Case Study 7.2.1 Anton Tomaz Linhart Primary School, Slovenia
.

Title: The IOZO Project: Iz Okolja Za Okolje – from environment to environment

Main Whole School Strand: Formal Curriculum

1. Description of the School

The Anton Tomaz Linhart School, Radovljica has around 500 pupils aged 6 to 15 with about 45 teachers supported by technical staff. The buildings are set in spacious grounds, with a sports centre, a small meadow and a wood where there is an outdoor classroom with timber chairs and tables that is mainly used by the biology teachers.

2. Aims and Outcomes of the Project

The implementation of the IOZO Project in Anton Tomaz Linhart Primary School is described below. The aims of the project included: • to introduce and to examine a new approach to teaching in several subjects for different school levels between ages 6 and 15 years • to introduce the importance of environmental investigations in the local environment • to learn from the environment about the environment • to encourage pupils to cooperate and work in groups (cooperative learning), to depend on others and to help others in their learning.

3. The Project: Content and Development

In the beginning only subject advisers from the National Institute of Education were involved, but later some teachers from primary schools joined. The concept of using the environment outside the classroom as an educational resource for work in several subjects was to be introduced through a project day. Some suggested examples of outdoor learning were; • Using ropes in maths to help pupils become familiar with the reality of the area and to explore how the area is affected by different boundary shapes rather than learning this by sketching shapes on the blackboard. • In biology, finding out how many different types of plants there were in an area of one square metre. The biology curriculum requires pupils to learn about different plants, how they grow and reproduce. Traditionally, this is done by drawing from pictures in textbooks or by listening to a teacher’s explanation. • Practising the Slovene language through writing and describing their outdoor work for inclusion in a formal report that used knowledge from Slovene language lessons. • The youngest pupils worked on the water and water cycle. Most of this work was done in the classroom and only some outside. The work involved; - Investigating how evaporation was affected by temperature; - Drying under different conditions, such as variable wind speed; - Condensation of water vapour (steam) on a cold surface; - Purifying stream water using filters and comparing the cleaned water with the original.   All these topics are in the statutory curriculum introduced in 1997, but they were normally taught in the classroom. New teaching methods with greater pupil participation and stronger inter-subject connections had to be adopted when working outside. The concept of outdoor education was introduced to schools and they were invited to examine it. Some schools, mostly primary, took up the challenge and started to plan the new approach, even though it meant a lot of extra work. The new leaders in schools are much more enlightened than before, they were convinced that many of the things that pupils have to learn can be better understood through outdoor activities. The project procedure involved: • Starting with informal conversations with teachers. • Consulting and persuading headteachers as the decision about participation was theirs. • Introducing all the teachers in the school to new ways of teaching, using many examples of how the basic concept of outdoor education could be adapted for different subjects and ages. Each school decided which topics would be most suitable for its needs and situation. The Anton Tomaz Linhart School trialled the new methods with pupils in the Third Year (9 years old) and the Sixth Year (12 years old). Planning was much easier for the classes in the Third Year because each had one teacher who taught all subjects to the 24 pupils in each class (three classes were involved). Three Sixth Year classes participated but only in mathematics, biology and Slovenian. Teachers were encouraged to think of pupils as equals in the learning process. Teachers knew the main purposes of the lessons, explained these to the pupils and asked them how they would like to achieve the desired outcomes. The main discussions centred on whether pupils wanted to: • Work outside the classroom or inside; • Work in groups; • Cooperate in planning of the activities. These discussions were easier with the older pupils than with the younger ones. Teachers, with advice and encouragement from the Institute, and with help of pupils, developed activities and taught them. After each outdoor activity was finished teachers returned to classrooms to complete a report about their work. Each group presented a poster to the other groups, who had the opportunity to comment and suggest improvements if they thought something was missing. As cooperative teaching and learning was used, the pupils were regrouped to prepare a final overall report on all the work that was done during the day. Techniques were used to favour randomised groups of mixed ability. Before going outdoors, pupils were arranged into expert groups, so that each team had an expert in a different aspect of the project. On completion of the outdoor activities, the experts returned to their own teams to explain to the other members what they had done, their results and conclusions. They all had to cooperate to fit all the pieces together to prepare a final report from the whole group. For success, each team depended on the diligence of its individual members. The Year 3 water-cycle activity had four tasks: • Group 1 investigated evaporation. Containers were filled with equal volumes of water and the levels marked. These were put in different places, such as over a radiator, in the classroom and outside. For several days pupils noted and marked changes in water level. • Group 2 studied condensation by holding a cold object over hot water and watching for the formation of droplets (‘rain’). • Group 3 discovered how the location of wet towels affected how quickly they dried. • Group 4 had the task of purifying water from a natural spring using filters made of sand gravel or charcoal, and commenting on the effectiveness of each type.

4. Drivers: a) External b) Internal

a) The IOZO Project was initiated by the Institute of Education in Ljubljana and introduced in several primary schools across Slovenia. The project started in the Institute because the new national curriculum encourages a diversity of teaching and learning styles. It was known that teachers would like to work out-of-doors but they did not know what to do or how to organise such work. Furthermore, headteachers often preferred new ideas to come from outside the school rather than from their own staff. In the beginning the methodology was more important than the environmental content – process took priority over product. When Institute staff started to discuss cross-curricular out-of-door activities it was realised that the environment was an appropriate theme around which to base the new methodology. Some teachers also considered that environmental education is only about such things as cleaning streets. This project set out to show that the environment can be used as an educational resource, not just as a place for communal service to tackle amenity problems. The different subject advisors at the Institute were the prime movers of this project, but the link between the biology advisor and biology teachers was important because it was biology teachers that had pushed for the use of the environment and the development of whole school approaches. b) Internal, formal leadership came from the headteachers but the real informal internal leaders were biology teachers as they usually teach environmental education.

5. Assessment

Grading of pupils achievement is common in Slovenian schools, but this was not done in IOZO because it was felt that the most important result of this work was not new knowledge but a new approach to group work and outdoor activities. At the end of the project day, pupils filled in simple questionnaires about their work and their feelings about the tasks. Most pupils were satisfied with the work. The teachers referred to what the pupils learned during the project day throughout the year. Three months later if pupils were asked about how different plants look or about the water cycle they still remembered that this was something that they had done on the project day. Some teachers showed examples of pupils’ work sheets, posters and pictures at the IOZO evaluation day at the Institute of Education.

6. Evaluation

Analysis and evaluation of the project was carried out by both pupils and teachers. The younger pupils were shown pictures of different faces that might show their feelings and in conversation they explained how they felt and what they had learned. The older pupils were given a questionnaire that asked how they felt, if they liked to work in this way and if they thought that they had learned something new in the process. After the project day there was a meeting of all the advisers, the teachers involved and the headteacher. The teachers explained what the project had meant for them. They were satisfied with the day but complained that it had been a lot of extra work. The headteacher was satisfied with the work but in the end he confessed that this is something that can only be done once or twice a year because of all the time needed. The advisor for biology continued to visit the school and she reported that some teachers (of other subjects) had shown a willingness to cooperate in the next project. However, there are still teachers who do not see any advantage in working outdoors with groups, and prefer to continue to teach in their accustomed style. The entire project was also evaluated at a meeting of the whole project team at the Institute. The teachers from all the schools involved described what they and their pupils had done and reported on the project’s outcomes. They were more satisfied than they had indicated immediately after the project day because they had found that many pupils could still remember what they had done and learnt on the project day. There was also astonishment that some pupils who usually did not like to work or tackle problems cooperated very well. Because cooperative methods had been used, other pupils stimulated those who did not want to work. As the Anton Tomaz Linhart Primary School is a rural school in which pupils traditionally like to work – especially when outsiders observe their progress, no problems with discipline were apparent.

7. Constraints or Difficulties in Developing the Project

Various problems were encountered by the different teachers and classes. Not all subject teachers wanted to cooperate. The project meant extra work for teachers. The project was not a direct part of the curriculum so teachers had problems planning for the project day and combining regular lessons with this planning. However, this may be a matter of perception and a fear of showing their ignorance to pupils. Even some geography teachers are sure that is better to stay in the classroom and explain theory than to go outside and ‘lose precious time with this nonsense’. Teachers also had problems because they did not know how to organise groups and prepare them to work cooperatively outdoors. This was why the cooperative method was used with both pupils and with teachers when they played the part of pupils during their preparation for the project. The last problem was legal. Teachers are not allowed to go outside the school alone with a group of more than 16 pupils. Additional (substitute) teachers were found to help at the smaller schools (e.g. five teachers and a headmaster) but they could not always stay with the class for the whole day. One problem that was not expected was with pupils who did not want to cooperate. For example, one pupil was crying because she wanted to do all the work alone. She was used to being the best in the class and doing everything by herself. This reaction had not been anticipated. Next time extension activities will be available should they be needed.

8. Benefits of the Project

Teachers realised that if you use a new approach; using the environment as a classroom, and work in a different, more active way, pupils remember more and the knowledge and understanding that they gain lasts longer. Teachers were combining theory and practice. Pupils’ understanding of the environment is better as they have seen that many of the things that they learn in the classroom are part of their local environment. For example in biology pupils were surprised at how many different plants grow in a small piece of grassland. In maths, not only pupils, but some teachers were surprised how small an area was.

9. Future Developments

It had been expected that the teachers would continue with this approach at least once a year without help. However, the project leaders were sorry to see that teachers did not continue to use the environment in their teaching, even when they expressed satisfaction with the project. Although they had been willing to cooperate they had not embraced the approach or the philosophy underlying this initiative, perhaps because they were still unsure of their ability to use this methodology on their own. May be they would have benefited if outside support and encouragement had continued for a further year or two.

10. Additional Comments

Five lessons come out of this case study. 1. The local environment can be used as an alternative location in which the compulsory curriculum can be taught. 2. Work in, about and for the environment does not have to be an optional extra. 3. The learning that takes place in the environment is at least as good as, and sometimes better than, learning in the classroom. 4. Changing teachers’ teaching methods requires long-term support and encouragement, especially in countries such as Slovenia where there has been a long tradition of centralised control and accountability. 5. Because of the novelty and additional work required, without support, teachers will revert to old methods with which they are familiar, even if, their own evaluations, state that these could be inferior to new methods.

Unit 7 Case Study Index
Section 7.1
Study Guide Table of Contents or Resources Index