974) offer a diagnosis o f the American situ a
tio n w hich has been an im p o rta n t stran d in B ritish curriculum w ork.
One of the reasons why some of the early science curriculum programmes
in the USA attracted a disappointingly small following, despite the large
resources which supported them , was that the main work was done by
university specialists with whose approach the average high school
teachers found it difficult to identify, and who were in any case totally
unfamiliar with the problems of teaching science to pupils of secondary
age.
In England system atic c u rric u lu m developm ent began, as it did
in th e U nited States, w ith su b je c t renewal, b u t the source of th e
initiative was different. T h e School M athem atics Project was
‘initiated co-operatively by a g ro u p of university and school m athem a
ticians’. (Halsey 1973, 65) T h is m ay sound exactly like the A m erican
situation, but it is su b tly different. F o r in fact the initiative and
leadership came as m uch fro m th e teachers as from the universities;
and note the difference b etw een th e U .S. form ulation, ‘university
m athem aticians and school m athem atics teachers’, and the B ritish
form ulation, ‘university an d school m athem aticians’. In Am erica,
the expertise of scholar a n d te a c h e r is carefully distinguished. I n
England, university teach ers a n d school teachers are seen as having
a com m on field of scholarship.
T h u s the Association fo r Science E ducation - a school teachers’
association - played a key role in the science projects. In m o st
subject-based projects th e n a tu ra l starting-point is the teachers’
subject association. A nd in som e cases - for exam ple, the N ational
Association of T eachers o f E n g lish - curriculum development o f
radical significance has b een b ased on a subject association w ithout
the form al structure or th e financial su p p o rt of a project. In E nglish,
projects have followed o n N .A .T .E ., consolidating and giving p re
cision, rather than leading th e way.
T h e first program m e o f p ro jects in E ngland and Wales w as
initiated by the Nuffield F o u n d a tio n . Nuffield Science, Nuffield
M aths and Nuffield M o d e m L anguages are the classic program m es
in English curriculum d ev elo p m en t. In all cases there was close
co-operation between p ro je c t tea m and serving teachers and th e
project teams them selves w ere staffed largely by seconded teachers.
From these Nuffield p ro je c ts a n d th e early Schools Council projects
there emerged a tradition o f p ractice which has been characterized
as follows:
1. First came a study of the chosen curriculum area, leading to the iden
tification of new curriculum aims in relation to current practice and
methods of work, and perhaps types of new teaching materials which
might be developed. T his stage could lead to the publication of a report
which would help towards the development of an appropriate climate of
opinion.
2. T he second stage was the establishment of a small team of teachers
and others to devise and develop new teaching materials of the kind
which appeared to be needed. As soon as drafts were ready trials of
the new materials in schools were organized; these resulted in improve
ments to the materials and enabled the project team to identify the kind
of help or training teachers needed before they could successfully adopt
the new materials. Arrangements were also made at much the same
time for the publication of the materials by one of the educational
publishers.
3. In some cases it was necessary to develop new experimental examina
tions to be used in conjunction with the new materials. This involved
co-operation with the examining boards. It was also necessary sometimes
to negotiate acceptability of the new examinations with universities for
entry to higher education and degree courses. Again this was part of the
work towards creating a favourable climate of opinion.
4. Once the publication stage was reached then it was necessary to
encourage the teacher training agencies, including local education author
ities, universities, colleges of education, and the Inspectorate to co
operate in providing those teachers who wanted to use the new materials
with appropriate training courses. T h e projects generally were able both
to advise on the kind of training teachers would need (based on their
experiments in schools) and also to provide individuals from their own
strength or from schools which had taken part in the testing procedure
able to play leading parts in the in-service work.
(Halsey 1971, 66-67)
A n interesting feature of th is description of project practice is th e
central emphasis placed o n m aterials. Halsey does not take account of
the fact that some p ro jects have started from the end of teaching
m ethods and approaches. T h is is an im portant difference in logic,
since th en the m aterials are not th e message. Some projects - th e
prim e example is Project T ech n o lo g y - have been m uch more c o n
cerned w ith influencing th e educational clim ate than with producing
m aterials or developing m eth o d s, and they have, I think, felt som e
pressure from the S chools’ C ouncil tow ards m aterials production.
M aterials are im portant, b u t th ey are not all.
Banks (1969), another m e m b e r of the C ouncil staff, writing two
years earlier than H alsey an d preserving for us an earlier C ouncil
view, places some em phasis on th e preparation for a project th ro u g h
a feasibility study w hich is conceived as based on discussions and
consultations with teach ers a n d others. T h is concept has tended to
d rop out of the C ouncil’s th in k in g . O ne reason is probably the diffi
culty noticed by Banks.
T h e feasibility stud y is, id ea lly , entrusted to th e person who, if fea si
b ility is established, w ill b e resp on sib le for the ensuing d evelop m en t
project. One could go fu r th er and say that it is unlikely that a fea sib ility
stud y will be of great v a lu e in th e d evelop m en t stage to a director w h o
did n ot him self carry o u t th e stu d y .
(2 4 8 )
T his condition of c o n tin u ity was often not m et. W hat was a feasi
bility study seems to have tu rn e d into* a planning phase which is m ore
a test o f viability of an idea and the capacity of a potential director
than a testing of clim ate a n d a review of existing practice.
Banks also makes m o re o f evaluation th an Halsey, a surprising
fact given that he is ea rlie r and th at evaluation developed com para
tively late. Ideas of evaluation have tended to shift from evaluation of
m aterials to evaluation o f th e project as an action programme in all
its aspects. This shift is d o c u m e n ted in C hapter 8.
Between them Banks (1969), Halsey (1971) and Nisbet (1973)
docum ent the tradition o f assum ptions in th e Schools’ C ouncil
within which a project w ill have to negotiate.
Projects themselves m ay be set up as a result o f a Schools’ C ouncil
initiative or as a result o f a b id for funding from an individual or a
consortium . The H u m a n itie s Project was a case where the title,
duration and budget o f th e pro ject were conceived by the C ouncil
and a director was invited in w ith o u t making a proposal. T he C areers
Project was largely a re s u lt o f C ouncil initiative. M any projects are
put forw ard by potential d ire c to rs or by institutions which nom inate
a director. Most often, p e rh a p s, proposals are evoked by the know
ledge th at the Council in te n d s to take a research and developm ent
initiative in a certain d ire c tio n and the Council quite freqently m akes
statem ents about its d eveloping policy, presum ably to encourage a n d
inform initiatives.
T h e ‘project’ itself is an interesting form o f organized activity.
It is, in Miles’s term s, a ‘tem p o rary system ’. ‘T h e basic or applied
research project is also an u n d e rta k in g sharply lim ited at the outset
in term s of its effective life. L ike the task force, it is a system set up
to discover or apply a c e rta in b ran d of knowledge, and will die, like
all tem porary systems, at som e m ore or less clearly defined date.*
(M iles 1964, 439)
In my experience this raises a series of interesting and insufficiently
studied problems:
1. A project m ust b u ild rap id ly and run dow n rapidly a relatively
complex adm inistrative system with contacts and records at a
national level.
204 Ati Introduction to Curriculum Development
2. I t m ust select staff rapidly, and on the tim e scale on which it
works, errors of selection are crippling.
3. I t offers fixed-term a p p o in tm e n ts and th ere is a consequent
uifficulty in holding a team together u n til th e completion of the
task.
4. As a tem porary system it has a highly am biguous relationship to
professional career stru c tu re s.
5. In m oving from b irth to death the project changes its tasks:
planning; m aterials’ co n c ep tio n ; m eth o d s’ conception; editing;
teacher induction; s tu d y o f schools; research reporting; com
m unication; dissem ination; teacher training, etc. A wide range
of capacities is needed, an d it m ust battle w ith other people’s
conception of it as static.
6. If it is to succeed, it m u st ask for exceptional effort both from
th e central staff and fro m th e participant teachers.
7. I t is, in education, e n trep ren eu rial in a system which lacks
entrepreneurial styles.
8. A t the conclusion of a project, if it has held its staff together,
th ere may be difficulties and crises of confidence about securing
posts.
9. I t m ust fight constantly against w hat has been called ‘the yearn
ing toward perp etu ity ’.I
I believe th at a good deal o f th e investm ent of funding agencies of all

types is lost because of difficulties in resolving the administrative,
m orale and ethical problem s o f th e project as a tem porary system.
T h e funding agency itself is an interesting phenom enon. Its own
p erm anent staff are in an u n u su a l position, having the job of dis
pensing m oney wisely. In th e case of the Schools’ Council, the jo in t
secretaries are, like project d irectors, in th eir posts for a limited tim e.
In th a t tim e they m ust learn th e ir trade, m ake th e ir contribution and
pass on. A nd the Council is ‘n o t ju s t a piece of m achinery for spend
ing research funds, or a d m in iste rin g exam inations. I t is a witness to
a certain style of running an educational system .’ (Caston 1971, 52)
O ne of the problem s o f m aintaining this style is the changing
m em bership of Council com m ittees. A project lasting five years can
tow ards the end of its life find itself negotiating w ith a committee,
few or none of whose m em b ers rem em ber its origins. A great p ro b
lem for the Council is in stitutionalizing a corporate memory.
T h e m ost stable of th e com m ittees is Program m e Committee,
w hich acquires its stab ility from the fact th a t organizations are
represented on it ex officio. As th e m ain com m ittee of a very large
enterprise, it is bound to suffer from pressure of business and a large
am ount of paper has to be read for each m eeting by members who are
not in full-tim e service w ith th e Council. It has taken the wise step
of convening week-end m eetin g s w hen it can consider policy rath e r
than sim ply business.
Program m e Com m ittee rep re sen ts and m ust represent some kind
of political reality. If it d id n o t, th e link of the Council to the educa
tional system would be m erely notional. Because it represents
these realities, it m ust stru g g le w ith the difficulties they create for it.
Three member interests hold a controlling power. The first two, the
Department of Education and Science and the local education authori
ties, provide it with its finance. T he third, the teachers, constitute a
majority on its committees. T o whom are the teacher representatives
accountable? Their immediate responsibility is to the union or associa
tion which nominates them . T h e teachers* associations, therefore —and
in particular, the National U nion of Teachers, which has the largest
number of members - have a special responsibility, in that they could
exert a powerful influence on the Council. To this extent, the health
of the Schools’ Council is linked to the vitality of democracy in the
teachers’ associations.
(Nisbet 1973, 72)
Caston (1971) sum m arizes th e ideal values of the Council in tw o
concepts, pluralism and professionalism . >
First: pluralism. Philosophically, this means a system which acknow
ledges that there are many good ends, that these ends conflict, and no one
of them is necessarily over-riding. Translated into social and political
institutions, it means that there are - and indeed ought to be - many
centres of influence, and that we should not worry when these conflict.
Briefly, then, I use ‘pluralism ’ in this paper to mean ‘the dispersal of
power in education’.
( 5°)
The second value is professionalism; and here too I must make clear my
definition. For educators, the essence of professionalism lies in the exer
cise by individuals of choice and judgm ent in the interests, not of our
selves or our employers, bu t of our clients: in this case our pupils.
(5 0
T h e dispersal of power a n d th e responsible professional response to
it is th e central problem fo r th e Council, and needs continuous
efforts w ithin its own p o litical stru c tu re .
Caston had this com m ent to m ak e:
All of us that have watched Council committees and working parties in
discussion have been greatly heartened by the visible process of mutual
206 An Introduction to Curriculum Development
education between in d ivid u als startin g from q uite different view points.
I rem em ber with som e sa tisfa ctio n a m om ent after a recent com m ittee
m eetin g when a new com er had exp ressed very vigorously view s w ith
w hich I happened to disagree stro n g ly . S om eon e cam e to m e afterwards
and said ‘he must be a N a tio n a l U n io n o f T each ers m an ’. In fact he w as
a c h ie f education officer. P e o p le ’s roles get subm erged in a new co-opera
tive C ouncil role, and th is is v ery en cou raging. I rem em ber also p eop le
sayin g w hen the C ouncil w as s e t u p that noth ing could be achieved by a
collection o f ‘interests’, te a c h e r s’ associations, local education authorities
and others, all striking req u ired attitu d es. In fact, it has not been like that
- individuals once a p p oin ted h a v e m odified their sets o f prejudices and
op en ed their minds.
( 59 )
I w ant to conclude this c h a p te r w ith a consideration of two ele

m ents in the shaping of the p re se n t situation which are not generally
noticed: the academic reflex to th e Schools’ Council projects, and the
grow th, within the Nuffield a n d Schools* Council program me, of a
second tradition. Both a p p e ar to m e im portant in the developm ent
from reform to research.
T h e setting up of a large pro g ram m e of heavily financed curricu
lum research and developm ent, based on seconded subject teachers,
introduced a major new fea tu re in the educational landscape. T hose
who worked on the p ro jects w ere generally innocent as regards
experim ental design and p ro ceed ed pragm atically in the light of
com m on sense.
In the universities an d colleges of education there existed an
establishm ent of educationists. T h e ir field was the subject of a m ajor
curriculum reform. T h e u n differentiated study of education was
giving ground and in a search for greater rigour educationists were
identifying themselves w ith th e ‘constituent disciplines’ of philosophy,
history, psychology, sociology and com parative education. T h e
im plication was that m ethodologies and findings in these disciplines
could be applied to educational practice, even though the work in the
disciplines might not be fo u n d e d on the close study of educational
practice.
A nd here in the c u rricu lu m developm ent program m e was a m ajor
field of research grow th, closely knit w ith practice, from which th e
discipline-based educationists w ere excluded. T h e y were th eo reti
cally less innocent th an m o st o f those working on the projects, b u t
they were cut off from p rac tic a l experience. Confidence in their new
rigour disposed them to offer advice to the projects, even to b rin g
pressure to bear on th em , b u t as a rule th eir knowledge of cu r-
riculum research was re stric te d to a cursory reading of out-of-date
A m erican literature. H en ce th e y ten d ed to urge on the curriculum
developers the classic objectives m odel; and often the developers,
feeling vulnerable to th e academ ic educational establishment, yielded
to th eir advice. After all, th e re was no British tradition of curriculum
theory and research design on w hich they could fall back. They needed
a m ore rigorous and defensible m odel which fitted teacher partici
pation, b u t it was not th ere .
W ith in the Nuffield an d S chools’ Council work, however, a sig
nificant m utation was tak in g place. Som e projects - for example,
Nuffield Resources for L e a rn in g , th e N orth-W est Curriculum P ro
ject, th e Keele Integrated S tu d ie s Project, the Humanities C urricu
lum Project, the York G e n e ral S tudies Project, th e Middle School
Years Project and the L iv erp o o l P roject - were not subject-based.
A nd as a result, instead o f re c ru itin g subject specialists, they often
attracted staff who m ight be e ith e r ‘educationists’ from universities
and colleges or teachers. I n e ith e r case they tended to identify th em
selves w ith curriculum p ro b le m s rath e r than w ith subject problem s.
T hey w ere more interested in cu rricu lu m theory and design th an in
the reform of a teaching su b je c t w hich com m anded their first loyalty.
Parallel to this developm ent cam e the inclusion in projects o f
‘evaluators’. They too h a d an in te re st in curriculum which over-rode
their subject affiliation. J
T h e common ground o f th ese tw o groups was th e cross-fertiliza
tion o f theory and practice. I t is o u t of this em erging tradition th a t
this book is written, a n d it is an attem pt - all too personal and
fragm entary - to reach fo r a grow ing point in curriculum as a field
of research and study. In m y view one of th e significant contributions
of the Schools’ Council is th e c o n trib u tio n it has m ade to the found
ing of a coherent tradition in th is field.
T h e crucial problem fo r c u rricu lu m research and study is th e
developm ent of theory a n d m ethodology w hich is subservient to th e
needs o f teachers and schools. T h is m eans th at the theory has to
be accessible. And it m eans th a t th e personnel w ho identify th em
selves w ith this field should n o t allow them selves —or be allowed - to
use th eir knowledge and ex p ertise to divide them selves from teachers.
T h is is an ever-present danger. W h e n it comes to proving oneself as a
researcher, the school is o ften a less attractive setting than the in te r
national conference. T h e re is a place for the latter, b u t not as a su b
stitute for the former.
If m y diagnosis is correct, th e n th e em ergence of a healthy tra d i
tion o f curriculum research a n d developm ent depends upon a
partnership of teachers and c u rric u lu m research w orkers. A nd such a
partnership depends on th e s h a rin g o f this tradition. T h e develop
m ent m ust be through co -o p e ra tio n and towards a m ore solid basis
for that co-operation.
T h e key factor would seem to be th e induction of teachers into
such a tradition in the course o f initial training and th e accessibility
of the tradition to experienced tea c h e rs through in-service education.
Research workers have a c o n trib u tio n to make; b u t it is the teachers
who in the end will change th e w o rld o f the school by understanding
it. (Halsey 1972, 165)
1 4
PROBLEMS IN THE
U T I L I Z A T I O N OF
C U R R IC U L U M RESEARCH
AND D E V E L O P M E N T
C urriculum development s ta rte d in a spirit of great optimism. B oth

M artin and Pinck (1966) a n d th e Schools’ C ouncil’s Working Paper
No. 2 (1965) show this. Bliss w as it in th a t dawn to be alive!
T h is unrealistic optim ism so o n encountered th e disappointm ents
of stu b b o rn reality. K err (1968b) is in tw o m inds. ‘A t the practical
and organizational levels, th e n ew curricula prom ise to revolutionize
English education. Better decisions should be m ade by teams about
the selection and organization o f th e content of courses, and about th e
relative m erits of different te a c h in g m ethods.’ (15) ‘Although*some
effective courses and m aterials are certainly being produced, th e
m ovem ent is not realizing its full potentiality.’ (11)
R udduck (1973) records th e w ay in which experience in o th er
countries flashed a w arning to B ritish curriculum workers.
T he message of the reports from abroad, mainly from the USA, can
best be summed up in two quotations:
For nearly two decades now, we have seen large amounts of capital
invested in the production of a variety of new curricula. Unfortunately,
evidence is beginning to accum ulate that much of this effort has had
relatively little impact on the daily routine of the average classroom
teacher. Why?
(Herron 1971, 47)
T he writer goes on to identify the critical event in the process of
extinction: it is when ‘A grant expires and an outside consultant or team
leaves the scene*. The other com m ent is from a Norwegian writer:
Even in those schools where prim ary experiments have been carried
out in selected classes, the experience has not been spread to the rest
of the classes! Schools in the same neighbourhood have for a number
210 A n lntroductio?i to Curriculum Development
of years been unaffected b y th e se exp erim en ts, and sch ools in surround
ing com m un ities have sh o w n v ery little interest in them .
(Dalin 1969)
[A nd R udduck com m en ts:]
W e w ere warned! C u rricu lu m in n ovation s that are left to make their
ow n w ay m ay for som e tim e travel com fortably on th e passport of their
sponsors* prestige . . . b u t w ith o u t adequate stru ctures for com m unica
tion and support, in novation is u n lik ely to survive.
(R u d d u ck 1973, 145-146)
S hipm an (1973) studying th e response of schools to a small-scale

local project, found th at it w as often not im plem ented in practice,
even w hen the head of th e school concerned claim ed that it was in
action. W astnedge (1972) asks th e question: ‘W hatever became of
Nuffield Junior Science?’ a n d finds th a t it has virtually faded away in
Britain, though oddly ‘It is alive and well and living in Canada’.
Gross, G iacquinta and B e rn ste in (1971) in an extended study of an
Am erican innovation (w hich seem s to have been particularly ham -
fisted) found that ‘the edu catio n al innovation, the catalytic role
model, announced in N o v em b er was not being im plem ented in M ay
despite a set of apparently positive antecedent and prevailing condi
tions in th e school system, co m m u n ity , and school’. (121)
One way of thinking a b o u t th ese difficulties is to conceive them
in term s of resistance to change, and some w riters have used this
idea. B ut such an approach appears to be unacceptable in the con
text of curriculum for tw o reasons. I t may be possible in some fields
to prove an innovation, b u t in education - at any rate in the British
view — it is not. T h e te a c h e rs’ judgem ent is crucial, and adverse
ju dgem ent by the teacher can too easily and misleadingly be assim i
lated to such a concept as resistance. M oreover, m any, if not most, o f
the failures in im plem entation occur, as G ross notes, where condi
tions are apparently favourable and where the participants do have a
desire to implem ent the c u rricu lu m . Hence, the concept of ‘barriers
to innovation’.
G ross, Giacquinta and B ernstein com m ent: ‘O ne of our basic
reservations about the “ resistance to change” explanation was th a t
it ignores the whole q u estio n o f barriers th a t m ay be encountered
by m em bers of organizations in th e ir efforts to carry out innovations.’
(1971, 196) T hey list som e o f th e barriers they diagnosed:
O n e barrier that b lock ed th e tea ch ers’ efforts to im plem en t the in n ova
tion through out the s ix -m o n th p eriod w as their lack o f clarity about th e
n ew role m odel. . . . T h e s e fin d in g s su ggest that th e c la r it y o f an im i o v a -
Utilization o f Curriculum Research and Development 2ir
tio n to o rg a n iz a tio n a l m e m b e r s n eed s to be taken in to account in con cep

tual schem es designed to ex p la in th e su ccess or failure o f im plem entation
efforts.
A second barrier to th e im p lem en tation of the innovation uncovered
by our inquiry was th e tea c h e rs’ lack o f the sk ills and knowledge to
carry it out. . . .
A third barrier to w h ic h tea c h e rs’ w ere exp osed was the unavailability
o f required materials and eq u ip m en t. . . .
A fourth obstacle that b lo ck ed teachers in their efforts to im plem ent
the innovation was a se t o f organizational arrangem ents existing prior
to and during the in n o v a tio n ’s in trodu ction that w ere incom patible w ith
the innovation, for e x a m p le , th e rigid school sch ed u le.
(196-198)
M acD onald and R u d d u c k (1971) argue that it is the responsibility
of a curriculum developm ent team to take acount of barriers: ‘the
system is “given” and it is for a developm ent team to find out how
the system works in o rd er to cope effectively w ith its characteristics.’
(148) But they note th e te a m ’s difficulty in handling authority and
avoiding the ‘corrosive effects of dependency’. G reat stress is laid on
problem s of understanding an d of teacher developm ent and auton
omy, and communications a n d training are seen as key factors.
Hoyle (1972a) em phasizes m aterials, tim e and facility. ‘If time is an
im portant resource for in n o v a tio n ,’ he declares, ‘then those who desire
educational innovation m u s t seek to provide m ore of this resource.’
He uses the term fa cility: ‘to include all those resources - power,
authority, influence, etc. - w hich those who wish to induce others to
adopt an innovation can call u p o n in seeking to bring it about.* (32)
T h e m odel of innovation w hich Hoyle has in m ind may be m ore
reform ist than that of G ro s s and M acD onald and Rudduck, who
are interested not in
a pattern of d evelopm en t a n d diffu sion in w hich a finished program m e,
by virtue of the prestige a n d au th ority o f its originators, is carried in tact
through the diffusion ch a in to th e classroom [but in] an alternative p lan
w h ich is sensitive to th e d iv e r sity o f educational settin gs and recogn izes
the autonom y o f d ecision m ak ers at different levels o f the system .
(1 4 8 )
A nother way of conceptualizing barriers is in term s of ‘gaps’ as
im pedim ents to com m unication and understanding. Jung (1967)
diagnoses gaps between te a c h e rs and the possible resources open to
them , and he suggests activ ities to attem pt to bridge them.
1. G ap between the te a c h e r or sch ool staff and th e resource: p erson s
w h o arc experts;
2. Gap between the teacher or school staff and the resource: organized
bodies of knowledge such as theories and research findings;
3. Gap between the teacher or school staff and the resource: innovations
of other teachers and persons who work with youth;
4. Gap between the teacher or school staff and the resource: adminis
trators in their system;
5. Gap between the teacher or school staff and the resource: other youth
socializing systems such as organized recreation, therapeutic agencies, or
families;
6. Gap between the teacher or school staff and the resource: pupils
with whom they relate;
7. Gap between one teacher’s way of trying to help a child and the
resource: another person’s different way of trying to help the same child;
8. Gap between the teacher’s application of skills and the resource: the
teacher’s own potential - the skills which the teacher has, but is not
applying for some reason. i
{Adapted from Jung 1967, 91)
O ne gap, not m entioned by J u n g , is th a t some of his ‘resources’
are seen by m any teachers n ot as resources at all but as sources of
direction or even as burdens.
Indeed, one of the problem s w h ic h em erges is th at of climate. On
th e one hand, there is a sugg estio n th a t those concerned with re
search and developm ent p ro jects s h o u ld com m unicate w ith m uch
greater clarity. O n the other, is th e p ro b lem th at in practice, clarity
and precision of definition o fte n a p p e a r to com m unicate certainty
and hence prescription. T h u s, in m y ow n experience, the clarity of the
definition o f the role of n eutral c h a irm a n tended to make people sec
the project as authoritarian. I t w as difficult to com m unicate the
m essage: this appears to us to be a n intelligent line of experim ent in
teaching. In th e absence of a rese a rc h clim ate, uncertainty and pro-
visonality is associated w ith vag u en ess, whereas research requires
tentative precision.
D alin (1973), in drawing to g e th e r th e im plications o f a series of
studies comm issioned by th e C e n tre fo r Educational Research and
Innovation o f O .E .C .D ., offers a g e n e ra l sum m ary of th e barriers to
innovation disclosed by the stu d ie s u n d e r four heads.
O f th e first of these, value conflicts, h e w rite s:
Major innovations will always be based on changes in educational,
social, political or economic objectives. These changes reflect changes in
values and thereby value conflicts in society. Any groups interested in
education necessarily have m ore or less clearly expressed opinions about
the changes in values implied by th e innovations. For a large number of
people these value conflicts are not clearly understood and are only
Utilization of Curriculum Research and Development 213
vaguely felt. Many reactions, therefore, may well be unclear and only
vaguely communicated and therefore only partly understood by the
decision-makers.
(2 3 6 )
In Britain this problem o f value conflicts often expresses itself as
ambivalence between desire for consensus and desire for diversity. If
diversity is to have real m eaning, it m ust imply diversity of values,
yet there is habitual pressure to w a rd s consensus. In a decentralized
system it is presumably desirable to have value divergence within
each school. T his is perhaps m o re readily accepted in som e university
departm ents where different view s o f th e discipline w ithin the depart
m ent m ay be seen as a stre n g th . F o r exam ple, a psychology depart
m ent m ay represent different p o sitio n s in psychology ranging from
the extrem e behaviourist to th e F re u d ia n and Jungian. One barrier
to innovation may be th at schools a d o p t a m ore positive posture - I
have called it above one of re c titu d e o r m oralism - in th e interests of
pupil control; and such a p o stu re is a barrier to innovation in a sys
tem w here lip-service is p aid to divergence. Value divergence is
difficult for an institution to m ain ta in , since it dem ands a loyalty
to the sp irit of inquiry.
D alin’s second barrier is pow er conflicts, of which he w rites:
Major innovations also imply a redistribution of power. T he reactions
from teacher groups, as well as from researchers, administrators, parents
or students can best be understood in many instances as resistance due
to unfavourable changes in the power distribution. . . . One cannot over
look these problems or even m anipulate them.
(236- 237)
T his is certainly borne o u t in experience. All significant changes
threaten th e distribution o f po w er. A t one level they m ay create new
adm inistrative structures - fo r exam ple new departm ents or the
grouping of previously au to n o m o u s departm ental heads under a
‘faculty head*. At another, th ey s h ift th e balance of pow er and status
anong form er equals - different voices begin to carry weight at staff
and departm ental meetings. T h e s e changes in pow er distribution are
naturally and inevitably resisted. A n d , as D alin com m ents, they can
not be m anipulated by the dev elo p er, b u t m ust be negotiated in the
m anagem ent of schools them selves.
D alin’s third barrier, p ractical conflicts, is a b arrier we m ust
preserve.
A number of innovations introduced into a system cannot prove their
quality. They are simply not good enough and therefore do not serve
214 n Introduction to Curriculum Development
to replace the old practice, or they are only a part of the answer and do
not take other considerations into account. . . . Nearly all institutions
studied have experienced resistance, especially from teachers, on these
grounds which are perfectly valid.
(237 )
T his barrier is, in itself, highly desirable. It is the filter of profes
sional judgem ent on th e basis of experience. But there are tw o
reservations which I th in k sh o u ld be expressed. First, it should be
judgem ent on experience: new ideas can too easily be rejected w ithout
being tested. Second, ideas in them selves quite w orthw hile may suffer
from the research and d e v e lo p m en t team botching the job of helping
th e teachers to im plem ent th e m experim entally. Resistance ‘can
develop among organizational m em bers who are positively oriented
to change after an innovation has been introduced into the organization
as a consequence of fru stra tio n s they experience in attem pting to
im plem ent it*. (Gross, G ia c q u in ta and Bernstein 1971, 198) In sh ort,
the difficulty in overcom ing b arriers may lead to rejection of th e
innovation, and though th is is sensible in itself, rejection of th e
innovation may wrongly lead to rejection of the ideas it represents.
D alin’s final category o f b a rrie rs is psychological conflicts. ‘In con
ventional language, th e te rm “ b arriers to change**is used to refer to
the inability of hum an b ein g s to change from one situation which is
well known to one w hich is unknown.* (237)
R ather surprisingly, I th in k , he com m ents:
T he case studies seem to point out that this type of resistance is rare.
On the other hand, if individuals or interest groups feel that they can
benefit from a certain change they will have few difficulties with the
change. Changes therefore not accompanied by incentives or, even
worse, not changing old incentives that are counter-active to the new
situation, will necessarily produce ‘psychological barriers* which can
raise serious problems for the implentation of innovations.
( 237 )
I t seems to me th at th e p ro b le m of incentives raised here is a real
one, b u t that the ju d g e m e n t th a t discom fort about change is rare is
h ard to justify. It is difficult to advance ‘beyond the stable sta te ’
(Schon 1971) and our cap acity to do so probably depends on o u r
developing routines for c h an g e and developm ent and experim ent
w hich are themselves w ell-k n o w n and therefore reassuring. I t is th is
th a t a research tradition offers.
T h e problem of b a rriers is interw oven w ith th a t of responsibility
for action towards th e b e tte rm e n t of the present situation. D alin
Utilization o f Curriculum Research and Development 215
com m ents that ‘negative reactio n s tow ards innovations are treated as
“ barriers” by the m anagerial group* (236) but he does not identify
the m anagerial group. It is p a rt o f m y thesis that research and develop
m ent projects in curriculum a n d teaching should not see themselves
as engineering change. In so far as it is th eir job to promote change,
they should be concerned to m ake intelligent, b u t provisional, lines
of developm ent accessible to th o se whose responsibility it is to make
decisions about educational practice. Accordingly, the crucial barrier
for them is com m unication.
Responsibility lies w ith local authorities, schools and teachers.
Am ong the personnel who carry th a t responsibility there will be those
who incline to system m ain ten an ce and those who are dedicated to
bettering the situation. T h e balance of power between them will
depend upon either criteria o r appointm ent or th e way people re
spond to their gradual assessm ent of their pow er and how it can be
used after they have been a p p o in te d . T hose who are professionally
concerned with research and developm ent can do no more than col
laborate w ith those in th e action setting who w ant to improve things
and perhaps make im p ro v em en t a m ore attractive and practicable
policy, as compared w ith system m aintenance, to those teachers and
adm inistrators who do n o t have a determ ined policy commitment.
If this characterization is c o rrect, then the ‘barriers* are obstacles
to the alliance of those who, having direct pow er in the system, wish
to pursue policies of im p ro v em en t, and those who have the power
through research and dev elo p m en t to su p p o rt these actors. One is th e
army, the other the w eapon designers, as it were. T h e issue is th e
utilization of knowledge by pow er.
A nd since, as Dalin has it, ‘ “ barriers** cannot simply be treated
any longer as side effects b u t ra th e r as indications of the basic prob
lems th at may be inherent in th e process itself*, the whole process o f
the utilization and dissem ination o f knowledge and the implementa
tion of innovation invites o u r atten tio n .
Schon (1971) distinguishes th re e m odels for th e dissemination o f
innovation.
T h e centre-periphery m odel rests, according to Schon, on three
basic elem ents:
1. The innovation to be diffused exists, fully realized in its essentials,
prior to its diffusion.
2. Diffusion is the movement of an innovation from a centre out to its
ultimate users.
3. Directed diffusion is a centrally managed process of dissemination,
training, and provision of resources and incentives.
2j 6 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development
H e is concerned with the process of dissem ination in general, not
simply in education, and he draw s instances from agriculture,
medicine and industry. In his view,
The effectiveness of a centre-periphery system depends first upon the
level of resources and energy at the centre, then upon the number of
points at the periphery, the length of the radii or spokes through which
ditfusion takes place, and the energy required to gain a new adoption.
(82)
Schon also notes two variants o f the centre-periphery model:
‘Jo h n n y Appleseed* Here the primary centre is a kind of bard who
roams his territory spreading a new message. Into this category fall the
travelling scholars, saints and artisans of the Middle Ages; Voltaire and
Thomas Paine; and contemporary bards of radical activism like Saul
Alinsky.
T he ‘m agnet* m odel T he ‘magnet* attracts agents of diffusion to it, as
universities have long since done. W ith the flowering of science and
medicine in the universities of nineteenth century Germany, for exam
ple, students flocked to Germ any from all parts of the world and then
returned to their own country to teach and practise what they had
learned. T he United States, Britain and the Soviet Union play magnet,
particularly in technology and economics, to developing nations.
(83)
Schon calls his second m odel ‘th e proliferation of centres’, and
regards it as an elaboration of th e centre-periphery pattern, in which
there are secondary as well as p rim ary centres. ‘Secondary centres
engage in the diffusion of inno v atio n s; prim ary centres support and
manage secondary centres. . . . T h e lim its to th e reach and effective
ness of th e new system d ep en d now on the prim ary centre’s ability
to generate support and m anage th e new centres.* (85) In a system
such as th is the prim ary cen tre is concerned to manage the secondary
centres’ relations to th eir clients.
The model of the proliferation of centres makes of the primary centre a
trainer of trainers. The central message includes not only the content of
the innovation to be diffused, but a pre-established method for its
diffusion. The primary centre now specializes in training, deployment,
support, monitoring and management.
(8S-86)
As I have said, Schon is n o t p rim arily concerned with innovation
in education. His exam ples o f th e proliferation of centres model are
the R om an army, in dustrial expansion, th e com m unist movement,
im perialism , and the Coca C ola C om pany. B ut the m odel is probably
Utilization of Curriculum Research and Development 217
closest to the facts of c u rricu lu m innovation in E ngland and Wales.
In encouraging the setting u p o f tea c h e rs’ centres, for example, the
Schools Council could be seen as concerned to set up a nation-wide
chain of secondary centres. In th is case, however, unlike for example
that of the Coca Cola C o m p an y , th e projects, as prim ary centres,
were tem porary systems w ith a lim ited life. Accordingly, the teachers’
centres were associated adm inistratively, not w ith the prim ary
centres, but with enduring s tru c tu re s in the receiving system, the
local authorities. This gives m u c h greater power to the secondary
centres. A nd from their p o in t o f view it is prim ary centres - projects -
which proliferate and disappear.
T his seems to me to be a s tro n g argum ent for the research model I
have proposed in this book. S eco n d ary centres m ust have a tradition
which is not determined by in d iv id u al and transient projects, b ut
which is capable of responding to m any prim ary initiatives. Such a
tradition m ust either be on th e m odel of a consum er association
helping clients with a choice b e tw e en projects as products, or it m ust
be on the m odel of a research c e n tre helping clients to work out lines
of developm ent which will becom e autonom ous and organic. T h e
second alternative is m ore difficult to achieve in practice; but seems
to me to offer much greater p o ten tia l. However, it m u st be adm itted
th at in opting for such a title as Choosing a Curriculum fo r the Young
School Leaver instead of Developing a Curriculum fo r the Young
School Leaver, the Schools’ C o u n cil appears to be adopting the notion
of a choice of products.
Schon attem pts to diagnose th e sources of failure in the prolifera
tion of centres model, and th ese can be clearly related to the position
in curriculum .
T h e first is the limits o f infrastructure.
When the network of comm unications of money, men, information and
materials is inadequate to the dem ands imposed on it, the system must
either retrench or fail . . . the need for rapid central response, or Tor
a more differentiated response to widely varying regional conditions, may
overtax the available infrastructures.
(9 0
Certainly, projects can be h a rd p re sse d to m eet the dem ands of local

centres, while local centres c o m p la in o f the flood of paper from the
Schools Council. But the a d o p tio n o f a com m on research tradition
would m ake local centres m o re in d ep en d en t of projects and would
also provide for a simpler, b e c au se m ore consistent, response to the
offerings of the Schools C ouncil a n d its projects.
T his is true also for S c h o n ’s second source of failure, constraints
on the resources o f the centre in the face of increasing demands tor
leadership and m anagem ent laid upon the prim ary centre. M any of
these dem ands are pressing precisely because the secondary centres
rely on prim ary centres, ra th e r than on a public research tradition,
to support their responses; an d because the prim ary centres have to
define themselves to the secondary centres w ithout a context of
tradition on which to rely.
T h e th ird of Schon’s sources of failure, the lack of motivation of
the agent of diffusion in th e secondary centre, is also associated w ith
his lack of identification w ith a research tradition. He sees him self
as an agent rather than as a critical colleague.
Finally, the problem of regional diversity and the rigidity of central
doctrine is well on the way to solution once th e central doctrine is
seen as a research hypothesis to be tested, adapted and developed in
the unique situations of th e region and the individual school.
G iven th e criticism of ‘m o v em en ts’ which I m ounted in the last
chapter, it is interesting th a t Schon appears to see a good deal of
potential in the m ovem ent as a m edium for the diffusion of innovation.
H e characterizes a m ovem ent as having neither a clearly established
centre nor a stable, centrally established message. ‘T h e m ovem ent
m ust be seen as a loosely connected, shifting and evolving whole in
which centres come and go a n d m essages em erge, rise and fall.* (i 12)
It expresses itself largely th ro u g h inform al netw orks and is, he claims,
‘survival prone because of its fluidity and its apparent lack of stru c
tu re ’. (113)
T h e examples of m ovem ents offered by Schon are largely political
or social: civil rights, black pow er, peace, disarm am ent and student
revolt. A nd he claims th a t ‘T h e w ithdraw al of President Johnson
established the effectiveness o f th e m ovem ent.’ (111)
I believe that the m ovem ent in S chon’s sense has the defects I
ascribed to movements. W ith in lim its it is a good model in the areas
of political and social policy. I t is pow erful. A nd of course education
is a branch of political a n d social policy. H ow ever, my argum ent
throughout this book has b een th a t a central problem in the im prove
m ent of education is th e gap betw een accepted policy and practice.
Policy is too often out of to u c h w ith reality. T h e problem is that th e
m ovem ent’s learning capacity is largely instrum ental. T he direction
of the m ovement is assum ed and its learning is learning of tactics.
W ithin its structure th e re is no system atic basis for the critical
developm ent of either th e m essage or its practical im plem entation in
classrooms.
U tiliza tio n o f C u r r ic u lu m R esearch a n d D evelopm en t 2 ig
T h e desideratum in e d u catio n al innovation is less that we im prove

our tactics in advancing o u r cause than that we improve our capacity
to criticize our practice in th e light of our beliefs, and our beliefs in
the light of our practice. It is th is that points to the need for a research
tradition which can te m p e r th e confidence of movements.
Schon is concerned ra th e r generally with the climate and dynam ics
of innovation. Havelock, th o u g h he surveys work in other areas, is
prim arily concerned w ith ed u catio n , and his P la n n in g f o r In n o v a tio n
th rou gh D issem in ation a n d U til i z a t i o n o f K n o w le d g e is regarded as th e
‘educational change a g e n t’s ’ v a d e - m e c u m . It is a large volume w hich is
based on an industrious su rv e y of published work in the field, on
which certain conclusions are built.
Havelock groups th e p rin c ip al m odels used by most authors co n
cerned with dissem ination a n d utilization u n d er three heads: i)
research, development a n d diffusion; 2) social interaction; and 3)
problem solving.
T h e research, developm ent and diffusion m odel has been charac
teristic of farming, w here innovations m ust be disseminated to a large
num ber of units - farm s. I t is sometimes called ‘the agricultural
m odel’ (even in cu rricu lu m literature) and it is often accepted as a
p attern for dissem ination a n d im plem entation in medicine and in
education, where, as in a g ric u ltu re , ideas have to reach geographically
dispersed users. .
T h e R, D and D system p o sits an orderly translation of knowledge
from research to dev elo p m en t to diffusion and finally to adoption.
Havelock comments:
Although consumer needs may be implicit in this approach, they do not
enter the picture as prim e motivations for the generation of new know
ledge. Research does not begin as a set of answers to specific hum an
problems. . . . In developm ent basic theories and data are used to gen
erate ideas which are then turned into prototypes which have to be
tested and redesigned and retested before they represent anything that is
truly useful to the bulk of hum anity.
(Havelock 1973, 2-42)
T h is pattern is the one a d o p te d , w ith variations, in the first wave o f
curriculum developm ent th ro u g h the use of the objectives m odel
and the emphasis on th e p ro d u ctio n of classroom materials a n d
teacher handbooks. T h e m ain point of divergence from a research
model is in the assum ption th a t it is products embodying solutions,
rather than the hypotheses o r ideas behind those products, which are
being tested. The m ain c o n c e rn is getting the product ‘right’ a n d
then marketing it.
In the social interaction m odel th e focus shifts to the diffusion of
ideas. It stresses not the m arketing of p ro d u cts b u t the flow of mes
sages from person to person. W ith in it the tw o-step theory of the
flow of knowledge is im portant, w ith its suggestion th a t ideas are
m ediated to the general public th ro u g h opinion leaders. T here is a
stronger em pirical base for th e diffusion process th an there is in the
R, D and D model, for it is based on studies of how innovations have
actually taken place. But again th ere is an assum ption th a t the mes
sage carries conviction rath e r th a n evokes critical reaction and
modification.
Both the R, D and D m odel and th e social interaction model are
what are term ed ‘centre-periphery* m odels, at least as they are
usually conceived. A centre is seen as having a p ro d u ct or message
which is to be diffused th ro u g h o u t th e system . T h e re has been a
good deal of criticism of c e n tre-p e rip h e ry patterns of innovation on
the grounds th at they imply a degree of centralization o f ideas which
is not acceptable and th at th ey fail to take account of local variations
and local needs.
T he problem -solver m odel does som ething to m eet such criticisms
by starting from the problem s a n d needs w hich are defined by the
client - the school or teacher —o r diagnosed by a ‘change agent* by
direct study of the client’s situ atio n . Stress is laid on close collabora
tion between the client and th e ‘change agent*. As Havelock has it,
‘the problem solvers may also be o utside specialists b u t they will act
in a two-way reciprocal and collaborative m anner if th ey are to be
effective*. (2-41)
In spite of this shift tow ards a client-centred approach, there
rem ains an emphasis on solutions. A m ore research-oriented approach
would accept th at solutions are evolved gradually by th e continuous
evaluative study of a p articular line o f developm ent. T h is argues that
schools m ust have their ow n learn in g system s. T h e barrier to the
acceptance o f this seems to be a n underestim ate of th e capacity of
teachers to learn research a n d developm ent procedures in the con
text of one innovation and tra n sfe r th a t learning to new problems.
T here is a continual em phasis on th e use of expertise by schools to
solve specific problems rath e r th a n to generate th eir ow n expertise in
problem solving.
T here is less tendency in B ritain th a n in the U nited States to build
theory and models for the u tilizatio n and dissem ination of knowledge,
b u t the emphasis in patterns o f c u rricu lu m developm ent has reflected
a parallel experience. A t first th e em phasis was on th e production of
new m aterials and new courses. L a te r developm ents in thinking were
U tiliz a tio n o f C u rric u lu m R e se a r c h a n d D ev elo p m en t 221
reactions to the shortcom ings diagnosed in the course of practical

experience.
In 1968 the Schools C ouncil defined the roles of research and
developm ent in these term s:
T h e C o u n cil only finances e d u c a tio n a l research w hen it can foresee a
return in term s o f help to te a c h e r s in d evisin g a curriculum for th e
p up ils w ith w hom they are c o n c e r n e d . . . . Research therefore m erges
naturally w ith ‘developm ent’, w h ic h can be defined as th e rendering o f
the resu lts o f the research in to a fo rm w h ich w ill be o f practical use to
teachers.
(N isb e t 1973, 73)
T h is position underlies th e division betw een the research p ro
gram m e and the developm ent p ro g ram m e in the Council; and in
spite of th e reference to te a c h e rs ‘devising a curriculum for the
pupils w ith whom they are c o n c e rn e d ’, th e notion of ‘the rendering
of the results of the research in to a fo rm w hich will be of practical use
to teachers’ points to curricula as p ro d u cts. Devising a curriculum is
m ore a m atte r of choice th a n sc h o o l-b ased developm ent.
Like o th e r agencies, how ever, th e C ouncil became aware of prob
lems in th is pattern of c u rric u lu m developm ent. O ften the curricula
did not ‘tak e ’ in the schools.
T w o lines of response em e rg ed . O ne was concerned with the role
of the teacher. T he other laid em p h a sis on the need for dissemination
and training.
T h e Council has always w a n te d th e w ork which it has sponsored
to relate closely to the reality o f th e schools. T his em phasis expressed
itself initially in the em ploym ent o f seconded teachers on curriculum
projects. B ut I do not th in k th is w orks in the way th at is intended.
First, teachers working on p ro je c ts give too m uch weight to their own
p ast experience, which is n o t as generalizable as they often assume.
Second, teachers commonly c h a n g e radically and rapidly on taking
u p an appointm ent w ith a p ro je c t; they become curriculum de
velopers !
H ence th ere developed a d e sire to involve serving teachers in
curriculum development w ith o u t seconding them to projects. T h e
earliest example of the a tte m p t to w ork this pattern in a whole
hearted way was the N o rth -W e st R egional C urriculum Development
Project. I t did good work, b u t h a d , I think, serious shortcomings.
F irst, it imposed the objectives m odel on the teacher groups. T h e
result was to weed out th o se w h o could not accept th e model, and
th u s to dim inish the w orth o f th e project to the constituency of
teachers they represented.
222 A n In tro d u ctio n to C u rric u lu m D e v e lo p m e n t
Second, it emphasized th e tea c h e rs1 producing materials, rather

th an servicing the teacher g ro u p s w ith production teams. But the
actual production of m aterials is probably the least rewarding aspect
of curriculum development in term s of personal professional develop
m ent. Research participation a n d th e study of one’s own classroom
are th e educative part of th e process and teachers producing m aterials
have less tim e for that.
Finally, the teachers m ay have been pushed into a more directive
role th an they or the directo r desired.
T h e director of the N o r th -W e s t R egional C urriculum D evelop m en t

P roject sees this process as co n tr ib u tin g to the professional d evelopm en t
o f teachers as much as, if n o t m o re than , to the d evelop m en t o f m aterials
or o f th e curriculum itself. B u t th e m aterials, as the im m ediately tangib le
p rod u ct, may assume greater im p o rta n ce in the m ind s o f financing
au th orities and teachers, so m e o f w h o m see th e project as having a m ore
d irectiv e role.
(S ch o o ls C ouncil 1973a, 19)
In effect, the N orth-W est R egional Project attem pted to find a

p a tte rn of professional self-ed u catio n through involvement in c u r
riculum development, ju s t as th e H um anities Project attem pted
professional self-developm ent th ro u g h involvem ent in research into
teaching methods. Both fo u n d it hard to m aintain the teacher-
cen tred and research-centred p a tte rn against th eir social context,
w hich emphasized m aterial p ro d u c ts and recom m ended solutions.
T h e setting up of tea c h e rs’ c e n tres on the initiative of the Schools
C ouncil was both a step to p ro v id e teachers w ith a basis for local
developm ent and a move to w a rd s th e proliferation of centres for th e
dissem ination of national pro jects. But the C ouncil’s new em phasis
on dissem ination is signalled by th e report of its own working party.
(Schools Council 1974) T h is re p o rt recom m ends the strengthening
of inform ation services, th e p rep a ra tio n of training materials and th e
m o u n tin g of training p ro g ram m es and after-care support.
I th in k the Council w orking p a rty ’s response in general an intel
ligent, practical and creative one, given the assum ption that projects
are ab o u t products and rec o m m e n d a tio n s; and it is clear that for som e
tim e at least this assum ption will for the m ost p art be justified. H ence
th e injunction to projects to sell them selves positively.
H ow ever, I believe th a t lo n g -term im provem ent of education
th ro u g h the utilization o f rese a rc h and developm ent hinges on th e
creation o f different expectations in th e system and the design of new
styles of project in harm ony w ith those expectations.
U tiliza tio n o f C u r r ic u lu m R esea rch a n d D evelo p m en t 223
T h e different expectations will be generated only as schools come

to see themselves as research and developm ent institutions rather th an
clients of research and d evelopm ent agencies. Against that back
ground assumption a p ro ject will see itself as helping schools to
undertake research and d evelopm ent in a problem area and to report
this work in a way th at su p p o rts sim ilar work in other schools. T h e n
‘dissem ination is about th e tra n sfe r of experience from a small
num ber of schools to a larger n u m b er of schools*. (Rudduck 1975)
And the experience is th a t of a research procedure, which can help
to evolve better ways of teaching.
Skilbeck (1971, 27) declares th a t ‘it ought n o t to be too readily
assum ed th at the full p erso n al com m itm ent o f a perceptive, intel
ligent teacher to ongoing classroom processes results in curriculum
developm ent that is in fe rio r to th o se changes w hich result from ad
vance planning and calculation*. I entirely agree and indeed w ould
go farther in doubting th e effectiveness of preplanned change as
opposed to change evolving fro m process. H e goes on to com m ent:
‘T hese tw o types of a p p ro a c h m ay be crudely polarized as the in tu i
tive and the rational.’
W e should not opt fo r e ith e r pole b u t rath er for research as th e
m eans towards a ‘disciplined intuition*, fusing creativeness and self-
criticism .
Research in curriculum a n d teaching, w hich involves tfye close
study of schools and classroom s, is the basis o f sound development,
and the growth of a research tra d itio n in the schools is its foundation.
Full-tim e research w orkers a n d teachers need to collaborate tow ards
this end. Com m unication is less effective th an community in th e
utilization of knowledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A bercrom bie, M . L. Johnson ( i 9 6 0 ) The Anatomy of Judgement. London:

H u tch in son (Pelican B ook s, 1 969).
A delm an, C lem and Walker, R o b (1 9 7 3 ) F lan d ers’ sy stem for the analysis
o f classroom interaction - a s tu d y o f failure in research. Centre for
A p p lied Research in E d u c a tio n , U n iv ersity o f E ast A nglia, m im eo
graphed paper.
A delm an, C lem and W alker, R o b (1 9 7 4 ) S top -fram e cinem atograp hy with
syn ch ron ized sound: a te c h n iq u e for recording in sc h o o l classroom s.
Journal o f the Society o f M otion Picture and Television Engineers, 83,
3, 1 8 9 -1 9 1 .
A irasian, P eter W . (1967) An Application o f a Modified Version of John
CarrolVs Model of School Learning. U n iv ersity o f C h icago, unpublished
M aster’s thesis. (Abstract in B lo c k (1 9 7 1 ) 99.)
A llen , Bryan (1968) Headship in the igyo's. O xford: B lack w ell.
A m id on , E d m un d J. and H o u g h , J o h n B. (1967) Interaction Analysis:
Theory, Research and Application. R ead in g, M a s s .: A d d ison -W esley.
A m id on , E d m u n d J. and H u n te r , E liza b eth (1966) Impro'oing Teaching:
Analysing Verbal Interaction in the Classroom. N e w York: H olt,
R inehart and W inston.
A rcham bault, Reginald D . (e d ito r ) (1 9 6 5 ) Philosophical Analysis and
Education. London: R o u tle d g e a n d K egan Paul.
A rnold, M atth ew (1908) Reports on Elementary Schools 1832-1882. N ew
ed ition . London: W ym an a n d S o n s for H is M a je sty ’s Stationery
O ffice.
A .S .C .D ./N .E .A . (1966) The W ay Teaching Is. W ash in gton D .C .: A ssocia
tio n for Supervision a n d C u r ric u lu m D e v e lo p m e n t and N ational
E d u cation Association.
A tkin, J. M yron (1968a) R esearch sty le s in scien ce ed u cation . Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 5, 3 3 8 -3 4 5 .
A tlpn, J. M yron (1968b) B eh a v io ra l ob jectives in cu rriculu m design: a
cautionary note. The Science Teacher, 35, 2 7 -3 0 .
A tkin, J. M yron (1969) O n lo o k in g g ift h orses in th e m o u th : the federal
govern m en t and the sc h o o ls. The Educational Forum , N ovem b er, 9 -2 0 .
B agley, C hristopher and V crm a , G ajen dra K . (1972) S o m e effects o f
teach in g designed to p r o m o te u nd erstan d in g o f racial issues in
ad olescen ce. Journal o f M oral Education , 1, 2 3 1 -2 3 8 .
Bales, R. F . (1950) Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of
Small Groups. Reading, M a s s .: A d d iso n -W e sle y .
Bibliography 225
Banks, J. A. (1972) The Sociology o f Social Movements. London: Macmillan.
Banks, L. J. (1969) Curriculum developments in Britain 1963-8. Journal
of Curriculum Studies. 1, 247-259.
Beishon, John and Peters, Geoff, (editors) (1972). Systems Behaviour. Lon
don: Harper and Row for the O pen University Press.
Bellack, Arno et al. (1966) The Language o f the Classroom. New York:
Teachers* College Press, Colum bia University.
Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thom as (1*966) The Social Construction
of Reality. New York: Doubleday. (Penguin Books, 1971.)
Bernbaum, Gerald (1973) C ountesthorpe College, United Kingdom. 7-88
in C.E.R.I. (1973c). ^ »
Bernstein, Basil (1971) Class, Codes and Control. Volume I: Theoretical
Studies towards a Sociology o f Language. London : Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1971. (Paladin Books, 1973).
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von (1962) General system theory - a critical review.
General Systems, 7, 1-20 (reprinted 29-49 *n Beishon and Peters
(1972)).
Birley, Derek (1972) Planning and Education. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Block, James H. (editor) (1971) M astery Learning: Theory and Practice.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and W inston.
Bloom, Benjamin S. et al. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. I:
Cognitive Domain. London: Longmans.
Bloom, Benjamin S. (1963) T h e role of the educational sciences in cur
riculum development. M im eographed paper. >
Bloom, Benjamin S. (1970) T ow ard a theory of testing which includes
measurement - evaluation - assessment. 25-50 in Wittrock and Wiley
(1970).
Bloom, Benjamin S. (1971) M astery learning. 47-63 in Block (1971).
Bloom, Benjamin S., Hastings, J. T . and Madaus, G. F. (1971) Hand
book on Formative and Summative Evaluation. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Boyd, William (1921) The History o f Western Education. London: Adam
and Charles Black (Fifth E dition 1950).
Bobbitt, Franklin (1918) The Curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bobbitt, Franklin (1924) How to M ake a Curriculum. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Bramwell, R. D. (1961) Elementary School Work 1900-1925. Newcastle-
upon-Tyne: University of D urham Institute of Education. (Short
ened form of an unpublished Ph.D . thesis.)
Brenckert, Stig, Nystrom, A strid and Sellergren, Ulf (1972) Goal Des
cription : a summary o f five goal description projects in the educational
development work of the N ational Swedish Board of Education. Stock
holm: National Swedish Board of Education.
Bruner, Jerome S. (i960) The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press. (Vintage Books 1963.)
Bruner, Jerome S. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge,
Mass.: T he Belknap Press of H arvard University Press.
Burgess, Anthony (1962) A Clockwork Orange. London: Heinemann.
Burnham, Peter S. (1968). T h e deputy head. 169-196 in Allen (1968).
Butcher, H. J. and Rudd, E. (editors) (1972) Contemporary Problems in
Research in Higher Education. London: McGraw-Hill.
Carlson, R. O. (editor) (1965) Change Processes in the Public School.
Eugene, Oregon: Centre for the Advanced Study of Education.
Caston, Geoffrey (1971) T he Schools Council in context. Journal of Cur
riculum Studies, 3, 1, 50-64.
Cave, Ronald G. (1971) A n Introduction to Curriculum Development.
London: Ward Lock Educational.
Cave, Ronald G. (1974) In-service education after the W hite Paper - an
L.E.A. Inspector's viewpoint. Cambridge Journal o f Education, 4, 2,
5*-59-
C.E.R.I. (1973a) Centre for Educational Research and Innovation,
O.E.C.D. Case Studies o f Educational Innovation: I A t the Central
Level Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop
ment.
C.E.R.I. (1973b) Centre for Educational Research and Innovation,
O.E.C.D. Case Studies o f Educational Innovation: I I A t the Regional
ment.
C.E.R.I. (1973c) Centre for Educational Research and Innovation,
O.E.C.D. Case Studies c f Educational Innovation: I I I A t the School
ment.
C.E.R.I. (1973) see Dalin (1973).
Checkland, P. B. (1971) A systems m ap of the universe. Journal of Systems
Engineering, 2, 2, W inter 1971 (reprinted 50-55 in Beishon and Peters
(1972)).
Collins, Geoffrey (1971) T h e role of the local authority adviser and his
relationship with the teachers’ centre warden. Paper read at a Schools
Council Conference.
Comenius, John Amos (1631) Janua Linguarum Resetata. Published Laszno.
English translation (without acknowledgement to Comenius) 1632.
Comenius, John Amos (?i632) The Great Didactic. Translated into English
by M. W. Keatinge. New York: Russell and Russell, 1967. (Reprint
of second revised edition, 1910.)
Comenius, John Amos (1658) Orbis Sensualium Pictus. English translation
in the following year. Facsimile, Oxford University Press, 1968.
Cook, H. Caldwell (1919) T h e Play Way. London: Heinemann.
Cooper, Donald and Ebbutt, Dave (1974) Participation in action research
as an in-service experience. Cambridge Journal of Education 4, 65-71
Cremin, Lawrence A. (1961) The Transformation o f the School. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Bibliography 22j
C ronbach, L ee (1963) C ourse im p r o v em en t through evaluation. Teachers9
College Record, 64, 672 6 8 3 .
D ale, Alan (1973) The teacher an d cu rricu lu m d evelopm ent. Unpublished
paper delivered at the N o r th o f E n glan d C onference.
D alin, Per (1969) The m an agem en t o f innovation in education. Report for
C .E .R .I./O .E .C .D . w o rk sh o p h eld at St. John’s C ollege, Cambridge.
D alin, Per (1973) Case S tu d ie s o f E du cational Innovation I V Strategies
fo r Innovation in E du cation . C en tre for E ducational Research and
Innovation , O .E .C .D . (a u th o r ’s n am e not given). Paris: Organisation
for E conom ic C o-operation an d D evelop m en t.
D ep artm en t o f Education and S c ie n c e (1970) O utput Budgeting fo r the
D epartm en t o f Education a n d S cience. Iiducation planning paper N o. 1.
D ew ey, Joh n (1910) H ow W e T h in k . B oston : Heath.
Eash, M au rice J. Transactional ev a lu a tio n o f classroom practice. 286-295
in R ip p ey (1973b).
Eisner, E lliott W . (1967a) F ran k lin B o b b itt and the ‘sc ien ce’ of curriculum
m aking. The School R e v ie w , 7 5 , 2 9 -4 7 .
Eisner, E lliott W . (1967b) E d u c a tio n a l objectives: help or hindrance.
The School Review, 75 , 2 5 0 - 2 6 0 .
Eisner, E lliott W . (1969) In str u c tio n a l and expressive educational ob jec
tives: their form ulation an d u se in curriculum 1 -18 in Popham ,
Eisner, Sullivan and T y lo r (1 9 6 9 ).
Elam , S tan ley (editor) (1 9 6 4 ) E du ca tio n an d the S tructu re of Knowledge.
C hicago: Rand M c N a lly fo r P h i D elta Kappa.
E lliott, Joh n andA delm an, C le m (1 9 7 3 a ) R eflecting w here the action is: th e
design o f the Ford T e a c h in g P roject. Education f o r Teaching, 9 2 ,8 -2 0 .
E lliott, John and Adelm an, C le m (1 9 7 3 b ) Sup portin g teachers’ research in
th e classroom . N ew E r a , 54 , 2 1 0 -2 1 3 , 215.
E p stein , C harlotte (1972) A f fe c tiv e S ubjects in the Classroom: Exploring
R ace , S ex and Drugs. S c r a n to n , P e n n .: Intext Educational Publishers.
Esland, G eoffrey M. (1971) T e a c h in g and learning as the organization o f
know ledge. 70-115 in Y o u n g (1 9 7 1 c).
F eycreisen , Kathryn V ., F io r n o , A . John and N ow ak, Arlene T . (1970)
Supervision and C urriculum R en eiva l: A System s A pproach. New Y o r k :
A pp leton -C entury-C rofts M e r e d ith Corporation.
F landers, N ed A. (1970) A n a ly z in g Teaching B ehaviour. Reading, M a ss.:
A d d ison Wesley.
F ord, G . W . and P ugno, L a w r e n c e (editors) (1964) The Structure o f
K now ledge and the C u rricu lu m . C h icago: Rand M cN ally.
Frank, N athaniel H. (1966) T h e co o p era tiv e program in teacher education.
179-181 in Martin and P in c k (1 9 6 6 ).
Frym ier, Jack R. and H a w n , H o r a ce C. (1970) Curriculum Improvem ent
f o r B etter Schools. W o r th in g to n , O hio: C harles A. Jones P u b
lish in g Co.
G age, N . L . (editor) (1963) H a n d b o o k o f Research on Teaching. C hicago:
Rand M cN ally.
228 A n Introduction to Curriculum Development.
Gagne, Robert (1965) The Conditions o f Learning. Second edition. London:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
Gagne, Robert M. (1967) Curriculum research and the promotion of
learning. 19-38 in Stake (1967b).
Glaser, Robert (1970) Evaluation of instruction and changing educational
models. 70-86 in Wittrock and Wiley (1970).
Glass, Gene V. (1970) Comments on Professor Bloom’s paper. 56 61 in
Wittrock and Wiley (1970).
Golembiewski, Robert T. (1962) The Sm all Group. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Goodlad, John (i960) Curriculum: the state of the field. Review of Educa
tional Research, 30, 185-198.
Griffin, A. F. (1942) A philosophical approach to the subject-matter pre
paration of teachers of history. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Ohio State University. Summarized in Metcalf (1963).
Gronlund, Norm an E. (1970) Stating Behavioural Objectives for Classroom
Instruction. London: Collier-Macmillan.
Gross, Neal, Giacquinta, Joseph B. and Bernstein, Marilyn (1971) Imple
menting Organizational Innovations: a Sociological Analysis of Planned
Change. New York: Harper and Row.
Gusfield, Joseph R. (1968) Social M ovem ents II: T he study of social
movements. 445-452 in Sills (1968).
Halsey, A. H. (editor) (1972) Educational Priority. I. EPA Problems and
Policies. Report of a research project sponsored by the Department of
Education and Science and the Social Science Research Council.
London: H er Majesty's Stationery Office.
Halsey, Philip (1971) Role of research and development projects in cur
riculum development: an address. 61-74 in Maclure (1973).
Hamilton, David (1973) At classroom level. Unpublished Ph.D . thesis.
Edinburgh University.
Hamilton, David and Delamont, Sarah (1974) Classroom research: a
cautionary tale. Research in Education, 11, 1-15.
Hamingson, Donald (editor) (1973) Towards Judgement: the Publications
of the Evaluation Unit of the Humanities Curriculum Project 1970-
1972. Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in Education, Occa
sional Publications No. 1.
Hanley, Janet P., Whitla, Dean K., M oo, Eunice W. and Walter, Arlene S.
(1970) Curiosity, Competence, Community: M an: a course of study. An
Evaluation. 2 vols. Cambridge, M ass.: Educational Development
Center Inc.
Hargreaves, David (1966) Social Relations in a Secondary School. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Harlen, Wynne (1973a) The effectiveness of procedures and instruments
for use in formative curriculum evaluation. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis. Bristol University.
Harlen, Wynne (1973b) Evaluation and Science5-13. A report to the Schools
Bibliography 229
Council on the development of Science 5-13 curriculum materials
and their formative evaluation. D raft edition. Schools Council Pub
lications.
Harris, C. W. (1963) Some issues in evaluation. The Speech Teacher, 12,
191-199.
Hastings, J. Thomas (1969) T h e kith and kin of educational measurers.
Journal o f Educational Measurement, 6, 3, 127-130.
Havelock, Ronald G. (1973) in collaboration with Alan Guskin, Mark
Frohman, Mary Havelock, M arjorie Hill, and Janet Huber. Planning
for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge. 4th
printing. Ann Arbor, M ichigan: Center for Research on Utilization of
Scientific Knowledge.
Heberle, Rudolf (1951) Social Movements: an Introduction to Political
Sociology. New York: Applcton-Century-Crofts.
Henry, J. (1955a) Culture, education and communications theory. 188-207
in Spindler (1955).
Henry, J. (1955b) Docility, or giving the teacher what she wants .Journal
of Social Issues, 2, 33-41.
Henry, J. (1957) Attitude organisation in elementary school classrooms.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 27, 117-133.
Henry, J. (1959) The problem of sponteneity, initiative and creativity in
suburban classrooms. American Journal o f Orthopsychiatry, 29, 266-
279.
Henry, J. (i960) A cross-cultural outline of education. Current Anthro
pology, 1, 4.
Henry, J. (1963) Culture against Man. New York: Random House.
(Penguin edition, 1972.)
Herron, Marshall (1971) On teacher perception and curricular innovation.
Curriculum Theory Network, Monograph Supplement.
Hirst, Paul H. (1965) Liberal education and the nature of knowledge.
I I 3 “ I 3 ^ *n Archambault (1965).
Hirst, Paul H . and Peters, R. S. (1970) The Logic of Education. London:
Hogben, D. (1972) The behavioural objectives approach: some problems
and some dangers. Journal o f Curriculum Studies, 4, 1, 42-50.
Holland, James G. and Skinner, B. F. (1961) The Analysis of Behaviour: a
Program for Self-Instruction. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hooper, Richard (editor) (1971) The Curriculum: Context, Design and
Development. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd in association with the
Open University Press.
House, Ernest R. (editor) (1973a) School Evaluation: the Politics and
Process. Berkeley, C al.: M cCutchan Publishing Corporation.
House, Ernest R. (1973b) T h e conscience of educational evaluation. 125-
136 in House (1973a).
Hoyle, Eric (1972a) Creativity in the school. Unpublished paper given at
O.E.C.D. Workshop on Creativity of the School at Estoril, Portugal.
2j o A n In trodu ction to C u rric u lu m D e v e lo p m e n t
H oyle, E ric (1972b) Educational in n o v a tio n and the role o f the teacher.
Forum , 14 4 2-44.
H oyle, Eric (1972c) Facing the D ifficulties. U nit 13, O p en University
S econ d L e v el Course: T h e C u rricu lu m : C ontext, D esign and D e
velop m en t ( Problems o f C urriculum In novation / , U n its 13-15.)
B letch lcy: T h e Open U n iv ersity P ress.
H oyle, Eric (i9 7 2 d ) Problems: a T h eoretical O verview . U n it 17, Open
U n iversity Second L evel C o u rse: T h e C urriculum : C ontext, D esign
and D evelopm ent. {Problems o f C urriculum Innovation I I ) Bletchlcy:
T h e O p en U niversity.
H u m an ities Curriculum Project (1 9 7 0 ) The H um anities P ro ject: an intro
duction. L ondon: H einem ann E d u cation al Books.
I.L .E .A . (1973) Report o f C ourse N o . 124 - E valuation o f the H um anities
C urriculum Project o f the S c h o o ls C ou n cil and th e N uffield Founda
tion. In n er London E d u cation A u th o rity m im eograp h ed paper.
Inlow , G ail M . (1966) The E m ergent in Curriculum. N e w York: John
W iley.
In stitu te o f R ace Relations (1973) P ap er for a con feren ce o f th e project on
p rob lem s and effects o f tea ch in g a b ou t race relations in th e Centre for
A pp lied Research in E d u cation (u n p u b lish ed ).
Jackson, P h ilip W . (1964) T h e con cep tu a liza tio n o f teachin g. Psychology
in the S chools, I, 2 3 2 -2 4 3 .
Jackson, P h ilip W . (1965) T e a c h e r -p u p il com m u n ication in th e elementary
classroom : an observational stu d y . P aper read at A m erican Educational
m eetin g in Chicago.
Jackson, P h ilip W . (1966) T h e w ay tea c h in g is. 7 -2 7 in A .S .C .D ./N .E .A .
(1966).
Jackson, P h ilip W . (1968) L ife in C lassroom s. N ew Y ork: H o lt, Rinehart
and W in ston .
Johnson, H arry M . (1961) S o cio lo g y : a system atic introduction. London:
R outledge and Kegan Paul (H a rc o u r t Brace i9 6 0 ).
Johnson, M au ritz Jr. (1967). D e fin itio n s and m odels in curriculum theory.
E du cational Theory 17, 1 2 7 -1 4 0 .
Jung, C harles C . (1967) T h e train er ch an ge-agen t role w ith in a school
system . 8 9 -1 0 5 in W atson (1 9 6 7 ).
Kansas (1958) K ansas Curriculum G u id e f o r E lem entary Schools, quoted in
O liver (1965).
K ast, F. E. an d JRosenzweig, J. E . (1 9 7 0 ) T h e m odern v iew : a system s
approach from Organisation a n d M an agem en t: a S ystem s Approach.
N ew Y ork: M cG raw H ill. 1 4 -2 8 in B cish on and P eters (1972).
Kerr, John F . (editor) (1968a) C h an gin g th e Curriculum . L on d o n : U niver
sity o f L o n d o n Press.
Kerr, John F . (1968b) T h e p ro b lem o f cu rriculu m reform 1 3 -3 8 in Kerr
(1968a).
K ibler, R obert J., Barker, Larry L . an d M iles, D a v id T . (1970) B e
haviou ral O bjectives an d In stru ction . B oston : A llyn and Bacon.
Bibliography 231
J£mg, Arthur R. Jr. and Brownell, John A. (1966) The Curriculum and the
Disciplines of Knowledge. New York: John Wiley.
King, Ronald (1969) Values and Irwolvement in a Grammar School. London:
Kliebard, Herbert M. (1966) 'The observation of classroom behaviour
in A.S.C.D./N.E.A. (1966).
Kliebard, Herbert M. (1968) Curriculuar objectives and evaluation: a
reassessment. The High School Journal, 241-247.
Kounin, J. S. (1970) Discipline and Group Management in the Classroom.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and W inston.
Kounin, J. S., Friesen, W. V. and Norton, A. E. (1966) Managing emo
tionally disturbed children in regular classrooms. Journal of Educa
tional Psychology, 57, 1, 1-13.
Kounin, J. S. and Gump, P. V. (1958) The ripple effect in discipline.
Elementary School Journal, 59, 158-162
Kounin, J. S., Gump, P. V. and Ryan, J. J. (1961) Explorations in class
room management. Journal o f Teacher Education, 12, 235-246.
Krathwohl, D. R. et al. (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. I I
Affective Domain. L ondon: Longmans.
Lacey, C. (1970) Hightown Grammar: the School as a Social System.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Larsson, Inger (1973) Individualized mathematics teaching: results from
the I.M .U . Project in Sweden. Studia Psychologica et Paedagogica.
Series Altera XXI. L u n d : C. W. K. Gleerup.
Lawton, Denis (1973) Social Change, Educational Theory and Curriculum
Planning. London: U niversity of London Press.
Link, Frances R. (1972) T h e unfinished curriculum, from a working
draft of Seminars for Leadership Personnel by Frances R. Link, with
the assistance of Holly G unner. Cambridge, Mass, and Washington,
D.C. Educational Developm ent Center and Curriculum Development
Associates.
Loubser, Jan. J., Spiers, H erbert and Moody, Carolyn. York County
Board of Education. 213-312 in C.E.R.I. (1973b).
MacDonald, Barry(i97ia) Briefing decision makers. Internal paper, Evalu
ation Unit of the H um anities Curriculum Project, later reprinted
in Hamingson (1973), H ouse (1973) and Schools Council (1974a).
MacDonald, Barry (1971b) T h e evaluation of the Humanities Curriculum
Project: a holistic approach. Theory into Practice, 10, 163-167.
MacDonald, Barry (1973a) Innovation and incompetence 89-92 in
Hamingson (1973).
MacDonald, Barry (1973b) Educational evaluation of the National
Development Programme in Com puter Assisted Learning. A pro
posal prepared for consideration by the Programme Committee of the
National Programme.
MacDonald, Barry (1975) Evaluation and the control of education. T o be
published in Schools Council (1975).
MacDonald, Barry and Parlctt, Malcolm (1973) Rethinking evaluation:
notes from the Cambridge Conference. Cambridge Journal of Educa
tion, 3, 1973, 74-82.
MacDonald, Barry and Rudduck, Jean (1971) Curriculum research and
development projects: barriers to success. British Journal of Educa
tional Psycholology, 41, 148-154.
McGuffy, William Holmes (1879) M cG uffv's Sixth Eclectic Reader. 1879
edition. Reprint: New York: New American Library of World
Literature, Signet Classics, 1963.
Maclure, J. Stuart (1973) Curriculum Development: an International Train
ing Seminar, Norwich, United Kingdom, July 19JI Paris: Organisa
tion for Economic Co-operation and Development, Centre for
Educational Research and Innovation. C .E .R .I./G .C .D ./73.03.
Maclure, J. Stuart and Becher, T ony (1974) The State of the A rt of Cur
riculum Development: a Study o f a Sample of O.E.C.D. Member
Countries. To be published by O .E .C .D ./C .E .R .I., autumn, 1974.
Mager, R. F. (1962) Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto:
Fearon.
M an: A Course of Study (1970) Evaluation Strategies. Based on research
and evaluation carried out by Dean W hitla, Janet P. Hanley, Eunice
W. Moo and Arlene Walter in the Educational Development Center.
Washington, D .C .: Curriculum Development Associates.
Mann, John S. (1969) Curriculum criticism. Teachers’ College Record, 71,
27-40.
Mannheim, Karl (1936) Ideology and Utopia: an Introduction to the Socio-
logy of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Marklund, Sixten (1972) Introduction. 5-9 in Brenckcrt, Nystrom and
Sellergren (1972).
M artin, W. T . and Pinck, Dan C. (editors) (1966) Curriculum Improvement
and Innovation: a Partnership o f Students, School Teachers and
Research Scholars. Cambridge, M ass.: Robert Bentley.
Metcalf, Lawrence E. (1963) Research on teaching the social studies.
929-965 in Gage (1963).
Midwinter, Eric (1973) Patterns o f Community Education. London: Ward
Lock Educational.
Miles, Matthew B. (editor) (1964) Innovation in Education. New York:
Teachers* College Press, Columbia University.
Miles, Matthew B. (1965) Planned change and organizational health:
figure and ground. In Carlson (1965).
Miles, Matthew B. (1967) Some properties of schools as social systems.
1-29 in Watson (1967).
Miller, H. J. (1967) A study of the effectiveness of a variety of teaching
techniques for reducing colour prejudice in a male student sample
(aged 15-21). Unpublished M A thesis, University of London.
Miller, H. J. (1969) The effectiveness of teaching techniques for reducing
colour prejudice. Liberal Education, 16, 25-31.
Bibliography 233
Mills, Theodore M. and Rosenberg, Stan (1970) Readings on the Sociology
of Small Groups. Englewood Cliffs, N .J.: Prentice-Hall.
Monsterplan (1971) Monsterplan fo r Grunnskolen. Oslo: Aschehoug. Mid-
lertidig utgavc (Provisional edition).
Musgrave, P. W. (1968) The School as an Organisation. London: Mac
millan.
Musgrove, Frank (1968) The contribution of sociology to the study of the
curriculum. 96-109 in Kerr (1968).
Musgrove, Frank (1971) Patterns o f Power and Authority in English
Education. London: Methuen.
Musgrove, Frank and Taylor, Philip (1969) Society and the Teacher s Role.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Neagley, Ross L. and Evans, N. Dean (1967) Handbook for Effective
Curriculum Development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Nisbet, John (1973) The Schools Council, United Kingdom. 7-76 in
C.E.R.I. (1973a)
Nisbet, Stanley (1957) Purpose in the Curriculum. London: University of
London Press.
Nuthall, G. A. and Lawrence, P. J. (1965) Thinking in the Classroom: the
Development of a Method of Analysis. Auckland: New Zealand Council
for Educational Research.
Oliver, Donald W. and Shaver, James P. (1966) Teaching Public Issues in
the High School. Boston: H oughton Mifflin.
Oliver, Albert I. (1965) What is the meaning of ‘curriculum*? from
Curriculum Improvement by A lbert I. Oliver. 3-9 in Short and, Mar-
connit (1968).
Owen, J. G. (1973) The Management of Curriculum Development. Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Owens, Thomas R. (1973) Educational evaluation by adversary proceed
ing. 295-305 in House (1973a).
Parkinson, J. P. and MacDonald, Barry (1972) Teaching race neutrally.
Race, 13, 299-313.
Parkhurst, Helen (1922) Education on the Dalton Plan. London: G. Bell
and Sons.
Parlctt, Malcolm (1972) Evaluating innovations in teaching in Butcher,
H. J. and Rudd, E. (1972).
Parlett, Malcolm and Hamilton, D avid (1972) Evaluation as illumination:
a new approach to the study of innovatory programmes. Occasional
Paper of the Centre for Research in the Educational Sciences, Uni
versity of Edinburgh. M im eographed. October, 1972.
Parlett, Malcolm R. and King, John G. (1971) Concentrated Study: a
Pedagogic Innovation Observed. London: Society for Research into
Higher Education.
Parsons, Talcott (1952) The Social System. London: Tavistock.
Pepper, Ron (1972) In-service training and the Thomas Calton school,
Peckham. 14-17 in Hoyle (i972d).
224 ^ n Introduction to Curriculum Development
P eters, R ichard S . (1959) Authority, Responsibility and Education. London:
A llen and U nw in .
P eters, Richard S . (1966) Ethics and Education. L ondon: G eorge Allen
and U n w in .
P h e n ix , P hilip H . (1962) T h e d is c ip lin e s as curriculum con ten t. 133—137
in Short and M arconnit (1 9 6 8 ) (o rig in a lly in Curriculum Crossroads,
ed ited by A . Harry P assow . N e w Y ork: Teachers* C ollege Press,
1962).
Phenix, Philip H. (1964a) The architectonics of knowledge. 44-74 in
E lam (1964).
P h e n ix , P h ilip H . (1964b) Realms of Meaning. N ew York: M cG raw -H ill
Book C om pany.
Phi Delta Kappa (1971) Educational Evaluation and Decision Making.
W ritten by P.D.K. National Study Committee on Evaluation (Daniel
L. Stufflebeam, Walter J. Foley, W illiam J. Gephart, Egon G. Guba,
Robert L. Hammond, Howard O. M errim an and Malcolm M. Provus)
Itasca, 111.: F. E. Peacock Publishers.
P o p h a m , W . Jam es (1967) Educational Criterion Measures. Inglew ood,
C al.: S ou th w est Regional L a b o ra to ry for E ducational Research and
D ev e lo p m e n t.
P o p h a m , W . Jam es (1968) P r o b in g th e valid ity o f argu m en ts against
behavioural goals. A sy m p o siu m p resen ta tio n at the A n n u al American
E ducational Research A sso c ia tio n . M e e tin g , C hicago, 7 - 1 0 February,
1968, 1 1 5 -1 2 4 in Kibler, Barker a n d M ile s (1970).
P o p h a m , W . Jam es (1969) O b je ctiv e s an d in stru ction. 3 2 -5 2 in Popham ,
E isner, Sullivan and T y le r (1 9 6 9 ).
Popham, W. James (1971) M ust all objectives be behavioural? Mimeo
graphed paper. University of California, Los Angeles.
Popham, W . James and Baker, Eva L . (1970) Systematic Instruction.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-H all.
P op h am , W . Jam es, Eisner, E llio t W ., S u lliv a n , H ow ard J. and T yler,
L o u ise L . (1969) Instructional Objectives. A m erican Educational
R esearch A ssociation M o n o g ra p h S e r ie s on C urriculum Evaluation.
N o . 3 C hicagp: Rand M c N a lly .
P op p er, K arl R. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations. L on d on : R outlcdge
and K egan Paul. (4th ed itio n 197 2 ).
P ressey, S id n ey L . (1927) A m a c h in e for autom atic teachin g of drill
m aterial. School and Society , 2 5 , 5 4 9 -5 5 2 .
Raths, James D. (1971) Teaching w ithout specific objectives. Educational
Leadership. April, 7 1 4 -7 2 0 .
R ich ard son , E lizabeth (1967) Group S tudy for Teachers. L on d on : R out-
led g e and K egan Paul.
Richardson, Elizabeth (1973) The Teacher, the School and the, Task of
Management. London: H einem ann Educational Books.
Richmond, P. G. (1970) An Introduction to Piaget. London: Routlcdge
and Kegal Paul.
B ib lio g r a p h y 235
R ich m ond , W . Kenneth (1 9 6 5 ) T e a c h e r s a n d M a c h i n e s : a n In tro d u c tio n

to th e T h e o r y a n d P r a c ti c e o f P r o g r a m m e d L e a r n in g .
R ich m ond , W . Kenneth (1 9 7 1 ) T h e S c h o o l C u r r ic u lu m . L on d on : M ethuen.
R ippey, R obert M. (1973a) T h e n atu re o f transactional evaluation. 8 1 3
in R ip pey (1973b).
R ippey, R obert M. (editor) (1 9 7 3 b ) S tu d i e s in T r a n s a c tio n a l E v a lu a tio n .
Berkeley, Cal.: M cC u tch an P u b lish in g C orporation.
R ippey, R obert M. (1973c) W h a t is transactional evaluation? 3 -7 in
R ip pey (1973b).
R ousseau, Jean-Jacques (1 7 6 2 ) E m i le (translated by B. F oxley). London:
D e n t (Everym an’s L ibrary) 1911.
R ow e, M ich ael (1973) T h e c y c lic a l stru ctu re o f evaluatory schemes. N e w
E r a , 54, 216-218.
R udduck, Jean (1973) D isse m in a tio n in practice. C a m b r id g e J o u rn a l o f
E d u c a tio n , 3, 143-158.
R udduck, Jean (1975) T h e D is s e m in a t io n o f I n n o v a t io n : A n A cco u n t o f th e
D is s e m in a tio n o f one N a t i o n a l C u r r ic u lu m P r o je c t. T o be published
by the Schools C ouncil in 1975.
S ch on , D on ald A. (1971) B e y o n d th e S t a b l e S t a t e . L on don : T em p le
S m ith .
S ch ools C oun cil, T he (1965) R a i s i n g th e S c h o o l L e a v in g A g e . W orking
Paper N o . 2. London: H e r M a je sty ’s S tation ery Office.
S ch ools C oun cil, T he (1967) C u r r i c u lu m D e v e lo p m e n t: T ea ch ers' G ro u p s
a n d C e n tr e s . W orking P a p er N o . 10. L o n d o n : H er M ajesty’s S ta
tionery Office. >
S ch ools C oun cil, T he (1968) E n q u i r y 1 . Y o u n g S c h o o l L e a v e r s . Report o f a
su rvey am ong young p e o p le , p aren ts and teachers b y Roma M orton-
W illiam s and Stewart F in c h . A ssiste d by C hris P oll, John Raven,
Jane R itch ie and E velyn H o b b s . G o v ern m en t Social Survey. London:
H er M ajesty’s Stationery O ffice.
S ch ools C oun cil, T h e (1971) C h o o s in g a C u r r ic u lu m f o r th e Y ou n g S c h o o l
L e a v e r . W orking Paper N o . 3 3 . L o n d o n : M eth u en for the Schools
C oun cil.
S ch ools C oun cil, T he (1973a) P a t t e r n a n d V a r ia tio n in C u rricu lu m D e
v e lo p m e n t P r o je c ts : a S t u d y o f th e S c h o o ls C o u n c il's A p p ro a c h to
C u r r ic u lu m D e v e lo p m e n t. S c h o o ls C ou n cil R esearch S tu d ies. L on d on :
M acm illan for the S ch o o ls C o u n c il.
S ch ools C oun cil, T h e (1 9 7 3 b ) E v a l u a t i o n in C u r r ic u lu m D e v e lo p m e n t:
T w e l v e C a se S tu d ie s . S c h o o ls C o u n cil R esearch Series. London:
M acm illan for the S ch o o ls C o u n c il.
S ch ools C oun cil, T h e (1 9 7 4 ) D is s e m in a t io n a n d I n S e r v i c e T r a in in g :
R e p o r t o f th e S ch ools C o u n c il W o r k in g P a r t y on D iss e m in a tio n ( 1 9 7 2 -
J 9 7 3 ) Sch ools C ouncil P a m p h le t 14. L o n d o n : T h e S ch ools C ouncil.
S ch ools C oun cil, T h e (1975a) C u r r i c u lu m E v a l u a t i o n : th e S t a t e o f the A r t .
(T itle provisional) T o b e p u b lish e d b y M acm illan for the Schools
C ou n cil.
Schools Council, The (1975b) R e p o r t o f th e W o r k in g P a r t y o n th e W h o le
C u r r ic u lu m o f th e S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l . T o be published by the Schools
Council.
Schwab, Joseph J. (1964) Structure of the disciplines: meanings and
significances. 1-30 in Ford and Pugno (1964).
Schwab, Joseph J. (1970) T h e P r a c t i c a l : A L a n g u a g e f o r C u r r ic u lu m .
Schools for the 70s: auxiliary series. Washington, D.C.: National
Education Association Centre for the Study of Instruction.
Science 5-13 (1972) W ith O b je c tiv e s in M i n d : G u id e to Science 5-13.
London: Macdonald Educational for the Schools Council.
Scriven, Michael (1967) The methodology of evaluation. 39-89 in Stake
(1967b).
Scrivcn, Michael (1973) Goal-free evaluation. 319-328 in House (1973a).
Shipman, Marten (1968) T h e S o c io lo g y o f th e S c h o o l. London: Longmans.
Shipman, Marten (1973). The impact of a curriculum project. J o u r n a l
o f C u r r ic u lu m S tu d ie s , 5, 47-56.
Shipman, Marten, Bolam, David and Jenkins, David (1974) In s id e a
C u r r ic u lu m P r o je c t. London : M ethuen.
Short, Edmund C. and Marconnit, George D. (editors) (1968) C o n te m
p o r a r y T h o u g h t on P u b lic S c h o o l C u r r ic u lu m : R e a d in g s . Dubuque,
Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co.
Sills, David L. (editor) (1968) I n t e r n a t i o n a l E n c y c lo p a e d ia o f th e S o c ia l
S c ie n c e s . New York: Macmillan.
Skilbeck, Malcolm (1971) Strategies of curriculum change. 27-37 in
Walton (1971).
Simon, Anita and Boyer, E. G. (editors) (1970) M i r r o r s f o r B e h a v io u r I I .
Volumes A and B. Philadelphia, Penn: Classroom Interaction News
letter in association with Research for Better Schools. (There was an
earlier 1967 edition, less complete. A special 14 volume anthology of
original materials by the authors of the 79 systems recorded ‘has been
placed in selected educational libraries throughout the world.)
Skinner, B. F. (1953) S cien ce a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o u r . New York: Free Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1968) T he T e c h n o lo g y o f T e a c h in g . New York: Appleton
Century Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1971) B e y o n d F r e e d o m a n d D i g n i t y . New York: Alfred
Knopf.
Sm ith, B. O. and Meux, Milton (1962) A S t u d y o f th e L o g ic o f T e a c h in g .
Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois College of Education, Bureau of
Educational Research.
Sm ith, B. O., Meux, Milton, Coombs, Jerrold, Nuthall, Graham and
Precians, Robert (1967) A S t u d y o f th e S t r a t e g i e s o f T e a c h in g . Urbana,
111.: University of Illinois College of Education, Bureau of Educa
tional Research.
Sm ith, L. M. and Geoffrey W. (1968) T h e C o m p le x itie s o f a n U rb a n
C la s s r o o m : a n A n a ly s is t o w a r d a G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f T e a c h in g . New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bibliography 237
Sparrow, F. H. (1973) The role of the evaluator. 1-3 in Schools Council
0 9 7 3 t>)-
Spindlcr, G. (editor) (1955) Education and Anthropology. Stanford, Cal.:
Stanford University Press.
Stake, Robert E. (1967a) T he countenance of educational evaluation.
Teachers' College Record, 68, 523-540.
Stake, Robert E. (editor) (1967b) Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation.
American Educational Research Association. Monograph Series on
Curriculum Evaluation No. 1. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Stake, Robert E. (1970) Comment on Professor Glaser’s paper. 86-91 in
Wittrock and Wiley (1970).
Stake, Robert E. (1971) Testing hazards in performance contracting. Phi
Delta Kappan, June, 583-589.
Stake, Robert E. (1972) Responsive Evaluation. Mimeographed. Urbana-
Champaign: Centre for Instructional Research and Curriculum
Evaluation, University of Illinois.
Stake, R. E. (1974) Responsive Evaluation (revised) in New Trends in
Evaluation, Institute of Education, University of Goteborg, No.
35 -
Stark, W erner (1958) The Sociology o f Knowledge. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Stark, W erner (1962) The Fundamental Forms of Social Thought. London:
Stenhouse, Lawrence (1961) H artvig N issen’s impressions of the Scottish
educational system in the m id-nineteenth century. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 9, 143-154.
Stenhouse, Lawrence (1963) A cultural approach to the sociology of the
curriculum. Pedagogisk Forskning (Scandinavian Journal of Educa
tional Research) 120-134.
Stenhouse, Lawrence (1967) Culture and Education. London: Nelson.
Stenhouse, Lawrence (1968) T h e Humanities Curriculum Project.
Journal o f Curriculum Studies, 1, 26-33.
Stenhouse, Lawrence (1970) Some limitations of the use of objectives
in curriculum research and planning. Paedagogica Europaea, 6, 73-
»3 -
Stenhouse, Lawrence (1971a) T h e Hum anities Curriculum Project: the
rationale. Theory into Practice, 10, 154-162.
Stenhouse, Lawrence (1971b) Pupils into students. Dialogue (Schools
Council Newsletter) 5, 10-12.
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. (editor) (1971) Educational Evaluation and Decision
Making. Itasca, 111.: F. E. Peacock for Phi Delta Kappan National
Study Committee on Evaluation.
Taba, Hilda (1962) Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New
York: Harcourt Brace and W orld.
Thelen, Herbert (1954) Dynamics o f Groups at Work. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
2j 8 A n I n t r o d u c ti o n t o C u r r i c u l u m D e v e l o p m e n t
Thurlow, John (1973) Exciting pupils* interpretations in the primary

school. N e w E r a , 54, 214-215.
Tylor, E. B. (1871) P r im itiv e C u ltu r e . London: John Murray.
Tyler, Ralph W. (1949) B a sic P r in c i p le s o f C u r r ic u lu m a n d I n s tr u c tio n .
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Verma, Gajendra K. and Bagley, C hristopher (1973) Changing racial
attitudes in adolescents: an experimental English study. I n te r n a tio n a l
J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o lo g y , 8, 55-58.
Verma, Gajendra K. and MacDonald, Barry (1971) Teaching race in
schools: some effects on the attitudinal and sociometric patterns of
adolescents. R a c e , 13, 187-202.
Walker, Robert (1971) The social setting of the classroom: a review of
observational studies and research. Unpublished M.Phil thesis.
University of London, Chelsea College of Science and Technology.
Walker, Robert (1972) The sociology of education and life in school
classrooms. I n te r n a tio n a l R e v i e w o f E d u c a ti o n , 18, 32-43.
Walker, Rob and Adelman, Clem (1972) Tow ards a sociography of class
rooms. Final report, Social Science Research Council Grant HR996-1:
T he long-term observation of classroom events using stop-frame
cinematography.
Waller, Willard (1932) T h e S o c io lo g y o f T e a c h in g . New York: John Wiley
and Son. (Reprint, 1965).
Walton, Jack (editor) (1971) C u r r ic u lu m O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d D e s ig n . London:
Ward Lock Educational.
Wastnedge, Ron (1972) Whatever happened to Nuffield Junior Science?
35-40 in Hoyle (1972).
Watson, Goodwin (editor) (1967) C h a n g e in S c h o o l S y s te m s . Washington,
D.C.: National Training Laboratories. National Education Associa
tion for Co-operative Project for Educational Development.
Weiss, Robert S. and Rein, M artin (1969) T he evaluation of broad aim
programmes: a cautionary tale and a moral. A n n a ls o f th e A m e r ic a n
A c a d e m y o f P o litic a l a n d S o c i a l S c i e n c e . 385, 133-142.
Westbury, Ian (1970) Curriculum evaluation. R e v ie w o f E d u c a tio n a l
R e s e a r c h , 40, 239-260.
White, John (1969) The curriculum mongers: education in reverse. N e w
S o c i e t y , March 6, 359-361. Reprinted 273-280 in Hooper (1971).
White, John (1973) T o w a r d s a C o m p u l s o r y C u r r ic u lu m . London: Rout-
ledge and Kegan Paul.
Wild, R. D. (1973) Teacher participation in research. Unpublished con
ference paper, S.S.R.C. and Gulbenkian Project on Problems and
Effects of Teaching about Race Relations, Centre for Applied Re
search in Education, University of East Anglia.
Wiley, David E. (1970) Design and analysis of evaluation studies. 259-269
in Wittrock and Wiley (1970).
Willower, Donald J. (1965) Hypotheses on the school as a social system.
E d u c a tio n a l A d m in is tr a tio n Q u a r t e r l y , 1, 40-51.
Bibliography 239
Willower, Donald J., Eidell, T erry L. and Hoy, Wayne K. (1967) T h e
S c h o o l a n d P u p il C o n tr o l I d e o l o g y . Penn State Studies No. 4. The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wittrock, M. C. (1970) The evaluation of instruction: cause-and-effect
relations in naturalistic data. 3-21 in W ittrock and Wiley (1970)
Wittrock, M. C. and Wiley, David E. (1970) T h e E v a lu a tio n o f I n s tru c tio n :
Issu es a n d P roblem s. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Young, Michael F. D. (1971a) An approach to the study of curricula as
socially organized knowledge. 19-46 in Young (1971c).
Young, Michael F. D. (1972b) Knowledge and control. Introduction 1-17
in Young (1972c).
Young, Michael F. D. (editor) (1972c) K n o w l e d g e a n d C o n tr o l. London:
Collier-Macmillan.
INDEX
Abercrom bie, M . L. Johnson, 31 B ales, R. F ., 144-5

accountability, 6 7 - 9 ,7 6 - 7 , 169, 174, Ballard, P. B ., 28
184, 185, 192, 197 Banks, L . J., 202-3
action-research, 163 Barker, Larry L ., 59
A delm an, C lem , 147, 153, 154, 158, barriers to change, 21 0 -1 5
159, 163 B ellack, A rno, 149
aim s o f education, i, 3, 4, 5, 17, 19, B ech er, T o n y , 200-1
3 8 -9 , 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 7 , 62, 63, 8 0 -2 , B erger, Peter L ., 21
8 7 -8 , 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99 Berkshire C ollege o f Education, 177,
Airasian, Peter W ., 65 178
A m erica, see U n ited States B ernbaum , Gerald, 174, 175
Am erican Educational R esearch B ern stein , B. B., 31, 4 7 -9 , 5 °, 5*,
A ssociation, 70 86, 152, 153, 191, 197, 210, 214
Am erican Psychological A ssociation Bertalanffy, L udw ig von, 66
C onvention, 57 B irley, D erek, 67
A m i don, E dm und J., 145 B lack Paperites, 195
A n a ly s is o f B e h a v io u r (H olland and B lock , Jam es H ., 65
Skinner), 33 B loom , B. S ., 17, 56, 5 7 -8 , 59, 64,
A n a to m y o f J u d g e m e n t (A bercrom 100; B loom 's taxonom y, 17, 57-9
bie), 31 Board o f E ducation, 182
anthropology, 2, 6, 90, 150-1 B ob b itt, Franklin, 52, 53
Area T raining Organisations (A T O ), B o o k o f th e C o u r tie r (Castiglione), 80
178, 186 B oyer, E. G ., 147, 148
A shm ead S ch ool, 177-80 B r e a k th r o u g h to L i t e r a c y , 183
assessm ent, 5 7 -9 , 64-6, 72, 73, 74, B rim er W id e-Sp an R eading Test, 140
7 9 , 8 2 ~ 3 , 86, 9 4 , 9 5 , B row nell, John A ., 10, 12, 25-6
A ssociation for Science E ducation, B runer, Jerom e S ., 15, 16, 28-30,
201 32, 38, 85, 90, 91
A ssociation for Supervision and b u d g etin g , output, 68
Curriculum D evelopm ent, 190 B u ll, John, 178, 179
A tkin, J. M yron, 72, 73, 75 bureaucracy, 184
attainm ent, 4, 17, 47, 50, 54, 55, 56, B u rgess, A nthony, 35
6 4 -6 , 69, 74, 83, 87, 96 B urnham , Peter S ., 172
audio-tape, 159
authority, 89, 91, 92. 93, 94"5, 169, C am bridge evaluation conference,
181, 191-2 1 1 5 -1 6
autonom y, 42, 45, 99, 211 C am bridge U niversity Department
o f Education, 191
Bagley, Christopher, 129 C areers Project, 203
Bagley-Verm a T e st, 139 C astiglion e, 80
Baker, Eva L ., 54, 59 C aston , Geoffrey, 204, 20 5 -6
242 In d ex
C atell’s JR -S R H igh School P erson cu rriculu m : content, 5, 6 -2 3 , 40-5,
ality Q uestionnaire, 139 4 7 - 5 0 , 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 5 . 5 7 , 5 9 , 65,
Cave, Ronald G ., 188, 190-1 7 8 -8 3 , 84, 85, 8 6 -7 , 90, 92, 94*.
centralization, 1, 2, 48, 60, 99, 120, con tin u ou s developm en t, 123,
123, 184, 185 125; definition, 1, 4 - 5 , 142-3;
C entre for Educational Research and d evelop m en t centres, 178-88; de
Innovation (C .E .R .I.) of O .E .C .D ., velo p m en t in Britain, 200-8;
115, 212 d evelop m en t in U .S ., 198-200;
centre-periphery m odel, 215-16, 220 d evelop m en t projects, 52, 198-223,
change-agent, 189, 220 see also under names of projects;
Checkland, P. B ., 67 effect o f control ideology, 47;
C hicago C onvention o f the Am erican h id d en , 40, 44, 47—9; objectives
Educational Research A ssocia m o d el, 4, 5 2 -6 9 , 7 0 -8 3 ; process
tion, 70 m o d el, 8 4 -9 7 , 123, 125; research
child-centred education, 29, 194 m o d el, 123—41, 1 42-65
Choosing a Curriculum fo r the Young C urriculum (B obbitt), 52
School L eaver (Schools C ouncil C urriculum D evelopm ent: Teachers'
W orking Paper 33), 217 G roups and Centres (Schools
classroom s, 25, 26, 30-2, 35 -7 , 73, C ou n cil W orking Paper N o. 10),
75, 9 3 -4 , 136, 142-65, 182, 2 0 7 -8 , 188
219, 220, 222, 223 C urriculum Im provem ent an d Inno
clientship o f p up il, 32, 220 v a tio n : a P artnership o f Students ,
Clockwork Orange (Burgess), 35 S ch ool Teachers a n d Research
collection code, 4 8 —50 S ch olars (ed. M artin), 198-200
colleges o f education, 177, 178, 206, ‘C yclical structure o f evaluatory
207 sc h e m e s’ (R ow e), 163
C ollins, Geoffrey, 189
com m unication, 8, 72, 147-8, 156, D a le , A lan, 160, 161, 163, 170
160, 2 1 1-12, 215 D a lin , Per, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215
com m un ity education, 32 d ecentralization , 99, 123, 184-5, 2 I3
conditioning, 33—5 d ecision -m aking, 135, I 7 3 “ 4 , 2 1 3 ,
control (discipline), 30-1, 4 6 -7 , 49, 215
50, 86, h i , 1 6 7 -9 , x8x, 213 D ela m o n t, Sarah, 145
convergent and divergent thinking, d em ocracy, 74, 81, 89, 93, 121, 175,
65, 7 8 - 9 , 8 1 -3 , 92, 9 3 184
co-operation, 201, 207 -8 , 220 D ep a rtm en t o f E ducation and
C ooper, D onald, 164 S cie n c e, 68, 115, 185, 186, 188,
*C ooperative program in teacher 205
education’ (Frank), 200 d e p u ty head, 171-2, 177—80
C oopersm ith's questionnaire, 140 d ev elop er/evalu ator roles, 124
C ountesthorpe C ollege, 174, 175 D e w e y , Joh n, 89, 196
C rem in, L aw rence A ., 194, 195, d iscip lin e , see control
196 d iscip lin es, 9, 1 0-11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
criterion-referenced testing, 66, 69, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 36,
74 37, 60, 84, 85, 87, 90, 93, 197
C ronbach, L ee, 9 8 , 106 d iscu ssio n (classroom ), 92, 93,
C row ther R eport, 197 94
cu ltures, 6 -8 , 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, d issem in ation , 2 1 5 -2 3 ; centre-peri
15, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 43, 44, 4 5 , p h ery m odel, 215, 216, 220;
46, 49, 56, 89, 109 ‘J o h n n y A p p leseed ’ m odel, 216;
Index 243
‘magnet* m odel, 216; o f H u m a n i F eyereiscn, Kathryn V ., 68-9
ties Curriculum Project, 161—2; Fiorno, A. John, 6 8 -9
problem -solver model, 220; p ro Flanders Interaction Analysis Cate
liferation o f centres m odel, 2 1 6 - gories, 145, 146, 147
217; research, developm ent and Flanders, N ed A ., 145, 147
diffusion m odel (R, D and D ), F lin t, R ussell, 95
219-20; social interaction m o d el, Ford, G . W ., 13
220 Ford T each in g Project, 163-4
D ow , Peter, 90 form ative evaluation, 104—5
D y n a m ic s of G roups at W ork form s o f know ledge, see disciplines
(T helcn), 31 Frank, N athaniel H ., 200
free schools, 32
early leavers, 41, 42 F riesen, W . V ., 151
Ebbutt, D ave, 164 further education, 42
Educational D evelopm ent C en tre,
198 G agn6, Robert M ., 99
E d u c a tio n a l E v a lu a tio n a n d D e c is io n G eoffrey, W ., 151, 158
M a k in g (Phi Delta Kappa), 1 0 8 - G eography for the Y oung School
109 Leaver Project, 187
‘Educational objectives: h elp or G eography, H istory and Social
hindrance?’ (Eisner), 78—9 S tu dies Project, 124, 207
educational process, 80-3 G erm any, 216
Educational Services Incorporated, G iacquinta, Joseph B., 210, 214
198, 199 G laser, Robert, 100—2, 103, 106
educationists, 3, 14, 191-2, 206—8 G lass, G ene V ., 104
Eidell, T erry L ., 46-7 G olem biew ski, Robert T ., 31
Eisner, E lliott W ., 77-9 G oodlad, John, 75
‘Eliciting pupils* interpretations in gram m ar schools, 12, 42 *
the prim ary school’ (T h u r lo w ), Griffin, A. F ., 8 8 -9
163 G ronlund, N orm an E., 60
Elliot, John, 148, 159, 163 G ross, N eal, 210, 211, 214
engineering m odel, see ob jectives, G r o u p S t u d y f o r T e a c h e rs (Richard-
m eans-end model son), 31
E n q u iry 1: Y ou n g S c h o o l L e a v e r s groups (social), 7 -8 , 9, 10, n , 13, 14,
(Schools Council), 41, 42, 46 15, 16, 22, 3 0 -2 , 45, 61
Epstein, Charlotte, 126, 128 grow th, 29
Esland, Geoffrey M., 32, 86, 152 G ulbenkian Foundation, 126, 130
essay, 82 G u m p , P. V ., 151
Estes, W . K ., 25 G usfield, Joseph R ., 193-4
E th ic s a n d E d u c a tio n (Peters), 9
evaluation, 5, 36, 50, 52, 55, 56, 77, H alsey, A. H ., 208
79, 8 2 -3 , 92. 97, 98-122, 1 2 5 -6 , H alsey, P hilip, 201, 202, 203
134, 203, 207 H am ilton, D avid, 48, 109, 112-13,
E v a lu a tio n S tr a te g ie s , 92 1 1 4 , 1 4 s, 1 5 3 - 5 . 1 5 6
Evans, N . D ean, 4 H am ingson, D onald, 30, 31, 112,
exam inations, 73, 74, 83, 9 5 -6 137
expectations: curriculum d evelop ers H a n d b o o k o f S u g g e stio n s f o r Teachers
of teachers, 75; society o f teach ers, in P u b lic E le m e n ta r y Sch ools, 18 1
42, 169; teachers of stud en ts, 6 4 ; H an ley, Janet P ., 92
within educational system , 2 2 2 —3 Hargreaves, D avid, 155
244 Index
H a rlen , W y n n e, 105 in-service train in g, 161—2, 176 -8 0 ,
H arris, C . W ., 106 185, 200
H a stin g s, J. T h om as, 109 institutions, 5, 193—208
H a v e lo ck , R onald G ., 219, 220 Instructional O b jectives E xchange,
h ead , 1 7 0 -4 76
H e b e r le , R ud olf, 193 integrated co d e, 4 8 -5 0
H e n r y , J ., 151 intended learn in g ou tcom e (IL O ),
H e r M a je sty ’s Inspectors, 69, 178, see ob jectives
181, 1 8 5 -6 , 188, 192 interaction an alysis, 14 4 -8
H erro n , M arshall, 209 I.T .A ., 183
h id d e n cu rriculum , 40, 4 3 -4 , 45 , 80
H ilg a rd , E ., 25 Jackson, P h ilip W ., 3 5 -6 , 40, 73, 75,
H im m e lw e it-S w ift authoritarianism
sc a le, 140
151
James R ep ort, 180
H ip k in , Jo h n , 128 Johnny A p p le see d m odel, 216
H ir st, P . H ., 19, 20, 21, 2 2 -3 , 29, Johnson, H arry M ., 13
3 6 ,3 8 Johnson, M au ritz Jr., 4
Hogben, D., 72 Judge, P eter, 177
h o listic approach to evaluation, Jung, C harles C ., 2 1 1 -1 2
109—11
H o lla n d , Jam es G ., 33
H o u g h , Joh n B., 145 Kansas, 2
H o u se , E rn est R ., 109 Kast, F . E ., 67
H o w t o M a k e a C u rric u lu m (B obbitt), K eele In tegrated S tu d ies Project,
207
52
H o y , W a y n e K ., 4 6 -7 Kerr, Joh n F ., 209
H o y le , E ric, 143-4, 172, *7 4 . 183, Kibler, R ob ert J., 59
211 K ing, A rth u r R . Jr., 10, 12, 2 5 -6
h u m a n d evelop m en t, 2 6 -3 0 , 63, 89 K ing, Joh n G ., 113
H u m a n itie s C urriculum Project, 30— K ing, R on ald , 4 3 - 4 , 45
32, 3 9 * 4 9 - S i , 90, 93, 94, K liebard, H erb ert M ., 52, 72, 81,
1 0 9 -1 2 , 117-18, 120, 127-30, 132, 149
1 3 4 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 7 , 1 5 9 , 160-1, 163,
know ledge, 6, 9 - 1 2 , 1 4 -2 3 , 32, 36,
170, 2 0 3 , 207, 222 4 0 -2 , 51, 5 5 , 56, 71, 7 9 - 8 3 , 8 4 -5 ,
H u m a n i t i e s P r o je c t : a n I n tr o d u c tio n , 86, 87, 88 , 89, 92, 96; classi
fication o f, 1 7 -1 9 , 4 7 -5 0 ; so c io
3i
H u n te r , E lizabeth, 145 logy of, 14, 21
K ounin, J. S ., 151
K rathw ohl, D . R ., 57
id e o lo g y , 22, 47, 49, Si
illu m in a tiv e evaluation, 112, 113
in d iv id u a liza tio n o f learning, 61, 62, Lacey, C ., 155
65 language, 8, 9 - 1 0 , 12, 29, 3 1 -2
In h e ld e r , B ., 29 Larsson, In ger, 103
In lo w , G a il, M ., 4 L aw rence, P . J., 149
In n e r L o n d o n Education A uthority Law ton, D e n is, 32, 197
(I .L .E .A .) , 161 learning, 7, 24, 25, 26, 56, 6 4 -6 ,
in n o v a tio n , 23, 120, 166—7, 210; 8 0 -2
barriers to, 159-60, 167-71, 217 liberal ed u ca tio n , 19, 36, 80-3
in q u ir y -b a se d teaching, 19, 3 7 -9 , linear p rogram m in g, 3 3 -5
9 1 —2 Link, F ran ces R ., 124
Index 245
local advisory service, 185, 186-8, m ovem en ts, 1 9 3 -6 , 198, 218
192 M .P .P . P h y sics Project, 61
local authorities, 131, 1 6 6 -7 , 171, M u sgrove, Frank, 10, 12, 167, 171,
187, 190, 215, 217 174
local education authorities, 173, 181,
182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190 N ailsea, 1 7 5 -6
local inspectorates, 186 N ation al A ssociation o f T eachers o f
lo g ic o f teaching, 148—9 E n glish , 201
L o u b ser , Jan J., 173 N ation al C o u n cil on M easurem ent
L u ck m an n , T hom as, 2 in E d u ca tio n , 109
N ation al D ev e lo p m e n t Programm e
M a c D o n a ld , Barry, 50, 104, 109-10, in C o m p u ter A ssisted Learning,
h i , 115, 116, 121, 128, 129, 134, 112
1 3 5 > 148, 170, 1 7 4 , 2x1 N ation al U n io n o f Teachers, 205,
M a c L u h a n , 44 206
M a clu re, J. Stuart, 200-1 N ea g ley , R oss L ., 4
M ager, R. F ., 59, 72, 73 n eu trality in teaching, 93, 132;
‘m a g n e t’ m odel, 216 neutral chairm an, 39, 50, 120,
M an: a Course of Study , 38, 39, 159, 160, 212
9 0 - 3 , 124, 159, 160 New Era , 163
M a n ch este r Reading T est, 137 N e w so m R ep ort, 197
M a n n , John S ., 117, 118 n ew -w ave evaluators, 115-16, 119,
M a n n h e im , Karl, 14 120
M ark lu n d , Sixteen, 60-1 N isb et, J o h n , 203, 205, 221
M a rtin , W . T ., 198, 200, 209 n o rm -referen ced testing, 6 4 -6 , 74
M a ste ry learning, 56, 6 4 -6 N o rth W e s t R egional C urriculum
M e a d , M argaret, 158 D e v e lo p m e n t Project, 62, 207,
m ea n in g , 17-18, 20, 22, 26, 116 221, 2 22
m e a n s /e n d m odel, 3 2 -3 , 35-6, N o rto n , A . E ., 151
5 2 - 8 3 , 84, 85, 90, 94, 96, 98, N ow ak , A rlen e T ., 6 8 -9
1 0 5 -6 , 207, 219, 221 N o rw eg ia n ed u cation, 1, 2, 209—10
M e tc a lf, Law rence E., 89 N u ffield F ou n d ation , 115, 122, 201,
M e u x , M ilton, 149 206, 207
M ich ela n g elo , 95 N u ffield Ju n ior S cience, 210
m id d le class, 31, 167 N u ffield R esou rces for Learning, 207
M id d le S ch ool Years Project, 207 N u th a ll, G . A ., 149
M id w in te r, Eric, 9, 32
M ile s , D avid T ., 59 o b jectives: ‘objectives bank’, 76;
M ile s , M atthew B., 169, 172, 203-4 b eh aviou ral, 4 , 17, 33, 35, 36, 41,
M ille r , H . J., 126 47, 5 2 - 8 3 , 84, 85, 86, 8 7 ,9 0 , 9 2 , 9 4 *
M ill H ill Vocabulary T est, 137 96 , 137; exp ressive, 7 8 -9 ; m odel,
M ills, T h eod ore M ., 31 7 2 - 3 , 7 7 , 7 9 -8 3 , 84, 85, 94, 96,
Mirrors of Behaviour (Sim on and 97, 9 8 , 1 0 2 -3 , 105-6, 123, 137,
B o y er), 148 207, 21 9 , 221; taxonom y of, 5 7 -9
Monster-plan for Grunnskolent 1, 2 ob servation o f classroom s, 117, 118,
M o o , E u n ice W ., 92 1 5 5 , 156, 158
M o o d y , Carolyn, 173 O liver, D o n a ld W ., 126
m o ra lism , 169, 213 ‘O n th e classification and fram ing o f
m o tiv a tio n , 16, 20, 26, 33, 35, 64-6, ed u ca tio n a l know ledge’ (Bern
69 , 218 stein ), 4 7 - 9
246 Index
O w en, J. G ., 181, 187-8 P rogram m e C om m ittee o f Schools
O xford E nglish Dictionary, 1, 6, C ou n cil, 130, 204-5
197 program m ed learning, 26, 33-5
progressivism , 194-6
parents, 41, 42, 73, 93, 167 p rojects, 3, 120—1, 198-208, 219,
Parkinson, J. P., 128, 129 2 2 1 —2; see also under projects by
Parlett, M alcolm , 109, 112-13, 114, name
115, 116 proliferation of centres m odel, 216-
Parsons, T alcott, 7, 8 217, 218
‘Participation in action-research as p sy ch o lo g y : o f child developm ent,
an in -service experience’ (Cooper 2 6 -3 0 ; o f learning, 2 5 -6 , 53
and E bbutt), 164 p u b lic schools, 12, 42, 80
paym ent by results, see performance P u g n o , Law rence, 13
contracting p u p ils, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 53,
Peel, E ., 139 54, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 159, 163
Pepper, R on, 176
perform ance contracting, 56, 69, 73, race relations, teaching, 126-41; in
74, 77, 96, 185 H u m an ities C urriculum Project,
Peters, R. S ., 9, 29, 38, 84, 8 7 -8 1 2 7 -3 0 ; in Problem s and Effects
P henix, Philip H ., 17-19, 20-1, 22 o f T each in g about Race Relations
Phi D elta K appa National S tu d y P roject, 126, 127, 130-41, 155,
C om m ittee on Evaluation, 108 163
photography, stop-fram e, 153, 158 R aisin g the School Leaving Age
Piaget, Jean, 2 6 -8 , 29, 30, 56, 63 (S c h o o ls C ouncil W orking Paper
Pinck, D an C ., 198, 200, 209 N o . 2), 168, 209
Planning fo r Innovation through D is R ath s, Jam es D ., 86, 87
semination a n d U tilization o f R eadin gs on the Sociology of Sm all
K now ledge (Havelock), 219 G roups (ed. M ills and Rosenberg),
P low den R eport, 195 3i
p olicy in education, 3, 67, 70, 71, 77, R ea lm s o f M eaning (Phenix), 17
8 3 , 197 referen ce group, 1 2 -1 3 , 14, 15, 21,
Popham , W . Jam es, 54, 59, 70, 72, 4 6 , 80
7 3 , 7 4 , 7 5 , 76, 7 7 , 81, 99 reflective thinking, 89, 92
Popper, K . R ., 2, 23, 124, 125 reflexive school, 176, 180
pow er, 181, 187, 192, 203, 213 R ein , M artin, 109
predeterm ined learning outcom es, relativism , 15, 16, 21, 22, 23
see objectives research: and developm ent projects,
preordinate evaluation, 114 2 5 , 1 2 0 -1 , 159, 185, 198-208,
P ressey, S id n ey, 33 21 9 , 220, 2 2 1 -3 ; -based teaching,
‘P robing th e validity of argum ents 1 6 0 -1 , 162, 164-5, 186-92, 220,
against behavioral goals’ (P o p - 2 2 3 ; com m on tradition, 217-19;
ham ), 7 2 -7 m o d e l, 123-41, 219; workers, 141,
p rob lem -solver m odel, 220 1 9 0 ,1 9 1
P roblem s and Effects of T each in g research, developm ent and diffusion
about R ace R elations Project, 126, m o d e l (R, D and D ), 2 19-20
127, 1 3 0 -4 1 , 1 5 5 , 163 resistan ce to change, 210
procedure, principles of, 38-9, 87— resou rces, 166, 167, 181, 187, 218
90, 92 re sp ec t for children, 32; see also
prpeess m od el, 8 4 -9 7 , 123, 125 clien t-cen tred approach
Process o f Education (Bruner), 1 5 -1 6 resp on sive evaluation, 114
In d ex 247
Richardson, Elizabeth, 31, 135, 175, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 40-51, 56,
176 8 0 - 3 , 117
R ichm ond, P. G ., 30 S o v iet U n ion , 216
R ichm ond, W . Kenneth, 34 Sparrow , F. H ., 121-2
Rippey, R obert M ., 109 S p e n s R eport, 197
‘Role o f the educational scien ces in S p iers, H erbert, 173
curriculum development* (B loom ), Stake, R obert E., 74, 104, 106-8,
109, 114, 115
56
Rosenberg, Stan, 31 standards, 43“ 5, 7 8 -8 3 , 84, 87, 95
R osenzw eig, J. E., 67 Stark, W erner, 22
rote-learning, 26 S ten h o u se, L ., 8, 30, 38, 45, 75, 83,
Rowe, M ichael, 163 93 , 130 , 139
Rudduck, Jean, 135, 174, 187, 188, S tuffiebeam , D aniel L ., 111
189, 209, 210, 211, 223 stru cture, 15-16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26,
Ryan, J. J., 151 36, 9 3
stru ctures o f know ledge, deep, 86,
School Board, 69 91, 96
School M athem atics Project, 201 su b jects, school, 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
schools, 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 1 2 -1 3 , 14, 15, 16, 1 7 , 1 9 , 20, 21, 84-5
2 4 , 4 0 - 5 1 , 5 3 , 5 6 , 60-1, 75, 7 6 , su m m ative evaluation, 104
80 -3 , 138, 166-80, 181-92, 223 sy stem s theory, 56, 6 6 -9
Schools C oun cil, 41-2, 71, 105, 121, S w ed en , 42, 6 0 -1 , 98, 99, 102-3,
123, 127, 168, 169, 188, 193, 115; M .P .P . P hysics Project, 61—
201-2, 2 0 4 -6 , 207, 209, 217, 22 1 , 62; S w edish Individualized
222 M ath em atics T each in g (I.M .U .),
Schon, D onald A ., 214, 215, 21 6 , 10 2 -3
217, 218, 219
Schwab, Joseph, 16-17, 20, 38 T ab a, H ilda, 54, 55, 57 *
S cien ce 5 -J J , 6 2 -4 , 69, 73, 105 T a u n to n Report, 197
Scottish Integrated Science, 154—5 T aylor, Philip, 167
Scriven, M ichael, 103-4 teacher: authority, 117; autonomy,
Secretary o f State for Education an d 144, 182, 183, 1 84-5; decision
Science, 186 m aker, 135; developm ent, 24, 83,
Shaver, Jam es P., 126 92, 96, 157, 1 61-2, 163, 184;
Shipm an, M arten, 135, 168, 171, 2 1 0 p rofessionalism , 24, 39, 96, 142,
Sim on, A nita, 147, 148 1 4 3 -4 , 167, 181, 182, 183, 213-14,
Skilbeck, M alcolm , 223 22 2 ; -p roof curricula, 2 4 ; /p u p il
skills, 9, 11, 12, 55, 80, 81, 8 4 -5 , 91 , relationship, 1 6 7 -8 ; role, 6, 24,
97 3 9 . 4 5 , 50, 7 3 , 7 6 - 7 , 82-3, 86,
Skinner, B. F ., 33, 34 9 1 - 2 , 155, 221; as learner, 91-2,
S m a ll G r o u p (G olem biewski), 31 94 , 156; as neutral chairman, 39,
Sm ith, B. O ., 148, 149 50, 120, 159, 160, 212; as re
Sm ith, L. M ., 151, 158 searcher, 30, 133-4, 136, 141,
social: class, 12, 30, 31, 32, 44, 8 0 ; 1 4 2 -6 5 , 190-1; society’s expecta
interaction, 8, 9, 10, 11, 45, 9 4 ; tion s of, 169; student, 3, 156;
learning, 26, 80, 93 training, 161-2, 167-80, 185,
social-interaction model, 220 197, 200, 208
Social S cien ce * Research C o u n cil, teach ers’ centres, 185, 188-91, 217,
126, 130 2 2 2 ; teachers* centre wardens,
sociology o f knowledge, 6, 7, 12, 13, 187, 189, 192
248 Index
teach in g, 2 4 -3 9 , 4 0 -5 1 , 73, 75, U niversity o f R ead in g S ch ool o f
8 0 - 3 ; strategy, 24, 25, 26, 47, 57, Education, 177
6 0 - 1 , 9 0 - 4 ; stud y of, 2, 3, 75
team tea c h in g , 50, 166, 176, 183 values, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22, 31,
tem porary system s, 2 0 3 -4 , 217 4 i - 3 , 53, 5 6 , 80, 88, 91, 92, 93,
testin g, o b jective, 56, 57, 7 3 -4 , 100 184, 212-13
T h e le n , H erb ert, 31 V alu es a n d I n v o l v e m e n t in a G r a m -
theory an d practice, 3, 18, 19, 7 0 -1 , m ar S c h o o l (R . K in g ), 4 3 -4
7 7 , 78, 7 9 - 8 3 Verma, Gajendra K ., 128, 129, 130,
T h o m a s C alton School, 176-7
139
T h u r lo w , J o h n , 163 V erm a-Sum ner q u estion n aire, 140
tim etab le, 171 video-tape, 158
transfer o f learning, 26, 35, 82, vocational ed u cation al, 4 1 —2
8 4 - 5 , 87
T y le r , R alp h , 3, 13, 5 3 -4 , 55, 62, Walker, R obert, 147, 1 4 9 -5 0 , 151-2,
90 1 5 3 , 158, 1 5 9
T y lo r, E. B ., 7 Waller, W illard, 45, 168
Wallin, Erik, 115
U .C .L .A . C en ter for the S tu d y o f Walter, A rlene S ., 92
E va lu a tio n , 76 W astnedge, R on , 210
u n d ersta n d in g , 34, 67, 70, 7 8 -9 , 84, Weber, M ax, 46
85 , 9 2 , 9 3 - 4 , 96, 9 7 W eiss, R obert S ., 109
U n ite d S ta tes, 14, 24, 42, 48, 61, W estbury, Ian, 104
6 9 , 94 , 9 8 , 99 , 103, 105, 106, 126, White, John, 19, 184
128, 145, 189-90, 194, 1 9 5 -6 , Whitla, D ean K ., 92
21 6 , 2 2 0 ; A m erican Educational W ild, R. D ., 1 3 3 -4
R esearch A ssociation, 70; A sso Wiley, D avid E ., 106
cia tio n for Supervision and C urri W illower, D o n a ld J., 4 6 - 7
c u lu m D evelo p m en t, 190; C h i W ittrock, M . C ., 100
cago C o n v en tio n o f the A m erican W oods H ole C o n feren ce, 29
E d u ca tio n a l Research A ssocia W o rd s in C o lo u r , 183
tio n , 7 0 ; Instructional O bjectives working class, 31, 32, 197
E x c h a n g e, 7 6 ; U .C .L .A . C enter
for th e S tu d y o f Evaluation, 76 York G eneral S tu d ie s Project, 207
u n iv e rsitie s, 11, 12, 82, 206, 207, Young, M . F . D ., 14, 21, 22, 23, 86,
2 16 152

An Introduction To Curriculum R

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

An Introduction To Curriculum R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction

© Lawrence Stenhouse 1975

Printed and Bound in Great B ritain by

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;

I n each of these, progressively m o re strongly in th e order in which I

Prophets m ay teach private w isdom : teachers m ust deal in public

Once we have learned language, we have command of an instrument

allegiance from their members and conferring a sense of identity upon

. . . the curriculum of a subject should be determined by the most

Phenix offers th e following schem atic ta b le :I

T he Generic Classes of Knowledge

I find it difficult to resist the feeling th a t Phenix has over-tidied a

F ru itfu l for whom ?

I t is perhaps worth noting th a t B ru n e r’s use of growth in this con­

I f knowledge is to be approached as a resource and an open system

I n th is chapter I shall be concerned w ith th e social construction of

1. Reading worthwhile books

45. Listening to pop records

T h is list could well be used to distinguish goodies from baddies

In short, the pressure upon th e school to m aintain its own order

I n th e p a st th ree chapters I have reviewed som e aspects of the nature

T h e following is an excerpt from th e taxonom y itself:

1.24 Knowledge o f Criteria - Illustrative Educational Objectives

System s theory is concerned with the stu d y o f organized complexity.

i) W hat a department is aiming to achieve - what its objectives are -

I argued earlier th at the objectives m odel o f curriculum develop­

1. Identification of the problem.

A n d they im m ediately com m ent: ‘T h e se step s involve the assum p­

N o issue has been m ore contentious in c u rric u lu m theory th an the

O f course, criterion-referenced tests can be used, b u t they ten d to

I t is idle to criticize the objectives model as a strateg y for the design

I find P eters’s concept of ‘principles o f p ro c e d u re ’ a helpful one,

A n d th e authors com m ent: ‘It is clear th at th e se goals centre around

I have argued in the last chapter that from th e developer’s point of

1. Course improvement: deciding what instructional material and

T h e essence . . . is to make explicit the changes in behaviour accruing

In m easu rem en t-b ased evaluation, it is a rg u ed , th e function of o b ­

• T he American term instruction is a difficult one for British readers to

2. For the diagnosis of initial state, what is required is determination of

F ig. 2 D iagram sh ow ing principles of a m od u le in I .M .U . U p p er level -

T h is is a ra th e r shattering judgem ent, given th e A m erican emphasis

th e d a ta th ey need. Ju st as clearly but less explicitly, he is advancing

3. N o two schools are sufficiently alike in their circumstances that pre­

criteria a n d conceptual frameworks. The task o f briefing decision­

A know ledge of evaluation research seems to m e the m ost desirable

Democratic evaluation is an information service to the community about

I do n ot th in k he goes far enough. Given that th e re are ‘professional

T h e p u re form of the objectives or engineering m odel is that of

In o rd e r to move from p ro d u ct or process m odels o f curriculum

O n th is basis W ild is now reaching towards a m ethodology which

1. C a te ll’s J R - S R H igh School Personality Q uestio n n aire, which

It is q u ite clear th a t none of these tests is related to th e aim s or

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

These are crucial questions in the present context for c u rric u lu m

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

I t is perhaps worth noting th a t B ru n e r’s use of growth in this con

I argued earlier th at the objectives m odel o f curriculum develop

A n d they im m ediately com m ent: ‘T h e se step s involve the assum p

In m easu rem en t-b ased evaluation, it is a rg u ed , th e function of o b

3. N o two schools are sufficiently alike in their circumstances that pre

criteria a n d conceptual frameworks. The task o f briefing decision

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

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

Dale (1973) has described how teachers often enter u p o n innova

Rudduck (1974, 30), re p o rtin g the experience of a particular c u r

I w ant to conclude this c h a p te r w ith a consideration of two ele

tio n to o rg a n iz a tio n a l m e m b e r s n eed s to be taken in to account in con cep