Although again no form was laid down for this initially, there was a general sense that getting teachers together to talk about their work was a "good thing" and was one of the features of the original Shannon enterprise, which was increasingly scored into the project's policy.
Diarmaid 0'Donnabhain, the Project Director, conducted project meetings with dogged intensity. His performance did not have the energy of a dog worrying a bone, but of slowly grinding it until it cracked. His stolid persistence held the conversation to a line while maintaining a frank and open, sometimes boyish, mein and humour. While he would allow conversation to "float" on occasion, he was ready to pick up when sometimes offered, the dropped phrase that might hold a lurking idea or harbour a disagreement. While he allowed ideas to fly around him "like birds", as he described them, he himself kept his seat in the chair, his feet anchored to the ground, and was ready at the appropriate moment to pull all the fanciful flights down to earth again by the strings of control that he fancied were tied to their legs.
Although outwardly open and tolerant, O'Donnabhain could give the impression of hating other folk's intruding ideas, either practical or theoretical, but especially theoretical. He would allow expression of views as a therapeutic exercise, and as a prelude to establishing his own vice-like grip on the conversation. (Field notes May 23rd 1973 "Nice guy tactics ... then plenty of muscle") But he was hardly at home with expressions of opinion where he could not stamp his own authority with incision and dissipate vagueness and cross purpose with a list of things to be done, while he welcomed criticism, he preferred it off the record,
and openly sought to surface disagreements and to ensure conformity with decisions taken, by giving everyone the impression that they had been heard.
The writers were in their own way equally interesting. Not likely to fragment the decisive onward thrust of a meeting, Der O Mahony spoke low and with engaging frankness. He was expert at underplaying every situation and pulling the plug of his own and other people's pretensions and assertiveness with between-the-teeth remarks and jokes at himself. He made an ideal foil to the director's massive imperturbability with a gnome-like show of deprecation. He wrote the geography sections of the curriculum material, efficiently rather than imaginatively arranging the material in English adjudged well-suited to young people, and inter spersing general statements "to be learnt" with activities and things "to
21
be done". A disciplinarian at heart, it took O'Mahony some time to accustom himself to the curriculum "activities" he wrote for his classroom.
Ignatius Murphy wrote the history sections out of a certain interest in local history. But what he wrote, although again well written for the age group, was social history traditionally presented. Beginning from early times, he dealt with human habitations, for example, in a potted history that brought man from "primitive", to "modern" living conditions. Like O'Mahony's, his text too was laced with exercises and things to d o . ^ But the activities proposed would rarely bring students into the open, or engage them in research or in working as historians do. Both doctor of Common Law and a Catholic priest, Murphy was surprisingly shy and retiring; yet his intelligent measured appraisals and assessments made welcome contact with the practical side of teaching. Employed as a
full-time teacher on the staff of the Comprehensive at Shannon, he was destined to leave after two years in curriculum development to take over general charge of catechetics for his diocese.
Pat Lynch, a scientist, was the third writer. He concocted editorially, rather than wrote, the section on pollution - and was promptly accused of introducing a latter-day version of ghost stories to haunt and upset the c h i l d r e n . B u t his section was praised by outside consultant Ian Westbury as being "the most innovative" of the materi- als, and his "classroom experiments" caused much hilarity and occasional hysteria among teachers unaccustomed to the hive of activity the jovial Lynch, unflappable and unperturbed, could generate in his classroom. Lynch was always good humoured and his amusing and episodic accounts of occurrences in his 'labs' brought well-disguised witty jibes to the sometimes over-tense proceedings at meetings.
2.2.6. The evaluation model
Imbued as I was with notions of the 'practical' in curriculum, I first cast around for a model which would be acceptable to the director and to his steering committee, who were urging the adoption of classroom
27
observation methods such as the Flanders technique, and a conventional objectives/results pattern for the evaluation. Later I identified eight criteria for the evaluation procedures to be followed which crystalised most of my thinking on the subject at this point. Covering broadly the field of "the practical" the criteria committed the evaluation to the uncovering of project problems, tracing their causes, and relaying progressively this information to decision makers. The model which I chose was Stufflebeam's CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product)^8 model which I adapted for my own needs, hoping it mirrored the form- ative/summative reference frames I would be working with.
2.3.1. Initially recorded dichotomies in development as observed April - May 1973
The main school base or centre for the innovation was the Shannon Comprehensive where, in conjunction with participant teachers, the materials were written, printed and dispatched for use to the other establishments involved, schools which were in innovation terms, more peripheral to the development. Field notes at the time record teachers with problems of "coverage", "pressure" from the centre, and a lack of overall communication.
Nonetheless the "school-based" development remained an important, if largely rhetorical, platform of policy, a stance vehemently insisted on for all that it was virtually ineffectual. This "bolting on" of second-generation rhetoric to what was really a first-generation style of development created an inner tension between those at the centre, the Shannon people, who saw themselves merely as instigators of cooperative and friendly innovative activity, and the teachers in participating schools who came to see themselves more progressively as consumers of what Shannpn handed down. (Field notes. May 23, 1973:" The teachers ... felt they were being steamrollered")
The mismatch further opened a credibility gap between the "Director Speak" and the reality on the ground, on which ground the evaluator now found himself deeply frowning.
2.3.2. Background to the First Interim Report: the use of classroom discussion
One of the more interesting facets of SESP was the variety of classroom discussion that emerged. This itself became the subject of an evaluation paper which was received well not least because it reflected well on the enterprise. My summary analysis following visits to the schools in April-June 1973 produced a number of categories, as follows:
1. Spontaneous Reflexive Discussion. Where the teachers question on cues presented by the class, over general subject or topic areas. The aim is to give expression to class feelings or thoughts on selected or suggested topics. It is divergent, that is, it opens up problem areas, interest areas or areas of concern. Nidation is the process of using formalised teaching in the middle of such a discussion.
2. Comparative Contrastive. This occurs when the teacher sets up a frame for contrast or comparison, e.g. past or present, and questions on cues suggested by headings across the frame. This method is convergent, it centralises the scope of the discussion on the solution of a precise problem, or the building up of a precise concept. It is useful for developing the skill of generalisation and interpretation.
3. Thematic, Synthetic. The teacher suggests a theme, then questions on a number of selected areas relevant to the theme. He then relates the insights gained to the theme itself. This method is systematic and convergent. It focusses relevant
insights on a given concept that illuminate its meaning. It develops the skills of interpretation analysis or synthesis.^ In general my analysis was received as insightful and informative and indeed during this period with SESP I was afforded many of the privileges of the guest and was allowed access to the rather jovial sublife of the exercise. I recall several delightful and entertaining little shows, warm and intimate in the way that classrooms sometimes are. Although teachers encouraged me to comment on their specially put-on performances I declined, disclaiming any competence to do so.
Later however as I got to know them a little better I used to venture into detailed discussions with some, exploring with them their perceptions of their own role. I found them on the whole a lively and
interested bunch of people, open and receptive. Nevertheless I felt inhibited at the limitations of my own evaluative role, and sought ways of expanding it that would be constructively helpful to teachers without compromising my function.3®
I began to conclude that they needed a good deal more encouragement and help than they were getting with their little experiments in the classroom; a great deal too much time was being spent on the production of mediocre materials and not nearly enough on practical innovative ideas, a point I made to the director and team. But I found that while the encouraging things I said were treated as endorsing project policies, my criticisms were ignored. The team, far from being encouraged to interest themselves in what teachers were at in classroom processes, were being flogged to produce materials to tight deadlines. The whole project ethos was being dominated by production values, by typing and by seemingly endless churnings in the printing machine room.31 I became frustrated at my inability to make an impression, and in conversations with the ' evaluation consultant tried to discover what I should do. Beggan's response was cynical and pessimistic, treating the whole thing as a bit of opportunism on everybody's part, including my own.
One morning sitting in my room reading an AERA publication32 on the operationalising of educational objectives I decided I would go public on the things that were bothering me. I would write a report.
2.3.3. The First Interim Report (FIR) June 197333
The First Interim Report of the SESP evaluation expressed some of the dissatisfaction I had felt by critically examining the design aspects of the very materials which were being pushed through with such
relentless vigour. I first attacked the projects' uncritical use of Bloom et al.'s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives^ , and indeed the taxonomy itself.
"The difficulties of the Bloom taxonomy are well known. It contains presumed mental categories which:-
1. Do not specify the operations to be performed by the learner. 2. Do not specify the conditions under which these operations are
to be performed.
3. Lack of specificity in the taxonomy renders it useless in sequencing instruction effectively.
It leads to an emphasis on content as a criterion for instruc tion and evaluation."3^
I was taking seriously what had been merely a rhetorical front, as I felt the taxonomy should either be there for a purpose or else not at all. If it was there for a purpose then some of the commonly-held difficulties about it would have to be considered in relation to what was going on with the design and structure of the materials and with what was coming
'out' at the production end in the classroom.
My next paragraph explored customary difficulties with the taxonomy, and their implications for the design of the materials being produced. I saw the technology as failing even in its own terms? I was able to show that because the objectives had not been 'operationalised' into appropriate teacher and pupil behaviours, "the materials were confused in their purposes."
"These difficulties (with the taxonomy) are very evident at the present stage in the development of the S.E.S.P. curriculum.
1. None of the units (of materials) contain a scheme of operations to be performed by the pupil.
This has had the following bad effects:
a) The arrangement of the worksheets tends to be inadequate, and their function imperfectly understood.
b) Since objectives are not operationalized the directions given to teachers are vague and inexact. They do not specify with sufficient accuracy what types of student behaviour are in fact necessary.
c) Moreover such directives as are given often contradict the modes and procedure directed by the text itself."36
The version of the taxonomy that was being used did not specify what it was the student was expected to be able to do as a result of the new learning experiences. So the suggested activities in the worksheets got out of phase with the objectives. The text featured in the materials was a 'narrative' presentation, by and large, and did not lend itself to anything more than factual learning, whereas the objectives required interpretation and analysis.
"2. There is considerable confusion among curricular writers and teachers alike as to what constitutes the proper conditions for securing optimal teaching and learning on the materials.
This is not alone a functional difficulty as to whether one form of teaching is more effective than another (e.g. group teaching as opposed to frontal teaching). The problem concerns how the aims of the curriculum and the objectives are to be rendered operational. It is a problem therefore of curricular design, which, unsolved as it is, has had the following serious consequences:
a) The aims have not been substantially incorporated into the materials as written.
b) The instruction tends to continue with formalized teaching techniques, with emphasis on mastery of content. It tends to the vicarious use of the materials for aims other than those specified in the curriculum.
c) It tends to emphasize on the part of the producers of the curricula those elements which render it attractive and teachable and to de-emphasize those elements which might tend to more productive teaching. Hence the text-book nature of much of the material.
d) Group teaching where engaged in is not adequate. It is over-structured, and inexpertly practised.
e) Much of the project and other group activities are regarded among the teachers as sidelines and not as central to their whole curriculum.
f) Others tend to the misconception that student involvement, enjoyment and self-expression per se constitute a good learning experience.
While much that I had seen had pleased me, teacher inventiveness was not at all being encouraged by the structure and layout of the materials. On the contrary their textbook format encouraged a purely assimilative response, and this temptation proved hard to resist. Even the recom mended group teaching did not materialise) it was little more than
individualised learning done around a table. There was very little project- type work, field trips, visits, of the kind that would encourage
the project. Some teachers seemed to have the idea that children enjoying themselves with childish activities was enough.-*8
I next criticised the sequencing of the materials indicating some resulting confusion among teachers as to the relative importance of different curricular "bits" I went on to outline a major source of discrepancy.
"Apart from these technical difficulties the programme operates under a number of other con straints. For example there are inherent contradic tions between the aims as stated in the curriculum and some other unstated aims.
Acceptability is one of these. The writers have to write a curriculum which is acceptable to the ordinary teacher. This aim, although unstated, dictates a good deal of the layout and format of the curriculum.
What was behind the statement was that when I had raised criticisms about the materials these had been dismissed on grounds that writers had to produce materials "acceptable" to teachers.^8 I now suggested that there were unstated aims constraining the teachers which were not part of the design, and which were inhibiting writers from incorporating a clear expression of the objectives into the text.
2.3.4. Reactions to The First Interim Report
Some of the social and political implications of the First Interim Report are elaborated later in 3.3.1. For present purposes it is sufficient to narrate quite simply what the response was when the report was presented to the Director and team.
The Director began by grilling me on every aspect. After consulta tion with his advisors and with the evaluation consultant, who advised him to take the criticism seriously, a two—day conference was called.^* Present were members of the Steering Committee, the Evaluation Consult
ant, the writing team and director, and myself as evaluator. I was challenged to explain myself and did so going through the design implications of the Bloom taxonomy especially on the arrangement of materials.
I was allowed a period of time on the second day to go through the technicalities of objectives/materials arrangements in curriculum writing, and to explain something of the operating context of the curriculum. In general it was agreed that the conference exercise had been a valuable one in terms of a learning exercise for the director and team members. "Things were never the same again after that" Der 0 Mahony remarked to me long afterwards. It was a "watershed" in the development of the Project, Pat Lynch thought.^ My own general feeling was that the technical critique of the developmental model raised the team's consciousness and had been a useful piece of formative evaluation.
However, my attempts to delay the production of materials were unavailing. New deadlines were set, and with the exception of one section, that on War, my intervention made little difference to the production of materials, or to the quality of what emerged.^ And when Turlough O'Connor, a Steering Committee Member, suggested at the end of the first day of the two-day conference that mine was only one of a number of possible critiques, O'Donnabhain was able to treat it as only weakly coercive; thus the project continued, slightly delayed, but more or less as before.
2.3.4. Long term effects
Later in the Summary of the Final Report I pointed out the advantages to the team of this first formal intervention. Referring to