The substantive focus was explicitly on teaching and learning, and this is important to
note, for discussions of methodological and paradigmatic issues sometimes seem to
sweep us into much wider concerns.
Writing as I now do, exactly two years after this statement was published, two other
subtle developments can be discerned. First, the Programme in Phase III is targeted
at broadly defined ‘learning outcomes’, rather than at ‘achievement’ per se. In part,
this reflects adjustment in relation to Phase III’s focus on post-compulsory education,
but there is also increasing recognition that narrow forms of attainment, say in basic
skills, also require consideration of the more holistic, dispositional issues that are
associated with lifelong learning.
Second, the emphasis on ‘practice’ is now matched by a parallel interest in ‘policy’.
In part, this comes from the expressed interest of research users within government
agencies, from whom support for the Programme is strong. In part, it comes from
researchers and practitioners who know that local practices are significantly
influenced by policy frameworks, particularly in strongly centralised systems.
The consequences of these two developments subtly re-orientate the Programme.
On the one hand, the substantive focus widens, legitimating and requiring
appropriate consideration of contextual factors. On the other, the Programme begins
to have a role not just in ‘taking’ policy-determined problems for study, but also in
providing evaluation and (possibly) critique of policy. The benefit of increasing levels
of partnership with policy-makers is that independent analysis, when evidence-based
and constructively presented, may be taken seriously as a contribution, rather than
parried or rubbished as a threat.
In due course, once Phase III funding decisions have been made, the Programme is
likely to have around 30 large-scale project or network investments, and a number of
associated fellowships and other activities. As we know, foci at present include:
consulting students; inclusion; science education; literacy and numeracy; thinking
skills; learning to learn; classroom group work; home-school learning; learning in
further education, in undergraduate courses and in postgraduate employment;
problem-based learning; and workplace incentives. To this list we will be able to add
another dozen or so further topics in post-compulsory education following Phase III
decisions.
Each of these projects has its own substantive focus and involves some of the best
UK specialists in the relevant field. Most of the projects are larger than has
previously been usual in educational research and many use sophisticated designs.
In each substantive field, we thus expect important findings to emerge, with strong
warrants, which should justify them being taken very seriously by practitioners,
policy-makers and the public generally. There are already signs of this happening
with some of the emergent results of Phase I Networks.
The Programme Team will do its utmost to support Project Teams in maximising the
quality and impact of their work in its own terms. In this respect, we will be offering
various services and forms of support - not least, critical friendship.
Additionally however, the Programme Team is charged with adding value to project
investments. A major vehicle for this will be through the establishment of cross-
Programme Thematic Groups. Each group will engage with a cluster of themes
associated with a particular Programme aim. Thus we expect to have Thematic
Groups working in the broad areas of: learning outcomes; life-course; synergy;
capacity; transformation and impact, and additionally in relation to ICT.