Loans Unlocked: Bulletin Conclusions
Introduction
This evaluation took place in 24 primary and secondary Berkshire schools. Central to
the evaluation were teacher interviews, classroom observations and student interviews 10
months after the observations. The schools were loan users and non-users.
|
Methodology
1. Teacher Interviews: Questions 1-35
The teacher interviews involved 35 questions to up to 25 teachers from 24 schools. As a
pilot group of 5 schools was used to help frame the questions, some of the questions were
asked to 20 teachers instead of 25.
2. Classroom Observations: Questions 36-60
The 26 classroom observations were very much dependent on what the teacher wanted to show
the project manager. Introductory lessons were the main way in which teachers chose to
illustrate the use of loans in the classroom. A further primary school was involved in
this element of the project.
3. Student Interviews: Questions 61 - 79
24 student interviews were conducted 7 - 10 months after the students had used the loans
in the classroom. Four students were selected by the teachers from six of the project's
primary schools. These groups included one high ability and one low ability male as well
as one high ability and one low ability female. Students were interviewed in pairs of the
same gender. All interviews were recorded on video.
1. Do you let the students touch the objects?
92% (23) of 25 teachers let their students touch the loans sometimes or always. Only two
non-user schools (8%) did not allow any handling of the objects. The majority of loans
therefore allow for the opportunity of learning through handling or manipulating in a
perspex sandwich.Raw Data
2. How much time are the loans on display as a percentage?
84% (21) of 25 teachers put the loans on display some or all of the time that the loans
were in school. 68% (17) of the teachers had the loans out at least 50% of the time. This
type of usage may influence the design of future loans. It also indicates that the
students have increased access to the objects.Raw Data
3. Where and how are the museum objects displayed?
56% of 27 displays by 21 teachers were in shared school spaces. The remaining displays
were in classrooms (44%). This indicates that not only do the students have extended
access to the objects through display but other students, teachers and parents also have
access to the loans.Raw Data
Teachers described 40 examples of supportive material used to complement loans on
display. This supportive material included: books (27.5%), general labels (22.5%),
individual labels (17.5%), students' work (12.5%), and other complementary pictures (10%),
objects (7.5%) and information (2.5%). Knowledge of these additional items could influence
the design of future loan cases.
4. Are the students expected to touch the loans when they are on
display?
70% (14) of 20 teachers said that their students were expected to touch the loans when
they are on display. This response demonstrates the level of interaction students,
teachers and parents could potentially experience with the objects on display. New loan
designs should better facilitate this interaction.Raw Data
5. How many students will see the loans on display during a half
term?
72% (18) of 25 teachers were able to calculate that a total of 3800 students saw the loans
on display in their schools during a half term loan period; an average of 211 students in
each school. Raw Data
6. Would you be interested in ordering mini-exhibitions for display
from the loan service?
90% (18) of 20 teachers were amenable to the idea of a mini-exhibition loan. One of the
teachers said the question was non-applicable as they were not responsible for display.
While another teacher would not order a mini-exhibition for display because of school
vandalism. This highlights the need for some consideration for security in future loan
designs.Raw Data
7. Which curriculum areas do you use the loan objects to support?
92% (23) of 25 teachers used the loans to teach nearly every area of the curriculum with
the exception of Numeracy. This finding verifies that loans are not just used for History
but are recognised by teachers as basic resources.Raw Data
The loans were used most in History (87% of teachers), Art & Design (61%), Science
(43%) and English/Literacy (39%). This was followed by RE/SMSC/PSE/Citizenship (30%),
Geography (30%) and Technology (26%). They were also used in PE & Dance (13%) and
Music (9%).
8. Can you expand on how the loans support the creative and
imaginative elements of the curriculum?
80% (20) of 25 teachers saw the loans as a contributing factor to creativity in the
curriculum. Teachers noted that the loans "take them to another world they haven't
been to" and that they are "a different way in" to learning. Raw Data
Of the 27 creative loan uses mentioned by 20 teachers, 37% (10) were in relation to Art
& Design. Teachers also highlighted English/Literacy related areas such as creative
thinking and discourse (15%), Drama (15%), creative story-writing (11%) and poetry (7%).
To a lesser extent - dance, story telling, dressing up and handling (all 4%) were also
seen as creative outcomes.
9. How often are loan objects incorporated as a focus for specific
learning tasks in the classroom?
The loans were used on average 7 times in 13 primary schools and 17 times in 8 secondary
schools during a half term period (almost 4 weeks); an average of 11 times in 21 schools
overall. These times represent lessons where the loans were a focus.Raw
Data
10. How many students do a specific learning task in direct
relation to the artefacts over a half term period?
The overall average of number of students in 22 schools who did a learning task in
relation the artefacts was 140 students per loan; 3081 students in total. These numbers
could have considerable impact on performance indicator usage numbers.Raw Data
11. Can you select one object that you know your students learnt a
lot from?
84% (21) of 25 teachers were able to suggest one or more loans that they knew their
students learned a lot from. Of their 29 suggested loans, 45% (13) were real objects from
the loan categories of History, Ancient History and Geography.Raw
Data
The models were also perceived as very useful for learning (28%). In addition, animals
(10%), costumes (10%), religious items (3%) and crafts (3%) were also highlighted.
12. What works in an introduction?
96% (24) of 25 teachers described 25 methods they had used to introduce the loans. 28% (7)
of these methods used questions in the introduction. A further 20% (5) of these methods
involved "showing" the objects to the students - which teachers observed was
enough to inspire their interest.Raw Data
Other introductions involved: giving prior information (16%); connecting the loans to
an activity or students' own initiatives (12%); handling the loans (8%); observational
drawing of the loans (8%); brainstorming around the loans (4%) and connecting the loans in
some way to students' previous personal experience (4%).
By understanding some of the ways in which objects are introduced to students by
teachers, loans and supporting material can be designed to support best practise.
13. If you ask the students to do observational drawing of the
loans what are you aiming to encourage?
Art skills only account for 24% (8) of 33 aims for observational drawing of loans as set
by 20 teachers. Although many of these teachers may see observational drawing as coming
under Art & Design, 33% (11) of the 33 aims are for the students to develop more
scientific analytical skills through looking. Raw Data
Other aims were described as: learning about history (12%); examining evidence (9%);
and gaining knowledge of the object (6%). Additional aims include: to encourage handling,
to create diagrams, to illustrate a topic, to inspire the imagination and to develop motor
control (3% each).
14. If you encourage questioning about the objects do you start
with the students' questions or some that you have devised?
65% (13) of 20 teachers were the main initiators of questions concerning the loans. 20%
(4) of the teachers said that sometimes initial questions were a combination of their own
questions and students' questions. While 15% (3) of teachers said they started with the
students' questions first.Raw Data
15. What's the best thing you've ever done with a loan object?
76% (13) of the 17 "best" activities suggested by 14 teachers were creative ones
that required the use of the imagination. These included: dressing up (23%); drama (18%);
3D art (18%); and creative writing (18%). Other uses included handling (12%) and research
(12%). Raw Data
It should be noted that of these "best things", 72% (12) of them were also
activities that did not require writing.
16. Does it matter educationally whether or not an object is real
or a replica?
There was a clear divergence of thought on this issue: while 55% (11) of 20 teachers said
"Yes, it does matter educationally that an object is real" - 15% (3) of whom
believed replicas could be useful at times, 45% (9) said "No, it does not
matter". Raw Data
The worrying aspect behind the negative responses was a dependency on deception:
"As far as they are concerned it is real". For the teachers that did feel it
mattered educationally, there was a recognition of the distortion of history that replicas
can incur, the awe and wonder that real objects stimulate and, conversely, the limited
respect students have for replicas.
For teachers who believed that both real objects and replicas had a place, they felt
that: there was an opportunity to explain the difference between real and replica; there
was a benefit in using models for out-sized objects; and that replicas could be used
following an investigation of the original.
17. Beyond "Be careful with the object" can you describe
how students should behave with objects?
23 teachers suggested 20 categories of considerations that they highlighted to the
students when they handled objects. These ranged from gloved hands to not giving any
information about handling. Raw Data
Other suggestions included encouraging the students to remember the value of the loans
and how to hold them and behave around them. Some teachers told their students not to move
or elevate them from the table and not to mark them. Others tried to promote gentleness,
cleanliness and an attitude of respect, tolerance and reverence towards old and delicate
museum-owned objects.
18. Should the new notes be directed to the teacher, to the
students, or both?
92% (23) of 25 teachers wanted the notes to be aimed at the students and the teachers.
They outlined the need for brief and simplified child-friendly material that could be
speedily processed by the teacher. This material should also be able to be displayed.Raw Data
19. If the school has its own collection of artefacts what are
they and why do you collect them?
Out of 75% (15) of 20 teachers who used other collections, 73% (11) said that they
belonged to the school and 27% (4) said that they belonged to individual teachers. This
demonstrated the extent to which teachers are already aware of the learning power of
objects at all stages and in all areas of the curriculum. Raw Data
Of the 31 objects/collections that were mentioned by these 20 teachers, the majority of
them supported History (71%) - particularly 20th century history. Other areas that were
supported included RE (10%), Geography (10%), Drama (6%) and Art (3%). There is much scope
to provide teachers with museum objects to supplement some of the poorer quality
substitutes.
20. If you enter the loans into a scheme of work, how far of ahead
of time do you do this?
72% (18) of 25 teachers entered the loans into a scheme of work. While 39% (7) of 18
teachers entered them half a term ahead of use; 28% (5) entered them one term ahead; and
33% (6) entered them into the scheme of work one year ahead of time.Raw
Data
Understanding of the planning processes of schools will enable RMS to best utilise the
marketing and processes of school bookings - particularly electronic booking which is
convenient for long term planning.
21. Which skills and capacities are most developed by the use of
loans?
Of 33 suggested skills by 25 teachers, 39% (13) highlighted
"discussion" as the skill most developed by the loans. This was followed by the
skills of observation (27%) and questioning (21%). Drawing (6%) as well as deduction (3%)
and speaking & listening (3%) were also mentioned.Raw Data
84% (21) of 25 teachers suggested 23 capacities developed by the loans. 30% (7) of
these capacities prioritised the development of students' awe and wonder. This was
followed closely by the students' increased enthusiasm for learning (22%), confidence in
the subject (17%) and depth of understanding of the curriculum area (17%). A developed
imagination (9%) and a new awareness (4%) were also suggested.
These responses demonstrate the power of the loans to stimulate - in particular - whole
class discussion as a physical focus for observation and questions. This cerebral response
is counterbalanced by a heightened spiritual sense of awe and wonder and a deepened
emotional intelligence affecting the students' enthusiasm, confidence, understanding,
awareness and imagination.
22. What do the students learn from the loans that they could not
have learned in any other way?
96% of 25 teachers suggested 43 aspects that they believed students learned from the loans
that they could not learn in any other way. 30% (13) of these suggestions acknowledged
that the loans offered something over and above books and the pictures contained in them.
26% (11) of these aspects highlighted that the loans gave a sense of reality to learning.
In addition, touch (16%), materials (14%) and a general increased enthusiasm for learning
(14%) were seen by teachers to be the special contribution of learning through loans to
the curriculum.
Raw Data
23. Why would teachers order from a loan service?
100% of 20 teachers said that the importance of learning from primary sources was the
number one reason for ordering from the loan service. Raw Data
A secondary motivator for ordering loans for 60% (12) of 20 teachers was a connection
to national curriculum topics. 15% (3) of teachers said that they would consider
environmental display as a secondary motivator. While the remaining 25% (5) said that
there was no secondary motivation beside the importance of accessing primary resources.
This finding may be surprising in light of many museums attempts to focus solely on
national curriculum linked areas. This findings demonstrates that teachers know that
learning from primary sources - whatever their connection to the curriculum - is of value
to learning in the context of the classroom.
24. How important is learning from objects?
80% (20) of 25 teachers gave learning from objects the highest rating of importance: level
6 on a scale of 1 to 6. The remaining 20% (5) gave the importance of learning from objects
the second highest rating: level 5. These answers are surprisingly consistent and
demonstrate the teachers' awareness of the power of learning from objects in the classroom
context.Raw Data
25. Is learning from objects more, equal, or less important than
learning from books?
Out of 92% (23) of 25 teachers who thought that learning from objects is as important as
learning from books, 61% (14) thought that objects were equal in importance to books and
39% (9) thought that object were more important than learning from books. Raw Data
26. How important is having access to a loans service?
All 25 teachers rated the importance of access to a loans service in the top 3 levels of
importance on a scale of 1 to 6. 68% (17) of these teachers rated access to a loans
service at the highest level of importance: level 6.Raw Data
27. Would the importance of the loans service to the school change
if you had to pay?
55% (11) of 20 teachers said that the importance of having access to the loan service
would change considerably if the school had to pay from their budget. In nearly all cases
the rating of the importance of the loan service dropped to the lowest half of the scale,
with the majority giving it a rating of 2 on a 1-6 scale. Raw Data
This is a bleak picture in the light of those unitary authorities who have or are
considering devolving their previous financial support back to individual schools.
28. What messages do the loans send to you in their design and
content?
24 out of 25 teachers responded to this question with 42% (10) negative messages; 29% (7)
positive messages; 13% (3) combined negative/positive messages and 17% (4) neutral
comments. Raw Data
Of the negative and combined messages, 38% (5) referred to limited and old-fashioned
notes while 46% (6) referred to the loan boxes being unattractive, dull and uniform. Two
teachers (15%) also mentioned the irrelevance of some of the loans that the school was
sent.
Positive comments included: "I love the metal boxes - they say "cash!";
"The things are fine - really excellent" and "We are delighted with
them."
29. If we could do one thing to improve the presentation of our
loan boxes what would that be?
60% (15) of the 25 suggestions from 17 teachers related to the need to improve the notes
and other paper museum resources that accompany the objects including pictures, labels, a
plan and shared ideas. This was followed by 28% of ideas (7) which related to changing the
physical/decorative aspects of the loan box: its colour, logo, material and mobility.Raw Data
Finally, 12% of the ideas (3) touched on the number of objects contained in a loan:
more than one and less than "too many".
30. What impression have you received from the loan service? In
relation to: telephone contact; catalogue; delivery and pick up contact; advertising and
the choice of loans sent.
While ratings for the selection of loans and personal experience of telephone and delivery
contact were given high ratings by some of the 20 teachers, their experience of the
catalogue and museum advertising resulted in low ratings. The teachers found the catalogue
was time-consuming and in need of visual support while only six teachers had ever seen any
publicity.Raw Data
31. If you could recommend one improvement to the loan service as
a whole what would that be?
33% (8) of 24 teachers recommended an improved, more pictorial catalogue which would give
easier access to available loans. 17% (4) of teachers recommended improved advertising and
8% (2) improved notes. Raw Data
Other ideas involved: better timing of the loans (8%); knowing in advance what is
coming (4%); more costumes (4%); more local loans (4%); more variety of loans (4%), more
loans (4%) and continued local authority funding (4%). 8% (2) of the teachers did not make
any recommendations.
These recommendations for the loan service as a whole tie in closely with the responses
to Question 30.
32. Do you make the connection between the loan service and the
Museum of Reading?
Only 50% (10) of 20 teachers made a mental connection between the loans and the Museum of
Reading and only 30% (6) felt that their students realised that the loans were from the
museum. This conclusion underlines the need for increased branding and heightened
marketing.Raw Data
33. Have you ever brought your students on a visit to the museum?
75% (15) of 20 teachers had never taken their class on a visit to the museum. The reason
most commonly cited by 27% (4) of these 15 teachers was cost of transport. Other reasons
included the strain of the organisation of such a trip or lack of knowledge about the
museum. Raw Data
25% of teachers (5) had made a visit to the museum, but not recently. This group was
made up of 4 loan user schools and one non-user school. This finding demonstrates that the
loan service sends collections to many more schools than would be reached by visits.
34. If you had to make a choice between free loans in the
classroom or free visits to the museum which would you prefer and why?
90% (18) of 20 teachers said that they would prefer free loans over free visits to the
museum. One teacher said that they wanted both visits and loans while another said she
would prefer free visits. Raw Data
The reasons for this choice were both negative and positive. Negative reasons
highlighted financial, cultural and time constraints; the fact that some parents and
headteachers will not allow visits; and that visits are stressful and difficult to
organise for the teacher. Positive reasons pointed out that loans can be used repeatedly
over a longer period of time; loans are more flexible and can be used to support subjects
across the curriculum; and that loans allow more students to respond to the same.
35. Do the loans encourage you to visit the museum?
Despite their preference for loans over visits, 55% (11) of 20 teachers said
that the loans do encourage them to visit the museum. 30% (6) said that the loans did not
encourage them to visit the museum but did not prevent most of them visiting either. 15%
of the teachers said that a visit would not be an option making the question redundant.Raw Data
36. Which loans were used in the observation?
Artefacts relating to History in the UK were in highest use during observations followed
by artefacts relating to history in other cultures. These were equally popular during
Primary and Secondary observations. Raw Data
Zoology specimens and models of machines were also popular but used exclusively in
Primary observations. These types of loans could be marketed more effectively to other
Primary Non-Users.
37. Did the teacher or students offer an opinion on these loans?
14 teachers and students offered spontaneous opinions on the loans. These
included suggestions for improvement of the loans such as: the use of laminated images of
loans for individual work and more information on the artists who created the prints. Raw Data
There were also comments on the contribution of loans to learning. Teachers pointed out
that: the objects allow the students to do better 2-dimensional work; the prints help the
students with their own figurative compositions; and that, generally, the loans allow
disinterested students "a way in" to learning.
38. Was any reference made to the fact that the loans come from
the museum?
None of the teachers or the students said that the loans came from the Museum of Reading
during the observations. However, 42% (11) of the 26 observations did include one
reference to the "museum". Raw Data
This finding highlights the need for heightened branding on the loan boxes as well as
creating a clear link in the notes between the loans and the museum.
39. Which curriculum area was being supported by the loans?
Only one out of 26 observations did not relate the loans to a subject area within formal
planning. The four areas under which the loans were used in the other 25 observations
were: History (44%), Science (20%), Geography (20%) and Art (16%). Only Primary
observations demonstrated that loans were ordered for Science and Geography and only
Secondary Users demonstrated that loans were ordered for Art. Primary Users and Secondary
Non-users were most likely to order loans for History. Raw Data
These findings can inform marketing to schools. The differentiation between Primary and
Secondary groups' use of loans can be utilised to both support current practice and to
persuade teachers to take further initiatives.
40. Were links made with other curriculum areas by the teacher?
What links, if any, were there with other subject areas?
38 cross-curricular links were identified in 73% (19) of 26 observations. These included
links to: Design and Technology (24%), Literacy (31%) and Numeracy (11%). Primary User
observations made the most links and Secondary Users the least links to other subject
areas. There was no difference between Users and Non-users.
Despite the absence of Numeracy as a loan supported subject in the teacher interviews,
mathematical concepts were apparent in learning from loans during the observations.Raw Data
41. Did the teacher and the students touch the objects?
43% of loans (40) were under perspex out of the total of 93 loans. In only
12% (3) of the 26 observations were all the loans under perspex. Handling was permissible
in all but one of the remaining 23 observations.
During the observations, however, 27% (7) chose to use loans under perspex as the
central focus. Although these loans were not handled they were manipulated in other ways
such as turning the case around to look at the object from different directions or lifted
up and down.Raw Data
42. How did the teacher and the students handle the objects?
Secondary observations demonstrated more care in handling than Primary
observations. Non-users seem to be more likely to be careful when handling object than
regular Users. These findings imply a link between increased experience of loans with
relaxed care in handling. They also indicate an area that could be addressed through
training. Raw Data
43. Were any instructions for handling cited by the teacher or
students?
55% (10) of the 18 observations that did involve handling also included teacher or student
comments on correct handling. Secondary observations included more directions for handling
than Primary observations. Non-users gave more directions for handling than Users. Similar
to the findings from Question 7, these outcomes imply a link between increased experience
of loans and a lack of instructions in handling. Raw Data
44. Is there any further evidence of loans developing handling
skills or learning through handling?
The main learning points that seem to be a product of handling during 66% (12) of the 18
observations where handling was involved, include: an understanding of the physical
properties and design of an object; the ability through touch to make physical connections
between separate parts of objects; a heightened emotional response and a further
opportunity to apply analysis and thinking skills.Raw Data
45. How were the loans introduced to the students?
Introductions were seen in 81% (21) of 26 observations. 100% of the introductions focused
on learning from the object and 90% (19) used the objects as the central focus. 95% (20)
of introductions also contained a teacher's work challenge. Other elements of
introductions included teacher and student questions and discussion (66%) as well as
observational drawing (19%). Raw Data
This demonstrates that the loans are central to lessons which involve them. They are
not an add-on nor are they distanced by worksheets.
46. Who asked the first question? If it is known, what was the
first question?
73% (19) of 26 observations demonstrated a teacher or student asking an initial question.
Of these 19 observations, 84% (16) involved the teacher asking the first question while
16% (3) involved the student asking the first question. Of these 3 initial questions asked
by a student, 100% were concerned with function.
From these findings, it can be seen that there is scope to support and broaden
teachers' lead questions and to encourage students' curiosity through questions in the
notes and other supporting material. Raw Data
47. What type of questions were asked by the teacher and students?
Open or closed questions?
73% (19) of 26 observations showed a lesson where questions could be recorded. Out of 385
recorded questions from 19 observations, 79% (305) of the questions were asked by teachers
and 21% (80) of the questions were asked by students. 89% (343) of the questions were
closed questions and 11% (42) were open questions.
In descending order of popularity, questions were concerned with: the design and
function of the loan; its identification; with concepts beyond but related to the loan;
with past or contemporary versions of the loan; and with links to what students could
remember or do.
From these observations it can be seen that teachers model the questioning process to
their students when introducing and using loans. Inclusion of more open-ended questions in
the notes would balance the number of closed questions asked in the classroom context. Raw Data
48. Was there a development in the questioning?
Out of the 19 observations where questions were recorded, 89% (17)
demonstrated some limited development in the questions of the teachers and the students.
While there was development in 74% (14) of 19 teachers' questions, there was only
development in 16% (3) of 19 groups of students' questions.
Although the teachers believed that loans developed questioning skills in their
students, the observations demonstrated much more the modelling of this development in
teachers' questions. Raw Data
49. What was the main activity?
92% (24) of 26 observations provided evidence of main activities. Observational drawing
and writing answers to questions were the most popular main activities, accounting for 42%
(21% each) of all main activities. These were followed in descending order by: art work,
handling and discussing, writing labels or thoughts in sentences, ordering and comparing,
oral descriptions and presentations as well as play.
This finding supports the idea that loans allow a number of "ways in" for
students. 71% of the central activities did not involve writing. Raw
Data
50. What form did the plenary take?
46% (12) of 26 observations demonstrated a plenary session. 50% of the plenaries put the
emphasis on teacher input, such as additional knowledge or questions, while 50% put the
emphasis on student input, involving reporting back to the class or a connecting activity.Raw Data
51. Did the students produce written or drawn evidence of their
work?
73% (19) of 26 observations demonstrated that students produced written and/or drawn
evidence of their work. This highlights the possibility of using recorded work for future
research, marketing or exhibitions.Raw Data
52. Was there an emotional response to the loans?
85% (22) of 26 observations provided enough information to gauge a noticeable emotional
response. Of these 22 observations, 68% (15) did demonstrate some emotion from teachers or
students in response to the loans.
The emotional responses included: exclamations, enthusiasm, concentration, fascination,
fear, mood empathy, laughter and excitement. These expressions link to the teachers'
belief that loans develop students' sense of awe and wonder.
The emotional impact of museum loans in the classroom may play some part in the
retention of the loans and their learning context in students' long term memory. Raw Data
53. Did the loans stimulate the imagination and encourage
creativity?
73% (19) of 26 observations demonstrated teachers and students harnessing creative
processes in learning through loans. The creative process most employed by schools was art
work (42%). This involved using the loans as a focal point that inspired students' own
work in a variety of media. Creative guesswork (32%), creative writing (16%) and creative
play (10%) were also employed.
This finding complements the teacher interviews which related "best lessons"
with loans to creative activities such as drama, 3D art and creative writing. Raw Data
54. Was any reference made to the object being real?
50% (13) of 26 observations did not include a reference to the objects being real. Out of
those who did make some reference (13) - such as describing the loans as "old" -
just over half were Non-users. It seems to be that the more familiar schools are with
loans, the less likely they are to point out the fact that the objects are real. Raw Data
55. Did the loans give access to learning for different types of
intelligence?
The most popular "way in" during 26 observations was looking. This was followed
by: discussing; relating parts and materials; handling/manipulating and placing objects in
their geographical context. More than half the schools used some type of drawing,
hypothesising and exploring mathematical concepts in relation to the objects.
This finding demonstrates that when loans were used there was an emphasis on a variety
of intelligence links during classroom lessons. Raw Data
56. Were meaningful links made by the teacher and students between
the loans and the knowledge that students had already accumulated?
69% (18) of 26 observations demonstrated links made by the teachers and students between
the loans and previous knowledge: students made 60% of the links and teachers made 40% of
the links. Links to students' previous experience should, as much as possible, be central
to all supporting material in loans. Raw Data
57. What were the aims and outcomes of any observational drawing?
58% (15) of 26 observations employed observational drawing as a way of responding to the
loans. 66% (10) did drawing for collecting knowledge and information and 33% (5) did
drawing for artistic and personal expression.
Observational drawing here was mainly for gathering information in relation to the
design and technology of the object or the structure of an animal. It was about clue
gathering to make hypotheses about the object or specimen in its time or habitat.Raw Data
58. If there was a display of loans, where was it?
46% (12) of 26 observations included displays. 50% of the displays were in whole school
shared spaces such as the school foyer and library. 92% (11) of the displays were in
primary schools.
Although these were the number of displays at the time of the observation, some
teachers were planning to put the loans on display at a later point in the loan period. Raw Data
59. How were the objects displayed?
Displays were mainly on drawer units, although a few were on tables, files and library
shelves. Additional display items included: display labels, books, students' work, posters
and other objects from home or school collections. Users were more likely to display these
items than Non-users.Raw Data
There is much potential to support teachers' displays with pictures, labels and further
information. A display board containing images and text would complement the objects and
cut down on teacher time and effort spent in presenting this information to their
students.
60. Was there an expectation that students would touch the objects
on display?
Of the 46% (12) of 26 observations that demonstrated displays at the time of my visit, 83%
(10) expected the students to touch the displays. Because many were in unsupervised shared
areas this gave some cause for concern.
The positive aspect of handling displays is that more students, together with other
members of the school community, have the opportunity to see and touch objects that are
not being used in their classroom. Raw Data
61. Which objects were initiated by the students in the first
group discussion?
The types of objects that were remembered and commented on in initial discussion were:
models; artefacts worn by a human; emotive artefacts (e.g. mummified cat) and hand held
tools. Raw Data
As the sample group were primary (Year 3 - Year 6), many of these objects will have
connections to their previous experience of clothes, adornment and toys. This finding may
highlight the importance of creating links between students' previous experience and the
loans through new notes and complementary images.
62. Were any gender or ability differences obvious in the number
of objects which the students remembered?
Low ability males initiated the most objects from memory: 36 objects in
total. High ability male and female groups each remembered 31 objects. Low ability females
only initiated 23 objects overall.
Raw Data
This finding raises a number of related questions. What does low ability mean in the
context of learning from objects? Or do loans actually stimulate the learning of this
group?
63. Which objects did the students choose to describe in detail?
There was the choice of the same object across gender interviews in 5 of the 6 school
groups regardless of the fact that students were interviewed in separate gender groups. In
the one group where males and females did not duplicate, both female students chose the
same object. Descriptions of models and clothing were the most popular choices. Raw Data
64. What was the nature of the first spontaneous comments about
the objects?
Out of 123 initial spontaneous comments from 24 students, references to the design and
technology of the objects were paramount (53 comments). This finding demonstrates the
large extent to which loans support educational attainment in Design & Technology. Raw Data
65. Which of the physical aspects of the "students' choice
objects" were described by the students?
In relation to the one object that each student chose to focus their memories on in detail
(different from Question 4), the descriptions of the physical aspects of these loans
involved mathematical language about the orientation, shape and size of the object. They
also included other design and technology aspects such as colour, texture, named parts,
materials and function. Raw Data
66. What did the students remember about their conversations with
friends at that time?
38% (9) of 24 students remembered their conversations with friends at the time of the
loan. Twice as many female students (6) remembered conversations than male students (3).
These included comments that related equally to the objects' function and design or the
students' preferences and opinions. Raw Data
67. How did the students describe how their object felt to touch?
93% (13) of the 14 students who were describing objects that were not under perspex
described how the object felt to touch. These included references to whether the objects
were rough or smooth, heavy or light and hard or soft. Fabric analogies such as
"furry", "leathery" or "silky", the comfort of the object to
wear - and its temperature - were also described.
10 (42%) of the 24 students chose to describe an object in detail that was under
perspex. Although this is representative of the number of objects that were under perspex
overall, it questions the importance of handling. It seems that an object can also be
effective in promoting learning from its manipulation in a perspex sandwich.
Raw Data
68. What did the students think about when they saw the object?
88% (21) of 24 students responded to the question "What did you think when you saw
the loan?" Their statements included: judgements (6), preferences (5), questions (3),
hypotheses (2), plans (1) and links to other subjects (1). Some students also mentioned
emotions (2) and imaginations (1).
An example of a judgement is: "I'm into how things work. I looked inside. There
was a round thing with mini spikes on it and it plays like a little piano - like a mini
thumb piano. I thought it was very basic." An example of a preference is: "I
thought it was boring when I first saw it but then when you had to draw the detail it was
quite fun."
88% seems to be a high response rate to a question concerning the memory of independent
cerebral activity at the time of the loan. Raw Data
69. What smells did the students associate with the loans?
71% (10) of the 14 students who were describing objects that were not under perspex
responded to the question "What did it smell like?". The majority of these were
lower ability students.
The descriptions of smell were mainly adjectives such as "old",
"normal", "horrible" and "strange" as well as two specific
ones including "musky" and "wood". Raw Data
70. What sort of questions did the students ask in response to the
loans?
50% (12) of 24 students responded to the question "Did you ask anything at the time
of the loan?" Twice as many lower ability students (8) recalled questions than higher
ability students (4). It is not clear whether this was because they needed more help to
understand or that the object facilitated the difficult process of framing a question.
Like their teachers, the students all asked closed questions of the objects. Many of
them demanded little more than one word answers (7) while the remaining questions required
a slightly fuller explanation (5). Questions included those about the object's identity,
use, age, original context, its associated people, and how it was made. Raw Data
71. What did the students think that they remembered the teacher
saying when they had the loans in the classroom?
63% (15) of 24 students answered the question "What did your teacher say when you had
the loans?" Statements fell into categories of specific information about the object
(10), questions (2), value statements (2) and one admonition not to touch. 60% (9) of the
15 students who remembered the teachers' input were female
The specific information that students remembered alluded to the object's context,
ideas, people, materials, processes, identity, age, condition and function. Of the 10
students who remembered specific information, 80% (8) were high ability students. It seems
that the higher the ability of the student, the more likely they are to remember specific
information said by the teacher in relation to the loan. Raw Data
72. What sort of things did the students say that they understood
as a result of interacting with the object?
75% (18) of 24 students responded to the question "Did the loans help
you understand anything?". Males were 22% more likely than females to answer a
question about understanding.
Descriptions of what students understood fell into 3 categories: more abstract
statements of learning (8) such as "I understood that WWII was really more dangerous
than I thought it was"; general statements (7) such as "I understood that
clothes were a bit different - like the dress in length and style"; and specific
learning statements (3) such as "I understood what Egyptians did when they mummified
cats". Raw Data
73. What emotions did the students feel when they used the loans?
46% (11) of 24 students remembered the emotion they felt when they used the loans. 82% (9)
of the 11 students were more likely to remember an emotional response to an object that
had negative associations - such as fear, sadness and a sense of mortality - than they
were to more positive associations such as happiness or mystery. Raw
Data
74. What did the students imagine when they saw the loans?
75% (18) of 24 students responded to the question: "Did you imagine anything when you
used the loans?". These imaginations either involved imagining themselves with the
object (7) or another person with the object (11).
The statements also fell into further categories of those that outlined either the
functional (9) or historical (5) context of the object or complete fantasies (4). The
latter category was mainly composed of higher ability students.
Like the responses to thinking (Question 8) and understanding (Question 12), this is a
high level of response. This finding points to a strong link between the use of a created
object and creative - as well as logical - thinking processes. Raw
Data
75. What were the students reminded of when they saw the loans?
42% (10) of 24 students responded to the question: "Did the loans remind you of
anything? If so, what?" Nearly all the high ability males responded to this question
making up 50% of the total responses.
60% (6) of the 10 students that responded to the question referred to contemporary
versions of the object - making a comparison or fusion in their mind and tracing the
objects' technological history in some way. The remaining student were reminded either of
a film they had seen (2) or a more personal experience (2). Raw Data
76. What is significant about the way the students chose to layer
their information through a chosen process?
When asked to tell more about their memory of an object in a method of their own choosing,
modelling in 3D was the most popular request from 54% (13) of 24 students - particularly
high ability students. This was followed by 21% (5) using coloured oil pastels on coloured
paper; 17% (4) drawing diagrams on squared paper; one mime (4%) and one tape recording
(4%). A majority of the high ability students chose modelling.
Gender differences were noticeable in all categories. While females dominated the
categories of modelling (68% of this category were female) and used colour (75%); only
males responded in diagrams and drama.
Students who have used loans seem more likely to feel confident to select modelling as
a form of communication. Loans seem to lend themselves to this type of explanation - they
transmit information in 3 dimensions and it is obvious that this learning can then be
re-presented as a 3D model. Raw Data
77. What did the students wish to do with the loans?
67% (16) of 24 students remembered wanting to do something in response to the loans. Their
memories included wanting to either touch (5) or distance themselves from the object (3);
or wanting to use (5) or explore (3) the object. It is clear that not all the students
wanted to respond in the same way to the loans. Raw Data
78. What did the students remember about the books which they used
at the same time as the loans?
75% (15) of 20 students remembered one or more pictures from the front cover or inside of
books they used at the time of the loans. There was no gender or ability differences in
the number of these responses.
However, the remaining 25% (5) of students did not remember any books used at the time
of the loan. This contrasts to the fact that 100% of the students remembered the majority
of the loans. Raw Data
79. Which did the students remember more - the objects or the
books? Why?
86% (19) of 22 students gave 15 types of reasons why they remembered and preferred
learning from objects more than books. Many of the students cited that they remembered the
objects more because they were able look at them in detail and touch them. Some students
also said that they simply found the objects more interesting than books and the fact that
they were on display meant they spent more time with them than the books.Raw Data
|
