|
Take a peep at Shayer & Adey (1981): [this is the book of the 1970s assessment studies in advance of the 1994 and 2002 books on the intervention studies]. The findings from the n=10,000 sample were that less than 30% of youngsters gained "good" passes in Science [the then qualification was called GCSE; but no matter]. In that 1981 book, a curriculum analysis through Piagetian stages [interpreted in line with the assessment task used in the national study] was undertaken, and its conclusion was in terms of an "obvious" correlation: to get a "good" pass a youngster had to have what is called "formal operational" [FO] - or a rose by any other name is just as sweet: "abstract reasoning" of the sort that is all the rage in Cognitive Psychology [Wason, Johnson-Laird, etc: contemporaries of Shayer]. This led to the prediction - prediction, mark you - for the later intervention studies. Piaget's theory implies that FO has its completion in adolescence: well then - can instructional changes be introduced that enable this type of reasoning to emerge. And lo: yes such changes can do so for 20% more youngsters. Is that not a signal achievement, based on reasoning - not on skills, nor on teaching to the test. [In Brit-land, national examinations are independent of the rest of us, including researchers. But: a "good"pass requires "good" abilities, notably "abstract reasoning"
|
