Journal of In-Service Education

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

School‐based INSET: Interim Evaluation

D.J. Keast & V. Carr

To cite this article: D.J. Keast & V. Carr (1979) School‐based INSET: Interim Evaluation, Journal
of In-Service Education, 5:3, 25-31, DOI: 10.1080/0305763790050308

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305763790050308

Published online: 12 Sep 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1069

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie20
School-based INSET: Interim Evaluation
D.J. Keast University of Exeter
V. Carr Montgomery Combined School, Exeter
School-based INSET has become an accepted INSET
strategy. It could be a winner in that it is located at
the scene of the action, involves the teachers and
represents their needs. But it is a new INSET strategy
and there is much to be learned by those who provide
INSET and those who participate in it. For two
years financial help has been available to some Devon
schools which have proposed school-based courses.
The financial help has been available from two
sources, the LEA and the University of Exeter.
The purpose of this article is to focus on some of
the issues which have emerged as the LEA and
University have made provision for a new style of in-
service education. A case study of one of the courses
is included as an Appendix.
The paper is an interim statement — something
of a formative evaluation. Like most innovations in
education the idea of school-based curriculum
development is variously perceived. In the writer's
perception it is at least the antithesis of conventional
in-service courses in which:
1. the topic is nominated and offered by the course
providers (LEA, University, College, Teachers'
Centres),
2. only one or two teachers can represent a school,
with the consequence that,
3. the problems faced by the teachers, when they
return to school hoping to implement their new
ideas, are often insurmountable.
School-based INSET described here is distin-
guished from traditional forms of in-service because:
1. the course members are teachers from one school.
It may be that almost the complete staff is
involved as in a Junior or Middle School or,
alternatively, a faculty or some such substantial
number of secondary school staff; such a group
has been described as a 'functional group' within
a school.
2. the teachers themselves have agreed on the
subject of the course and the subject will reflect
the needs of the school as perceived by the
teachers. (The course is then distinguished from a
group of teachers collectively working on, say, an
OU course).
3. the teachers or their representative invite some-
body external to the school to give some leader-
ship to the course.
This third distinguishing mark is an important
feature in that the type of school-based course en-
visaged here is unlike the widely reported 'In-Service
training' at the Thomas Calton School (Pepper 1972).
For a number of years schools have been known to
close early or use an occasional holiday for a staff
conference: ROSLA created a need for this sort of
course and the James Report approved it. The feature
of including a person external to the school in an on-
going course makes this interpretation of a school-
based course a new style of INSET.
The above characteristics in turn distinguish
school-based INSET from routine staff meetings
because, in Henderson's (1978) words 'the meetings
are activities which are designed exclusively or
primarily to improve and extend the professional
capabilities of teachers'.
At the time of writing one case study comes
immediately to mind — Elizabeth Richardson's study
at Nailsea. But Nailsea provides a daunting model in
that the project was funded by the Schools' Council
(£3,670) and Elizabeth Richardson was able to spend
over 400 hours in discussion with the staff while her
salary was paid by Bristol University. Her work was
coloured by the value she attached to the theories of
human relations emanating from the Tavistock
Institute.
The traditional INSET approach has evolved
from teacher needs and the needs of the education
system: it has not directly reflected the needs of the
schools. The idea of school-based courses is a
response to propositions from inter alia Hoyle (1973)
who advocated that:
1. more INSET should be linked with specific
school innovations;
2. more INSET should focus on functional groups;
3. schools should establish their own staff develop-
ment programme;
4. schools should receive support, including consul-
tancy for their staff development programmes
from local professional centres.
25
 The recent DES publication 'Making INSET
Work' is based on the claim that (i) 'Too often in the
past it (INSET) has been thought of only in terms of
individual teachers attending courses which are
designed and provided by outside agencies', p.3., and
(ii) that the basic INSET needs are to do with (a) the
teacher and his immediate needs (b) the needs of
functional groups within a school, and (c) the needs
of the school as a whole (p.4).
The University of Exeter Faculty of Education
Sub-committee for In-service Courses has an annual
D.ES grant which is conditional on proposed courses
meeting the approval of the DES. In recent years an
ATO/DES type of course has evolved requiring
between 40 and 60 hours of teacher commitment. In
1977 the DES agreed that some of the funds could be
allocated to another type of course — a school-based
course. Again, the DES laid down conditions for the
new style of course. One of the problems was the
conflict between established principles governing DES
funding of conventional courses and the characteristics
of the new style course. For example, one of the
conditions of financial support was that finance
should not be a direct subvention to a single LEA and
therefore courses should serve or be available to the
teachers of more than one LEA. Obviously such a
ruling was at variance with the spirit of school-based
courses. The problem was resolved as the new courses
were clearly experimental and the experiment was
deemed worthy of backing.
The In-service Co-ordinator for the University
made it known that a number of school-based courses
could be financed jointly by the University and the
DES so that at a subsequent meeting over twenty-
four proposals were considered. Eventually nine
courses were provided.
Soon after, the LEA also agreed to support
claims from schools for school-based courses. Over 40
school proposals were accepted by the LEA and
financial and other resources were allocated by the
Advisory team.
The sequence of events was like this:
Schools Providers/University/LEA
(1) Decision to support
school-based course
(2) Schools put forward
proposals
(3) Schools selected
(4) Co-ordinators and
Directors appointed
(5) Work commences in
schools
(6) Interim evaluation
26
(7) Evaluation
(8) Evaluation
A number of important issues emerged as parti-
cipants learned about this new style of in-service:
they include:
1. Criteria for funding and sponsorship.
2. Planning the course and the role of the consultant.
3. The problem of reconciling a self-analysis
approach with a need for new knowledge.
4. Teachers' expectations of and participation in
school-based courses.
5. The location of school-based work in the total
INSET network.
6. The need for evaluation — an already complex
issue compounded by the call for accountability.
1. Criteria for funding and sponsorship
As the money available for INSET must be
limited, schools may well find themselves competing
for sponsorship and the providers will have to decide
on criteria for allocation of cash and other resources.
As far as the school is concerned bidding for help is
not the first stage of a school-based course. For the
school, the first stage is the identification of a
problem or subject which is so significant that it is
worthy of rigorous consideration by a substantial
number of teachers within that school. Havelock (op.
cit.) stresses that diagnosis of need is an integral part
of the problem-solving approach. Any school that can
get that far is looking good in terms of 'organisational
health' — a term coined by Miles (1965) to describe
a school which not only functions effectively but can
grow into a more fully functioning system. The indi-
cators of 'organisational health' include cohesiveness,
high morale, innovativeness, adequate communications
and clear goals. Unfortunately, thermometers are not
available to measure 'organisational health' and it
could be argued that a school that has done the
groundwork and established a starting point is
certainly deserving of help by way of a reward.
Certainly it has been found in Devon that when the
starting point is not clearly defined or established,
part of the course becomes the identification of the
key issues.
A school is certainly ready for a school-based
course if the school is already characterised by some
of the following:
a. staff participation in curriculum and organisational
planning
b. co-operative approaches to teaching as opposed to
teaching in isolation
c. regular discussions of educational and pedagogical
matters
d. a staff room climate which allows uninhibited
discussion
e. teachers who have developed the skill of learning
from each other and from teachers in other
schools
f. a staff which has developed a theoretical basis for
their methods which they can communicate effec-
tively to the local community (Stephens 1975).
Alternatively, the allocation of a cash grant and
recognition by the LEA or University could be
sufficient stimulus for a school to start to work
collectively on an area of the curriculum.
It is clearly important for the sponsors to have an
overall awareness of INSET provision. A school-based
course must be distinctive in the sense that a similar
end result could be achieved by more traditional in-
service means. It may be important for a school to
have a number of teachers who are proficient in First
Aid but these teachers could well acquire the appro-
priate knowledge at a course provided in and by the
Teachers' Centre.
At the time of writing the following factors are
taken into consideration when allocating resources to
schools which have put forward proposals and
requests for help:
1. The amount of thought already given to the pro-
posal by the teachers in the school
2. Whether or not there is already existing provision
within the Regional In-service network.
2. Planning the course and the role of the
consultant
There has been a sequence of events leading to a
number of schools taking on a school-based course.
The first step was taken when the LEA and the
University (with DES support) agreed to fund school-
based courses. Schools were then invited to submit
proposals from which selections were made. Co-
ordinators and Directors (who later acted as con-
sultants) were appointed and then work commenced
in schools. Evaluation is on-going.
Here it is relevant to consider the stages when (a)
the school decides to submit a proposals, (b) the
naming of a consultant and (c) the early work of the
consultant in the school.
The first stage is surrounded by the notion of
'problem awareness'. There is the question of who
recognises this problem and subsequently makes the
other teachers aware of the need to act. A keen
teacher or a Head is the first person to come to mind
but it could be that Advisers have sewn the seed. This
is an important issue. Teachers respond quite dif-
ferently to work which they have initiated and volun-
teered for, compared with work suggested by some-
body external to the school. '
The DES publication (op.cit.) is not really helpful
in that it poses questions which are self-evident in
the context of promoting problem awareness, e.g.
'How can you and your colleagues define the distinc-
tive needs of particular groups, departments, etc',
(P.5).
There is something of a paradox in the timing of
the first meeting between the school and its consultant.
What has usually happened is that the school has
identified the need and, subsequent to the acceptance
of the proposal, a consultant has been named with
the agreement of the Head (or key participants) and
the LEA or University. The paradox is this — the con-
sultant is not involved until an important stage is over
i.e. the diagnosis of need.
Havelock's (1969) perception of the early relation-
ship between the schools and the consultant is sum-
marised by this statement T/Vhen someone comes to
someone else for "advice" what he needs first and
foremost is an understanding of what his problem is
and how he is reacting to it. The consultant, therefore,
should allow the consulter to tell his story, not so the
consultant may be informed, but so he himself may
be informed'.
Because consultants were not approached until
after proposals had been accepted (how could it have
been otherwise?) there were difficulties in the early
days of some courses. At an interim evaluation meet-
ing, consultants reported that 'It had taken some time
for the tutors and teachers to settle down together —
to discover in some cases, the course needs underlying
the declared ones. In this connection the preliminary
discussion of the course steering committee might
well prove wide of the mark and the providing team
have to redraw its programme in the light of
experience'.
It could be that the problem recognised by those
wanting a school-based course is but a manifestation
of a deeper issue. While it is impossible for the con-
sultant to be named until after the acceptance of the
proposal, it could be possible for somebody to act
consultatively to help the school be clear about its
perceived needs.
Consultation at this stage will involve:
1. helping to diagnose the nature of the school's
problem
2. assessing the school's motivation and capacity for
change
3. appraising the school's resources
4. helping to select appropriate objectives for the
course
27
5. choosing an appropriate type of helping role.
After this phase the INSET provider would be in a
better position to accept a school's proposal and the
school would be in a better position to start from.
The role of the consultant appointed to work with
the school over a period of time is complex. To some
extent it is dependent on the nature of the course—
whether the course is task or process oriented. (These
terms are attributed to Skilbeck (1976): a task-
oriented course is concerned with curriculum
development, pupil grouping, evaluation or school
organisation. A process-oriented course is concerned
with the process and skills underlying problem-solving,
communication or decision making).
It is not opportune here to analyse the conceptual
worth of these labels but it is, of course, important to
realise that a school-based course can be concerned
with a range of topics such as:
a. subject matter — knowledge of latest developments
in a subject
b. subject methodology — e.g. how to teach the
Stenhouse Humanities courses
c. Curriculum Organisation — curriculum problems
associated with changes, e.g. mixed ability teaching
d. Curriculum Development — new courses, e.g.
Humanities or new examination syllabi.
e. Resource provision and allocation
f. Management and organisation including the pro-
jecting of innovations (Eraut op.cit.).
Again the problem is compounded by the fact that
few topics selected for school-based courses fall
neatly into one of the above categories. The formation
of a school language policy touches on almost all the
categories listed above.
The role of the consultant is complex in that there
may well be tension between the two usual types of
consultancy function. Gouldner (1959) distinguished
between 'engineering' and 'clinical' consultancy. In
the engineering approach the organisation (school)
identifies the problem and uses the consultant to
diagnose and evaluate the situation (as in business
consultancy). Here the consultant proposes solutions
to problems but does not become involved in the
process or dynamics of the change. In the 'clinical'
approach nothing is predetermined so that the school
has the opportunity to redefine the situation as part
of the change process. Here the consultant is not
offering his expertise in the form of knowledge but
he is acting as a psychotherapist guiding a patient
towards a solution to his problems rather than impos-
ing remedies.
The concept of role is dependent on the expectation
of behaviour. In school-based courses how does the
28
consultant see his role and how is it perceived? To
some extent the explanation is in the teachers and
consultants answers to the following questions:
1. What sort of relationship exists between the con-
sultant and the school? Is it a voluntary relation-
ship? Was it negotiable?
2. Is is a collaborative, co-operative relationship?
3. Is the power equal ised or is the situation dominated
by one of the participants (Head, teacher,
consultant).
3. The problem of reconciling a self-analysis
approach with a need for new knowledge
The problem is illustrated by the following prac-
tical example. A group of teachers formulating a
school's language policy can proceed by appraising
existing language situations and making whatever
changes appear necessary in the light of their know-
ledge of language and their perception of its function
in the learning process. If the teachers are unaware of
the heuristic function of language then their language
policy will be seriously limited. It could be said that a
school's language policy is a manifestation of the
teachers' perceptions of the relationship between lan-
guage and learning. A worthwhile policy may require
teachers to acquire fresh knowledge about language.
There seems to be two issues here which can only
be but identified in this paper:
1. There is the question of the contribution theory
can make to practice.
2. There is the relationship between public and
personal knowledge.
The problem arises here because school-based
INSET is about a group of people working collectively
on a problem. In the discourse 'personal' knowledge
is shared but how can 'pooling ignorance' be avoided?
The problem is one of psychology and epistemology
and requires some substantial analysis.
4. Teachers' expectations and participation
in school-based courses
Data is being collected about teachers'expectations
and participation. There could be a mis-match between
issues as perceived by the on-lookers and the key
issues as recognised by the participants.
Four issues appear significant and worth exploring:
t
i. That whatever the starting point a school-based
course becomes a 'process' type at some stage. In
other words, the social system of the school is
challenged by the course,
ii. To what extent conflict situations arise from the
collective approach.
Hi. The roles of the consultant.
iv. To what extent a significant proportion of the
functional group or whole school takes part in the
course.
5. The location of school-based work in the
total INSET network
There is the danger that school-based INSET will
be parochial and not contribute to or draw from the
wider context of curriculum development. It is too
early to do more than suggest that this may be the
case. Eraut (1972) has offered a theoretical framework
for an integrated INSET network but at the moment
it is difficult to conceptualise how school-based
courses relate to large scale movements.
6. Evaluation
The very title of Hamilton et al (1977) book on
evaluation 'Beyond the Numbers Game' suggests that
there is more to evaluation than a psychometric assess-
ment of goals attained.
The evaluation of school-based courses needs to go
beyond the conventional numbers approach and to
evaluate traditional types of courses because there is a
range of evaluational demands.
Because the notion of school-based courses is
experimental and evolving there is a need for formative
evaluations. The LEA finance committee has allocated
a considerable amount of money to the experiment
and demands accountability thus necessitating
evaluation. The participants — particularly the con-
sultants — are learning about a new INSET approach
and they need evaluations to aid their learning.
School-based courses must contribute to the total
INSET network and so evaluation has a function in
this contextThese are some of the reasons justifying
evaluation and simultaneously hinting that the evalua-
tion procedure must be holistic and on-going.
At a meeting of coordinators of school-based
courses held a few weeks after the courses had been
running, the following topics recurred:
1. The demands made on the In-service provider were
new. The management structures for traditional
courses;
2. There was clearly a need to try to create an over-
view of INSET in the region to identify the various
provisions for school-based courses in the wider
INSET context;
3. School-based courses mean many local meetings so
that expenses of the teachers is nil but the time in-
volved for the consultant can be considerable
when the school is far from the tutor's base;
4. As school-based courses create their own objectives
which have to be adaptable, there seems to be a
need for considerable autonomy to be given to the
directors.
At the same meeting it was decided to base the
evaluation on reports written by consultants who
would in turn obtain feedback from participating
teachers.
The points raised were to do with management
and resources. Evaluation was interpreted as 'cost'
and not 'cost-effectiveness'.
This paper has described developments in the
South West and identified a number of issues that
have emerged from the adoption of a new INSET
strategy. Clearly more rigorous research is required if
this school-based approach is to be effective.
Appendix
A School-based Course: A Case Study
The Headmaster of an Exeter Combined School
with senior members of his staff recognised that there
was a need to appraise the reading provision in the
school for average and above average readers. Bullock
had suggested that every school should devise a syste-
matic policy for the development of reading compe-
tence in pupils of all ages and ability levels. Several
members of the school staff had attended Language/
Reading courses after Bullock but often returned to
school disappointed that the course had not helped.
After one particularly mediocre talk given at the
Teachers' Centre, a get together in the Staff Room
the following day produced the comment 'We could
do better ourselves'.
The senior staff agreed that it would be profitable
to meet as a complete staff regularly over a term to
focus on reading provision and the development of
reading skills.
The Head then approached the Warden of the
Exeter Teachers' Centre and sounded him out about
the feasibility of such a course, i.e. a course for the
staff of one school, to be held in that school. The
Chief Education Officer had invited schools to
organise their own In-service. Some financial assistance
was available because the Education Committee had
ear-marked a significant sum for school-based curri-
culum development. The Warden agreed to fund the
course but there were some repercussions at the
following meeting of his committee. The questions of
29
 criteria for funding arose. What if half a dozen
schools made similar requests — which schools would
be supported and for what reason? Answers to such
questions did not come easily and it does not appear
that rule of thumb measures can offer much help. If
an LEA or any other INSET provider is sympathetic
to school-based approaches then the establishment of
criteria for funding is vital.
With the funding of the course approved, the Head
and his senior colleagues had further informal talks
with all teachers. At the end of the summer term it
was decided that the complete staff (or as many
teachers as possible) would stay after school for an
hour or so on alternate Monday afternoons. Fifteen
out of seventeen attended regularly.
The Head then approached a tutor at what was St.
Luke's College, Exeter, (co-authors of this report)
with a view to the tutor being involved in the course.
The Head asked this specific tutor because he was
aware that the tutor had some expertise in the area of
Higher Reading Skills. Eventually it was agreed that
in the autumn term the whole staff would be involved
in a school-based course with a number of objectives.
1. To consider the nature of Higher Reading skills,
2. To consider existing provision, within the school,
for developing these skills,
3. To motivate staff to improve their work in this
area,
4. To provide staff with an opportunity of sharing
their expertise with colleagues,
5. To identify stages and progression in the develop-
ment of Higher Reading Skills throughout the
School (5-12 years).
Early in the autumn term each teacher was given a
folder of articles around the theme of Higher Reading
Skills. The reason for this was rooted in the role con-
flict the tutor was anticipating. The tutor wanted to
encourage the teachers to reflect on existing reading
provision and he hoped that they would eventually
become self-critical and propose ameliorative action.
However, the tutor also recognised that the teachers
were unaware of certain higher reading skills. The
tutor was recognised as having some expertise but did
not want to be regarded as an expert who would
come into the school to prescribe. It was hoped that
the collection of articles would convey a number of
important ideas and thereby eliminate any direct
teaching function the tutor might otherwise have had.
The role and function of external help through
some form of consultancy is complex, particularly
when two conflicting needs have to be met. There
was the need to acquire knowledge about the nature
of the subject and, at the same time, to be self critical
about existing practice. The tutor was certainly frus-
30
trated by wanting to help teachers to be analytic and
reflective without giving the impression that he had
special knowledge.
This role conflict was evident at the first meeting
and the Head (not obliged to dominate) watched with
some amusement as the tutor struggled with the group
dynamics of the meeting.
Some lessons were learned. The tutor, although he
knew some of the staff and had distributed the
booklet to all, was meeting some teachers for the first
time. This was a mistake — informal meetings with all
teachers would have helped. The role of the tutor and
the Head in this and subsequent meetings should have
been made explicit.
During the first meeting there was discussion with
about half the staff participating. There was the
predictable range of reactions, with 'we're doing this
already' and 'skimming sounds like sloppy.reading'
coming from some quarters. The first half of the
meeting was tentative. It was evident that the teachers
lived in the world of their own children's age group.
Only when they began to see where their own patch
fitted the total picture did they constructively contri-
bute. By the end of the meeting the teachers agreed
to examine current practice in each age group and
make use of a list of reading objectives as a checklist.
The teachers of the 5-8 age range agreed to meet with
the tutor to make some analysis of current practice
within this age range before reporting back to the
complete staff a fortnight hence.
From that date something of a pattern was estab-
lished with fortnightly meetings of the complete staff
and during the intervening week the teachers within
each age group met with the tutor.
It is not appropriate to report here the detail of
the content in connection with Higher Reading Skills
although it has been written up and is available from
the authors of this paper.
Here it is important to describe those events and
insights peculiar to a school-based course. The meet-
ings in year groups resulted in a rigorous analysis of
current practice before reporting to the full staff
subsequently. One of the problems was drawing
together discussions which often ranged wide over
comprehension and study skills, so that a group of
teachers could make a presentation to colleagues.
Skill was required in writing up the analysis of
complex issues. Teachers cannot only survive but do
well in the classroom without developing such a skill
yet senior teachers certainly need to see beyond day
to day work in their own classrooms.
The Head and the tutor saw a neat sequence of
stages for the course:
Stage 1 — a review of current practice
 Stage 2 — identification of a sequential programme
throughout the school.
Stage 3 — production of appropriate resources
Stage 4 — implementation
Stage 5 — evaluation.
Teachers do not respond mechanistically to
rational curriculum models. Almost immediately after
the first two weeks some teachers were identifying
gaps in their own work and were doing something
about it. The specification of clear aims and objectives
for a reading programme is no easy task and the Head
was convinced that 'if teachers did not act until they
had aims and objectives clearly stated, some children
would not move at all — and they do need the
exercise'.
Throughout the Autumn term the stages were seen
as 'fronts' and there was some progress on the first
four of the fronts, i.e. reviewing practice, identifying
a sequential programme, producing resources and im-
plementing new ideas.
It was agreed that the Spring term would be a time
of consolidation with emphasis on producing resources
and implementing new ideas before evaluating the
work in the Summer term.
What was envisaged as an in-service programme for
a term was spanning one whole year. There is some-
thing of a dilemma here in that innovations need time
to take root and attention must be given to it over a
period of time, but there are competing pressures —
other subjects and curriculum concerns must be
attended to.
5. Teachers involved in reflection and analysis of
their own situations may well find it difficult to go
beyond description.
References
DES (1978), Making INSET work.
Eraut, M . (1972), In-service education for innovation.
National Council for Educational Technology, University
of Sussex.
Gouldner, A . (1959), Organisational Analysis in Merton, R.
and Broom, L. Sociology Today. Basic Books Inc. New
York.
Hamilton, D. (1977), Beyond the Numbers Game, Macmillan.
Havelock, R.G. (1971), ' T h e utilisation of educational research
and development'. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 2 (2).
Henderson, E.S. (1979), The concept of school-focused In-
Service Education and Training, British Journal of Teacher
Education, January.
Hoyle, E. (1977), Strategies of curriculum change in Watkins,
R. (ed.), In-Service Training: Structure and Content, Ward
Lock.
Miles, M.B. (1965), 'Planned change and organisational health'
in Carlson, R.O. (ed.), Change Process in Public Schools,
University of Oregon.
Pepper, R. (1972), In-Service Training at the Thomas Cotton
School, Peckham, Forum, 14, 50-2.
Richardson, E. (1973), The Teacher, the School and the Task
of Management, London: Heinemann Educational Books
Ltd.
Skilbeck, M. (1976), School-based curriculum development
in Teachers as Innovators, OECO.

Conclusions Stephens, J. (1975), Some current issues for Teacher In-

Service Education in Adams, E (ed.), In-Service Education
The purpose of this article was to provide a case
and Teachers' Centres, Pergamon.
study with a view to highlighting salient issues. A
number of points emerge:
1. School-based courses must exist within a total
INSET network. Local, regional and national curri-
culum development agencies will continue to make
an impact on schools. There is a need to be clear
about the location of school-based work in a wider
context — if only to avoid unnecessary duplication
of work.
2. School-based courses will usually require funding.
Those involved in the allocation of funds need to
be clear about the criteria for sponsoring a course.
3. The role and function of people involved who are
external to the school require attention. Similarly
the teachers' perception of outsiders is a strong in-
fluence on a school-based course.
4. There is the problem of reconciling the self-
analysis required as a starting point with the need
to acquire new knowledge.

31