The IQEA Project arose from the need for schools to cope with the pressures of enforced change following the legislation of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and from the efforts of some Cambridge-based academics to help them cope with these changes. That help was based on the premise that schools needed to develop their capacity to manage change, while pursuing their own reform agendas to provide quality education for their students. Early work with a small number of primary and secondary schools gave rise to a recognition that this capacity-building would involve most schools in a process of change in how they conducted their internal processes and in how they conducted their professional relationships. In short, the change would need to be cultural.

School Improvement in an Era of Change, which presented the philosophy and principles behind the IQEA approach to school improvement, was published in 1994 (Hopkins et al. 1994). In the same year an accompanying primer was produced, which provided staff development exercises to help build a school's capacity to embrace change (Ainscow et al. 1994a). Part of the project was to help schools understand the processes of change, and the Cambridge team recognised that

there is room for new, more user-friendly yet penetrating techniques for investigating and measuring the complex processes and relationships involved in mapping the process of change in schools.

(Ainscow et al. 1994b)

To help fill this perceived gap the team trialled and produced The Cambridge Manual of Research Techniques (Ainscow et al. 1994b). This collection of six techniques enabled schools to map their staff's perceptions of the nature of any change (Technique 1, the Timeline of Change), their staff's feelings about particular changes (Technique 2), their commitment to change (Technique 3), the perceived culture of the school (Techniques 4 and 5) and their perceptions about the current capacity of their school to accommodate change (Technique 6). At the end of the year the project appointed a full-time Research Officer (the author of this paper), partly to administer these techniques in the various project schools and partly to undertake school-based research on the schools' behalf.

Almost all of this research was related to classroom practice, and much of it took place in the classroom. It became clear that successful schools not only paid attention to internal management processes but also to what was happening in their classrooms. A set of classroom conditions was conceptualised (Hopkins et al. 1995, Hopkins et al. 1998). This conceptualisation arose from a combination of empirical research findings from within the IQEA project and a review of the literature of effective teaching and learning (Beresford 1995). A further primer of staff development exercises was produced, along with an adaptation of Technique 6 to test staff's perceptions about the capacity of their classroom arrangements to accommodate change (Hopkins et al. 1997).

Much of the Research Officer's work which related to classroom practice explored students' perceptions of that practice. This focus reflected a growing interest in the mid-1990s in the student voice, and a belief that

(Rudduck et al. 1996b)

A growing body of literature both here (see, for example, Centre for Successful Schools 1990, Coleman and Collinge 1998, Cooper and Fielding 1998, Davies and Ellison 1995, Jackson et al. 1998, Maden and Rudduck 1997, Rudduck et al. 1996a) and in other countries (Andersson 1996, Blum 1997, Consortium on Chicago School Research 1996, Osborn 1997b, Restructuring Collaborative 1997, Scottish CCC 1996, Wallace and Wildy 1996) have recorded students' views on how schools were run, and in addition have testified to the value and authenticity of the student voice in providing information on how schools could improve. Not only was this voice "astute and articulate" (Smees and Thomas 1998), it could also cast a unique and distinctive light upon the school environment. A Dutch student, following on from a Finnish head who had claimed to know everything about his own school, suggested to the audience of an international education conference that

I see things you could never see

(quoted in MacBeath 1998).

It was not only the views of older students which were being canvassed on educational issues. Primary-aged students were also participants in such school-based research: on school ethos (Boyd and Reeves 1996), on reading habits (Beresford 1997), on working habits (Flutter et al. 1998, Gipps and Tunstall 1997, Newman 1997, Norwich 1998, Morgan and Morris 1999), and on the sources of student self-esteem (Meece and Miller 1996).

This interest arose partly from a growing concern within western society for minors' rights, and partly as the result of a focus on consumers' rights which in education represented those of students as well as their parents (see, for example, Rudduck et al. 1996b, Beresford 1999a). Implicit to this interest was the view that learning took place more effectively where the needs of the learner were addressed. Part of the process of addressing these needs was canvassing the views of learners.

In our IQEA Project schools teachers became increasingly interested in such a process. With the marginalisation of teacher control over the curriculum content, the method of curriculum delivery became the main arena of teacher-student dialogue. Now that schools were also interested in maximising student numbers in order to attract funding, students' views on how their school was run became critical.

The IQEA project developed its own armoury of instruments for this purpose, subsequently published in 1998 (Beresford 1998). There was, however, no 'user-friendly' equivalent of Technique 6 to find out the views of students on the culture of the classrooms in which they learnt. Teachers within the project were able to compare their own perceptions with those of their colleagues, but were as yet unable to test them with those of their students. Some were interested in finding out such views per se.

In the same way that we have suggested that the development of certain teacher behaviours in schools will improve teaching (Hopkins et al. 1997), we would argue that the development of certain student behaviours will improve learning. These are, in no particular order:

Self-assessment The ability of students to access the skills and resources necessary to achieve learning autonomy.

Independent Learning The ability of students to use a range of learning strategies which enables them to learn independently of teachers.

Affinity to teachers The ability of students to maintain a relationship with teachers that enables them to seek and receive help and support when they require it.

Learning repertoire The ability of students to exploit fully the range of teaching and learning strategies encountered in and out of the classroom.

Orientation to Learning The ability of students to be self-motivated, and to enjoy learning.

Adjustment to School The ability of students to learn within a structured environment of rules and behaviour parameters.

As with the classroom conditions, these have been derived from a combination of a review of the literature relating to teaching and learning, as well as empirical research which has focused largely on student views on effective learning. A fuller version of the literature review and of the related research within IQEA schools is currently being constructed (Beresford, work in progress). We present below a précis of the conceptualisation.

Self-assessment.

Those involved in the IQEA Project, both external consultants and teachers, have identified Enquiry and Reflection as "a most powerful classroom condition" (Hopkins et al. 1997a: 92) because they perceive that

teachers who are self-critical of their own practice as a matter of routine appear ... to be those teachers who have the most extensively developed repertoires, and also seem to be the teachers who are most aware of the many things that are happening in the classroom at any one time.

(Hopkins et al. 1997a: ibid.)

Within the project we have found that those schools in which teachers systematically collect and use classroom-based data, in part to evaluate the impact of their classroom practice, find it easier to sustain improvement efforts around established priorities, even in times of systemic change (see, for example, Hopkins et al. 1996, Beresford and Payne 1997, West and Beresford 1998).

There are well-documented cases, both within the IQEA Project (Jackson et al. 1998) and elsewhere (Restructuring Collaborative 1997), of students being involved in the formal collection of such data. Such cases, however, are rare, and the experiences of most students in reflecting about what they do in school tends to be less formalised. This is not to say that it is any less important a condition in enabling students to make sense of what they do in schools than it is for those who teach them.

In the same way that reflection and enquiry enable teachers to take control over, and personal responsibility for, their own teaching, we would argue that some degree of reflection enables students to exercise an element of control over, and responsibility for, their own learning. Our own research within IQEA suggests that some students do reflect on what they have done at school, and that homework is often the catalyst for such reflection. Students in schools where teachers have overtly used and discussed with them various teaching models and strategies show themselves able to articulate clearly about how they are taught, to evaluate the particular model or strategy and to discuss its appropriateness both for the subject under review and for other curriculum areas. The invitation to students to explore their own learning through explaining their thinking and problem-solving strategies is seen as an important teaching strategy in developing student self-assessment at both primary and secondary levels (Dann 1996, Scottish CCC 1996, Parker-Rees 1997, Norwich 1998, Assessment Reform Group 1999, Doddington et al. 1999, Flutter et al. 1999). Hand-in-hand with the understanding of how they are learning often comes an enjoyment of a particular teaching approach, and the motivation to do well. Where students are less clear about how they learn, they are more inclined to highlight personal shortcomings for their lack of success, which can impact upon both their motivation and their self-esteem as learners.

Teachers can undertake a series of strategies which can feed into this reflective process. They can explain and justify to students the purposes of the various teaching devices they employ, for example homework (Warrington and Younger 1996) and collaborative group work (Hubbard 1997). They can give clear guidance to students on what it means to work hard (Rudduck 1995, Kershner 1996, Maden and Rudduck 1997, Maden and Johnson 1998). Where students are involved in one-to-one discussions on the progress they are making and in class discussions, teachers can develop with them a language for thinking and talking about learning (Towler and Broadfoot 1992, Homerton-Schools Research Circle 1997). Target-setting has been proposed as one way of promoting a dialogue between teachers and students about student learning and performance (DFEE 1997).

An ongoing dialogue between teachers and students using a shared language of teaching and learning means a culture in which students are not afraid to ask for help (Black and Wiliam 1998a). Students in IQEA schools were prepared to ask for help from teachers on how to improve their work where there was a culture of asking, for example in GCSE classes or where special needs students were present, where schools had set up a formal system of student mentoring or where students could approach teachers in private, and where requests for group help could be lodged anonymously.

As well as feedback and discussion about how they are learning, students clearly need feedback on how well they are learning. It appears that self-assessment is an activity in which students, even those untutored in the necessary skills, routinely take part. One study involving 1600 Science students suggests that they tended to estimate high personal performance on tasks that they liked doing. Boys had a more inflated expectation of their performance than girls (Daniels and Welford 1990). Another smaller-scale study suggests that more able students generally underestimated their levels of achievement, while average students tended to overestimate (Raynor 1995).

Students we have interviewed within the project are dependent upon a range of sources in order to assess how well they are doing at school. Some of these sources are clearly flawed. Though students lay great emphasis, at least in the early years of secondary school, on the rewards system, many are clearly aware that their school is more generous in bestowing merits upon younger students for their motivational function than they are to those further up the school. Good marks appear to be given for different things in Years 7 to 9 and in Years 10 and 11 in at least one of our schools. The lengths of written comments at the end of pieces of work are seen as being in inverse proportion to the quality of the piece. How a teacher relates to a particular student is also an important indicator for many, which suggests that some students may be unable to distinguish between teacher attitudes brought about by their behaviour and those brought about by their work performance. Those who see the number of punishments inflicted upon them as an indicator of how well they are doing are manifestly unable to make such a distinction.

Teachers who share the criteria of what constitutes good work, along the lines of those provided for Year 9 students involved in coursework (Rudduck 1996c), provide students with an important element for self-assessment, particularly of work where the criteria are externally prescribed (Maden and Rudduck 1997, Assessment Reform Group 1999). While it is clear that some teachers facilitate student self-assessment to a degree by providing them with quality criteria, details of the syllabus and helpful comments on how they can improve their work, it is hardly surprising that, given the confusing myriad of sources, many students in our IQEA schools, and elsewhere, are not very good at self-assessment (Daniels and Welford 1990, Raynor 1995).

Our own work suggests that students take seriously the business of reporting their own progress, and that students' parents are inquisitive about their progress in school, although the quality of feedback which they receive from their charges is variable. It also suggests that this particular aspect of self-assessment may not be a high priority in schools. Where students are clear on the criteria for making judgements and assessments, they show themselves to be serious-minded, though still inclined to inflate their own self-assessments, and possibly those of their peers.

We would therefore conclude that students effectively assess their own progress when

• they reflect upon the work that they do

• they get adequate feedback on how well they are doing at school

• they make a meaningful contribution to the reporting of their own achievements

• they are able to ask teachers how they can improve their own work.

The ability of students to learn independently is an equally important factor in their development as learners. Where we have identified the planning of teaching as a key classroom condition for improving teaching and learning in schools, we would argue that the ability of students to organise their own learning is a complementary skill which needs to be addressed by teachers.

In a world where the classroom teacher has become one of a burgeoning number of knowledge sources, students need to develop a battery of independent learning and problem-solving skills and techniques in order to process and learn from the wide information base now available. They need to develop and refine their own learning strategies in order that they can benefit fully from the variety of learning situations which they meet as students.

A number of writers have addressed the theme of developing independent learning in students as a desirable and increasingly necessary outcome of formal education. Those reviewing the curricular requirements of a society in the midst of a micro-electronic revolution in communications and information technology suggest that the working population will need to learn and re-learn new skills as a matter of routine during their working lives (Wragg 1997). The ability to learn independently is "one of the most oft-cited goals of schooling" (Levin 1995), one which schools need to address by giving students

tasks or projects which require some sustained effort over time, and then give them the ability and the scope to organise themselves to pursue these projects.

(Ibid.)

It is also argued that the learning autonomy provided through independent learning gives concrete recognition to the individuality of learners (Kaminski 1999), and symbolises, on the part of teachers,

respect for the child's ability to grapple with intellectual problems

(Gracie 1981).

In moving their students towards learning autonomy, teachers need to re-define their classroom role. They need to become "relaxed consultants" rather than "charismatic animators" (Bowyer 1981), in other words the emphasis in teachers' classroom activity needs to shift from whole-class presentation to facilitating individual learning (Gibbs 1989).

There is considerable evidence that students value this learning autonomy. They are enthusiastic about practical work (Osborne and Collins 1999), lab-work (Gonzalez and Gonzalez 1980) and groupwork (Hazelwood et al. 1988, MORI/Campaign for Learning 1998). Undertaking projects in secondary schools gives meaning and a sense of ownership to participating students (Wallace 1996a, Rudduck 1996b). IQEA schools describe a range of independent learning activities - researching from books, discussions, using ICT - and students are given varying degrees of opportunity to take part in them. Some students described opportunities outside the classroom - visits to the school library and other areas on the school site. Students generally prefer these learning opportunities to those which are more teacher-centred. Inevitably, because of the demands of a prescribed curriculum and public examinations, much of the research they do has a strong element of teacher direction, with teachers setting the research questions and either distributing resources or directing students to the various sources of information inside and outside the classroom. This has been described as "semi-independent learning" (Kaminski 1999).

One of the roles of teachers in developing learning autonomy is to build upon their students' "craft knowledge" (Hubbard 1997), with which they

make sense of their learning situation and actively construct and develop their own learning strategies.

(Ibid.)

The opportunity to apply existing knowledge to new situations through problem-solving is thus an important element in the development of students' ability to learn independently. We have found that only maths teachers consistently provide such opportunities, although instances are cited in science, personal and social education and drama. It may be that teachers of subjects other than maths feel that their students have an insufficient knowledge base to attempt problem-solving effectively. The often protracted nature of problem-solving activities mitigates against teachers, under pressure to complete schemes of work, allocating time to them.

Homework requiring research appears to be the most common opportunity offered to students to learn independently, or semi-independently, of teachers. Students use school libraries, local libraries and home-based resources, including CD-Roms, PC encyclopaedias, the internet, books and parents to undertake research. In some of the schools students are coached in library skills, note-taking techniques and in background reading.

Another of the critical skills needed to develop students' learning autonomy is the ability to work effectively in groups. The skill is important because

interaction among children around appropriate tasks increases their mastery of critical concepts.

(Slavin 1993)

Our own research suggests that the incidence of groupwork in schools is greater than the incidence of problem-solving, and it is a strategy that is apparently used across the curriculum. It is a learning activity which students enjoy: they like the comfortable ambience of working in a group, the variety of ideas which circulate in group discussion, the speed of producing work that effective groupwork can achieve, and the quality of that work. Groupwork appears to be most effective where students are proficient in groupwork techniques, through custom and practice or by teachers coaching students in such techniques (Joyce et al. 1997).

Groupwork appears to be ineffective when students do not interact, or when they argue with each other or "mess around". This may be through lack of practice - that students do an insufficient amount of groupwork to have become conversant with ways of working effectively in groups. It may be that the opportunity to move away from a predominantly teacher-centric mode of learning provides too great a temptation to socialise, hence the identification of groupwork by both teachers and students in some of our schools with 'bad' behaviour.

Independent learning therefore seems to take place when students

• feel they have ready access to the resources they need in lessons

• are given opportunities to apply the knowledge they have acquired in problem-solving situations

• take part on a regular basis in groupwork

• undertake independent research activities.

The centrality of teacher-student interactions in effective learning is well established. The quality of teachers' relationships with their students has been identified as one of the most important of 224 variables identified in one study as contributing to effective teaching (Wang et al. 1993). The creation of a classroom climate conducive to learning is identified as a key teaching skill (Scottish CCC 1996, Kyriacou 1998). The closeness of student-teacher relationships appears to impact upon the effectiveness of teacher assessment (Black and Wiliam 1998b), upon good order in the classroom (Haroun and O'Hanlon 1997, Morgan and Morris 1999) and even upon the development of literacy skills (Campbell 1986). The importance of teachers as behaviour models for students has contributed to the disquiet over the decreasing number of males attracted to the teaching profession (Lahelma et al. 1999). There is some suggestion that the interpersonal skills of head teachers are important elements in defining student attitudes to school (Day et al. 2000). Students in Higher Education have reported lasting and often fond memories of their primary teachers' personalities and attitudes (Hayes 1993).

Our own research within IQEA has highlighted the importance of these 'authentic relationships' as a major determinant of student progress, where teachers establish the classroom

as a safe and secure learning environment in which pupils can expect acceptance, respect and even warmth from their teachers, without having to earn these - they are intrinsic rights which are extended to pupils because they are there.

(Hopkins et al. 1997: 14)

Like many others in the school improvement field, we have derived this view in part by talking directly to students about their teachers. We also have found that students respond best to teachers who show an active interest in them as people as well as learners (see Marzano et al. 1992, Chaplain 1996b), and that such interest can improve, for example, attendance rates of former truants (see Testerman 1996). Students in our IQEA schools have confirmed that teacher friendliness is "immensely important" to them (Wallace 1996b), and that they dislike teachers who are strict. Secondary students in particular show strong feelings for justice, equity and respect, and confirm that

when teachers trust and respect young people as learners and thinkers and as people, and let them see this, they are much more likely to receive trust and respect in return.

(Scottish CCC 1996: 16)

We have found that honouring such feelings is an important factor in the maintenance of classroom order. A student in one of our schools, identified as a serial disruptive, presented a rationale for his misbehaviour in the classroom:

If the teachers aren't fair to us, why should we be fair to the others?

(quoted in West and Beresford 1998)

This resentment extends to stereo-typing, or "image-fixing" (Day 1996) of students by teachers, and to the administration of group punishments as a result of the behaviour of a few. Students also value helpful teachers, those who are approachable and can explain well (Wallace 1996b, Black and Wiliam 1998a). We have found that the withholding of teacher help, for whatever reason, is often taken as a personal slight by students who are experiencing work difficulties.

Feelings about their teachers dominate and, to a considerable extent, mould students' attitudes towards teaching and learning (Morgan and Morris 1999). Students of all ages value a teacher's sense of humour. Students in the early years of secondary schooling, when asked about their favourite teacher, highlight personality traits rather than pedagogical skills. In the GCSE years students stress the importance of a teacher's personality as much as the strict adherence to a set of agreed rules as a factor in keeping order in the classroom. So critical is this student affinity to teachers in facilitating effective learning that we have found that some students, by the end of Year 7, have hardened in their attitudes towards certain curriculum subjects because of the teachers who teach them: liking or not liking a subject has become dependent upon liking or not liking the teacher who teaches it.

Students therefore seem to learn best when

• they get on well with teachers

• they are motivated by teachers

• they are helped by teachers

• there is an element of negotiation with teachers over the work they should do.

The weight of research evidence, both their own and that of others (see, for example, Brophy and Good 1986, Joyce and Weil 1986, Joyce et al. 1987), has led my colleagues and I in the IQEA Project to identify an extensive teaching repertoire as one of the classroom conditions necessary for school improvement to take place (West et al. 1995, Hopkins et al. 1997, Hopkins et al. 1998).

There is already an extensive literature on the component parts of effective teaching (see, for example, Rosenshine and Stevens 1986, Gipps 1992, Harris 1995), but less on the process of matching teaching strategies to students' learning styles. There have been a number of instruments designed, mainly in the form of questionnaires or interview schedules, to try to discover the learning preferences of discrete groups of students: of secondary science students (Cunliffe 1995), for students excluded from school (De Pear 1997), for eight- to eleven-year-olds (Norwich 1998) and for Year 10 students (Barnett 1985). However, much of the matching of teaching and learning styles has been extremely speculative, based upon the premise that if a sufficient variety of strategies is employed, then a catch-all effect will apply:

By offering a range of learning opportunities, including those that use their strengths, teachers are more likely to provide a learning experience that students feel good about.

(Faccenda and Fielding 1992)

Increasing the range of learning experiences provided in our schools increases the likelihood of more students becoming more adept learners.

(Joyce et al. 1997: 15)

The need for some form of dialogue between teachers and students about teaching and learning methods in the classroom has been recognised by a number of writers (see, for example, Levin 1994, Hord 1997, Hubbard 1997) and, increasingly, by a number of the schools in the IQEA Project. These schools have shown themselves willing to interrogate students on their views about what constitutes effective teaching.

Using an observation schedule derived from the work of Kolb (Kolb 1984) and its application to classroom activities (Fielding 1994), we have undertaken a series of lesson observations across a wide range of schools and school subjects over the past five or so years. For the purposes of the research, the 38 listed classroom activities were divided into four categories to correspond to Kolb's learning style categories: sensing/doing (accommodative) activities, like simulations; sensing/watching activities (divergent), like discussions; thinking/watching activities (assimilative), like teacher demonstrations, and thinking/doing activities (convergent), like note-taking. At the same time we have used an elaborated version of the schedule to canvass student learning preferences. A fuller exposition of the methodology and research appears elsewhere (Beresford 1999c).

We used data from 74 lessons observed in 8 schools. The number of different strategies and activities used in the lessons observed ranged from seven to 23. The lesson profiles showed a reasonable balance between doing and watching orientations in all of the subject categories, but a marked imbalance between sensing and thinking orientations except in Drama and a few other isolated lessons.

The combined data suggest a quite stunning uniformity of teaching diet in the classrooms of the eight schools. Art and Music teachers were employing the same activities and strategies as Science, English and French teachers. Each school, irrespective of their catchment areas and examination performances, catered overwhelmingly for students with convergent and assimilative learning styles.

This picture is reflected in the research of others. Newton and Harwood observed 126 lessons in three Secondary schools, and noted that 82% of them used primarily didactic methods of teaching (Newton and Harwood 1993). A similar survey of forty Social Studies classes indicated that 92% of them used didactic and problem-solving approaches to learning (Hacker and Carter 1987). The assertion that

academic studies socialize teachers into distinct subgroups that display different orientations towards knowledge and the nature of teaching

(Yaakobi and Sharan 1985)

seems largely unproved. It would appear that most of the teachers observed in the 74 lessons relied upon a restricted repertoire characterised by largely didactic teaching methods.

While students' learning preferences showed a bias towards assimilative and convergent activities, they demonstrated a desire for a far greater proportion of accommodative and divergent activities than their teachers were offering. Three schools offered their students a diet of four parts convergent and assimilative activities to one part accommodative and divergent: their students stated a group preference for a 3:2 ratio. Another school offered a 9:1 ratio of similar activities: their students, with an interesting conservatism compared to their peers in the three other schools, preferred a 2:1 ratio.

The instrument was created with the intention of providing schools with a broadbrush picture of the teaching activities and strategies used by teachers, and of the learning preferences of their students. The derived data were intended to provide a focus for a discussion between staff and staff and, perhaps, staff and students about teaching methods. This has generally been the case. In one school, for example, the results confirmed staff's fears about the lack of opportunities provided for independent learning in its 11-16 classes, a lack which they felt partly explained their comparatively disappointing 'A' level results. The school has since provided more of these activities, including co-operative group learning, and has been provided with audit sheets in order to monitor whether such learning is taking place. The Community Studies department in another school has tried to integrate more accommodative and divergent activities into its curriculum, and has involved students in evaluating the activities (see Beresford 1998b). In yet another, teachers have learnt how to organise inductive learning sessions using paired and groupwork techniques, and have involved staff and students in an evaluation of the effectiveness of the teaching model.

Students seem to learn best when

• teachers use a variety of teaching styles and strategies

• students are equipped to cope with the range of teaching styles and strategies used

• students find lessons interesting

• students are taught new ways of working and learning.

Pedagogic partnerships describe a series of arrangements in schools whereby teachers are able to learn or disseminate proven teaching practices with the help of a critical friend. In seeking to develop this particular condition in schools we have leant heavily in the project upon the work of Joyce (see, for example, Joyce and Weil 1986, Joyce et al. 1997), and have promoted the use of such staff development techniques as peer coaching and modelling. In this way we have subscribed to the view that

in a community of learners, the most important role of teacher and principal is that of head learner ..

(Barth 1996)

We believe that student learning is enhanced when this love of learning is shared by the students themselves.

Most of the students of whom we ask the question want to do well in school. The majority, though a greater proportion of girls than boys, also believe that they work hard. Despite research which suggests that they learn better outside of school (see, for example, Shaughnessy and Kushman 1997), most feel they do most of their learning in school. Those most satisfied with school are high achievers who feel motivated and esteemed for their work (Epstein and McPartland 1976). Those least satisfied are those who find certain subjects difficult, feel that teachers do not help them in their difficulties or have developed 'learned helplessness' in work they find hard to understand (Chaplain 1996a, Chaplain 1996b, Galloway et al. 1995). Students as young as five and six have apparently developed the concept of specific subject competence, and ascribe their success to this and to personal effort (which their teachers' comments confirm), rather than to all-round ability (Gipps and Tunstall 1997). Students' perceptions of their own ability in particular subjects appear to persist into the first year of secondary school, but decline thereafter (Keys and Fernandes 1993). This decline has in part been used to explain the Year 8 'dip' in student performance (Meece and Miller 1996, Rudduck and Flutter 1998) and for the decline in students' positive attitudes towards all curriculum subjects except English in Key Stage 3 (Sutcliffe 1998, MORI/Campaign for Learning 1998, Miller et al. 1999). We have also found that students in their first year of secondary education assess the importance of some subjects in terms of how it will help them secure future employment.

We have suggested above that teachers can do much modify students' attitudes towards specific curriculum subjects. They can, for example, deploy a range of teaching strategies to make their lessons more interesting. They can build an 'authentic relationship' with those they teach so that students do not equate 'doing badly' with not getting along with the subject teacher. They can emphasise task performance criteria in feedback to students, rather than concentrating solely on building (or lowering) self-esteem. The instrumental attitude of many students to school work has led us to suggest to some of our IQEA schools that subject teachers routinely justify to their students why their subjects are part of the school curriculum.

In terms of motivating students, our own experiences of the various merit systems operating in schools is that they are successful in the first year of secondary school, less successful in the following year and that they have generally lost their currency by the end of Year 9. A number of Year 9 students recognise that teachers give an excessive number of such rewards to younger students in order to stimulate effort. Target-setting has some reported motivational effects (Perkins 1999), although concern has been expressed by students that schools are more concerned with enhancing institutional performance rather than with the development of the individual (Boyd and Jardine 1997, Fielding 1999). GCSE work and assessment provide its own motivation for most students, and those who are alienated from the work are often alienated by their peers (Rudduck 1996b, Rudduck 1996c).

Students appear more ready to learn when

• they look forward to lessons

• they work hard in school

• they work hard at homework

• they feel that their hard work is acknowledged by teachers.

We have suggested in the previous sections a range of strategies which teachers can use to impact upon student behaviour and, in so doing, improve the quality of student learning. We believe that the provision of a set of parameters within which students can conduct their daily life in school is also important:

If we hope pupils will value and enjoy learning, we need to be able to create a learning environment in which pupils will feel secure and valued.

(Hopkins et al. 1997: 31)

Although English students are apparently less positive about schooling than Russian students (Elliott et al. 1997) and French students (Osborn 1997a, Osborn 1997b), it is our experience that the majority of students in all schools like coming to school. It is also our experience that the main reason stated for liking school, particularly after the first year of secondary education, is that it is a place where students can meet their friends. Reasons for not liking school focus primarily upon specific teachers and specific subjects. Complaints about school rules are often made in Years 8 to 10, where we have noted that the students' sense of justice and equity is most marked. Hence complaints are directed less against, for example, the imposition of a dress code than against teachers' consistency in enforcing it. Schools with sixth forms on site, and where a different dress applies, give rise to a number of complaints about consistency from students lower down the school. Some students question why teachers are not subject to the same behaviour restrictions, for example over smoking on the school premises, as students.

We have found that, where teachers are prepared to negotiate with their students about the rules within which both operate, that

pupils will be self-controlling within the set boundaries.

(Hopkins et al. 1997: 32)

Compliance to school rules in IQEA schools, as elsewhere (see, for example, Hord 1997), is seen as a key component of success at school. When we have questioned students (mainly boys) who are deemed disruptive in class by their teachers, they have justified their disruptive behaviour by claiming that lessons were boring, or that they did not understand the work they had been asked to do. They had few complaints about school rules or codes of classroom conduct, although they freely admitted they had broken them. Our observations of on-task and off-task behaviour in a range of lessons across a range of schools suggest that boys' off-task behaviour is often more explosive than girls', but we would agree that

(Campbell 1993)

We have a number of well-documented instances of so-called disruptive students being more on-task than the 'control' student we have also been asked to observe. We would agree with others that disruptive behaviour should not necessarily be regarded as a function of social deviancy or as an indicator of special educational needs (Elliott 1997), and that work with peer groups rather than individuals to secure engagement with learning is often more appropriate (Hickey and Fitzclarence 1999).

Target-setting has provided one arena for such negotiation to take place, even with very young children (Castelijns 1996). We have also encouraged schools to negotiate contracts with teaching groups, that in return for certain behaviours by students in class, teachers will themselves guarantee certain behaviours, for example well-planned lessons and prompt feedback on work done. We believe, along with the reviewer of various failed government-sponsored projects to secure the engagement of truanting students, that

the keys to school improvement are context-specific internal processes particular to each school.

(Cockett 1996)

Students appear to be more comfortable with their working environment when

• their teachers are seen to be just

• when students can accept the sense of having school rules

• where students attend school regularly

• when students conform to the rules that regulate the school community.

If there has been a consistent theme running through the conceptualisation of the various student conditions, it has been the emphasis on the need for dialogue. We have suggested that students learn best when they are involved with teachers in a dialogue about how they learn and how well they learn; when they find teachers approachable and prepared to talk to them as people as well as learners; when they discuss with teachers how to take full advantage of the various teaching strategies employed in the classroom; when teachers share with their students the justification for teaching various subjects and topics in school, and when students and teachers are able to negotiate the rules which regulate the community in which they both work.

We have found that such dialogues are time-consuming, and that they are often difficult to initiate without a shared focus. Teachers have found the Management and Classroom Conditions surveys a useful starting point for a dialogue about practices in their schools. Our belief that teachers would find that a survey of student views about teaching and learning would be a useful starting-point for further exploring issues related to students' learning prompted us to produce a Student Conditions survey, which is reproduced as Figure 1 in the Appendices.

As with the two previous instruments, the Student Conditions survey consists of 24 statements relating to behaviours associated with the six conditions. Where possible, we have tried to 'mirror' statements in the Student Conditions survey with statements in the Classroom Conditions survey. So, for example, Classroom Conditions statement 3.1 asks teachers to comment on how frequently Teachers build variety into lesson plans, while Student Conditions statement 4.1 asks how frequently Lessons in this school are varied, and don't follow a pattern. This enables a direct comparison of teacher and student perceptions about specific aspects of teaching and learning. Figure 2 in the Appendices summarises the relationship between the Classroom Conditions and their 'mirror' Student Condition. Students are required to comment on the frequency of each of the 24 behaviours in their schools, using a four-point scale ranging from 'rarely' to 'nearly always'. This means that responses can be converted into Likert scores within the range of 1 to 4, with scores closest to 1 indicating low frequency, those closest to 4 high frequency and 2.5 as the mean.

To date we have piloted the Student Conditions survey in over 40 schools. We are still developing the instrument for primary-aged students, and have therefore presented data here from 36 secondary schools, embracing nearly 6000 students. These schools are predominantly from our Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Swansea projects, as well as upper schools in an IQEA-type project in Bedfordshire. This explains in part the larger numbers of students in Years 9 to 11 who have been surveyed. Details of student numbers, as well as Likert scores for each gender in each year-group, are presented in Figure 3 in the Appendices. We stress the broadbrush nature of the survey, and so schools are given Likert scores to one place of decimals. In order to explain slight variations between the scores of boys and girls in the accompanying graphs (see Appendix), we have presented data to two decimal places.

We have already slightly modified the survey in the light of our related research. Statement 1.1 originally read At the end of each school day I think about what I've learnt. When we questioned students about the low frequency of this behaviour, it was suggested to us that their main thoughts at the end of school were about getting home rather than the lessons they had attended that day. Many admitted they reflected upon their schoolwork when they arrived home, when they did their homework or at the end of lessons. We hope that the wording we subsequently adopted cannot be taken quite so literally. We also believe that student access to the internet at home is growing at such a rate that we will need to modify Statement 2.4 in the near future to make the resources used for doing research less specific.

Commentary on data.

Students appear not to reflect upon what they have learnt at school with any regularity. The novelty of secondary school may partly explain why Year 7 students are slightly more reflective: parents may show a high level of interest which may provoke such behaviour. The slight rise in Years 12 and 13 suggests that reflection also occurs more frequently where students have a degree of learning autonomy.

The Likert scores for students knowing how well they are doing at school fall around the mean. There is a dip with girls in Years 9 and 10, and boys in the sixth form seem to have a slightly better knowledge than girls. We have noted above that boys often have a more inflated opinion of their ability than girls, which suggests that boys are misinterpreting at least part of the more frequent feedback they feel they are getting.

The variety of practice in report-writing in schools is reflected in the smaller number of responses made to this particular statement, when compared to others. It would appear that many secondary schools do not require their students to contribute to their reports. The falling away from a Year 7 peak would appear to reflect students' attitudes to filling in Records of Achievement, which they in turn claim to reflect the attitudes of staff. Boys' interest seems to decline dramatically after Year 7 (with a slight revival in Year 12). Girls consistently claim to take more care than boys when contributing to reports.

Students appear not to ask teachers routinely for help. Girls are generally more inclined to ask than boys except in Year 9, where we have found some girls to be highly critical of some teachers' personalities. There is an increase in asking by both genders, however, in the examination period of Years 10 to 13.

Students can generally find the resources they need for lessons. Girls seem to be consistently more proficient than boys (except in Year 10). Again, Year 7 students score highest - this suggests that they are more fastidious in producing the equipment they are required by the school to provide. It also suggests, something confirmed by our own research, that teachers use more independent learning strategies in Year 7 than in the rest of Key Stage 3.

Problem-solving seems to be infrequent except in Year 7, which again suggests a more teacher-directed approach to learning in the rest of Key Stage 3. The almost universal identification of problem-solving with maths may explain why boys, who opt more for maths-based subjects at 'A' level, do more problem-solving than girls in the sixth form.

The frequency of groupwork falls around the mean. Interestingly, girls in all year-groups claim to do more groupwork than boys. Girls' greater enthusiasm for the social aspect of groupwork may mean that they interact more than some boys, who are inclined to work alone even when a group task has been set.

Girls in all years are more inclined than boys to use books for independent research. This may be partly off-set by boys being more prepared to use ICT. There is a marked decline in the use of books for such research in the GCSE years. This may be because teachers rely more upon didactic methods and the production of their own materials to deliver the courses than in other years.

iii Affinity to teachers.

Students generally get on fairly well with their teachers. Girls become less enthusiastic after Year 7, reaching a Year 10 low, but along with boys enjoy teaching relationships in the sixth form.

Students feel that teachers motivate them irregularly. The initial enthusiasm of Year 7 falls away to a Year 10 trough for girls and a Year 11 one for boys. Levels for both genders rise again in the sixth form, where students are presumably buoyed partly by wanting to be in school studying the subjects of their own choice rather than being required to attend.

Teachers are generally perceived as helpful, although students' perceptions follow a similar pattern to their responses about motivation. Girls find teachers least helpful in Year 10, boys in Year 11. Girls in all years except Year 10 find their teachers more helpful than boys.

Discussions with teachers about what work students should do seem infrequent except in the sixth form. Girls again score lowest in Year 10, boys in Years 10 and 11.

iv Learning repertoire.

Lessons appear to decline in interest after Year 7. The comparative leap in Year 11 suggests that teachers use a range of revision activities in trying to boost GCSE results, or that student perceptions are coloured by their desire to do well.

Students generally feel they can cope with different teaching styles. This feeling is strong in Year 7, when students may be inducted into a range of teaching approaches. Girls appear to cope more easily than boys, except in Year 12.

Lessons become less interesting after Year 7, with boys' ratings lowest in Year 11 and girls' in Year 10. Girls find lessons more interesting than boys in every year except Year 7.

Students are taught new ways of working more in Year 7 than in any other year. More girls than boys in each year feel they are taught these new methods.

v Orientation to Learning.

Students tend not to look forward to lessons. Boys in each year look forward to them less than girls. There is some revival of enthusiasm in the sixth form.

Students generally feel they work hard in school. More girls than boys in all years feel they work hard. Both boys and girls fall away from a Year 7 peak, with both genders showing some revival in Year 12. Boys show some enthusiasm in Year 9, the year where students in most schools select their subject options.

Girls in all years appear to work harder at homework than boys. After the initial enthusiasm of Year 7, both genders fall away. Both show some revival in the sixth form, boys from an alarmingly low trough in Year 11.

From a Year 7 peak, students fall away in their enthusiasm for reward systems within their schools. This squares with our own research which suggests that students become disenchanted in Year 9 about merits systems. Girls in all years except Year 10 feel that hard work is rewarded more than boys.

vi Adjustment to school.

Students feel that teachers exercise fair discipline in Year 7, but are less convinced in Years 8 to 10, when student feelings about justice and equity are strongest. More girls than boys in each year feel that teachers are just. Both genders appear happier about this aspect of school in the sixth form.

Students can generally see the sense of school rules. Years 8 to 11 feel less strongly than Year 7 and the sixth form. Girls in Years 9 and 10, where dress codes seem to be strongly enforced, are more discontented than boys.

All students appear to feel that their school attendance is good. There is a slight dip with Year 8 boys.

Students also appear to believe that they behave well in school. Again there is a slight dip with Year 8 boys. Girls in all years feel they behave better than boys. Behaviour appears to be best in the sixth form.

We have commented on the data presented in Figure 3 and the graphs reproduced at the end of the paper. Where we have felt it appropriate, we have conjectured on the reasons for the pattern of student responses. We also feel that certain more general themes emerge from the collective data.

• Students of both genders highlight the high frequency of behaviours over which they feel they have some control, for example school attendance, good behaviour and finding classroom equipment.

• Girls appear to be generally more contented at secondary school than boys. They almost consistently rate the frequency of each behaviour higher than boys in the same year-group.

• The low frequency of student reflection and seeking help from teachers suggests that, in the absence of these key components, students will find it difficult to assess with any accuracy how well they are doing, and how they can improve.

• Opportunities for independent learning seem limited in most schools.

• Teachers use a restricted teaching repertoire which means that students find many lessons uninteresting.

• Despite this, students generally show positive attitudes to work and behaving well.

• Year 7 students are generally enthusiastic about their schools. They take greatest care about what they report to parents, they are best able to access classroom equipment, they find teachers more helpful than other years, they are extremely enthusiastic about their lessons, claim to work harder than other years and are happier with school rules.

• Year 8 boys seem discontented with their lot at school. They appear to be the group least able to self-assess, the group with poorest relationships with teachers and the group whose self-perception of their behaviour is poorest.

• Of the girls, Year 10 seem the most discontented. They are the least reflective of their gender, they use books for independent research least, they have the poorest relationships with their teachers, they enjoy lessons the least and they have most complaints about school rules. Boys show similar traits in Year 11, which may have some impact upon their performance at GCSE.

Ainscow, M., Hargreaves, D., Hopkins, D., Balshaw, M. and Black-Hawkins, K. (1994b) Mapping Change in Schools. The Cambridge Manual of Research Techniques. First Edition. Cambridge: Institute of Education.

Andersson, B.-E. (1996) Why am I in school? A study of Swedish adolescents' perceptions of their school situation. EERA Bulletin, July, p.17-23.

Assessment Reform Group (1999) Assessment for Learning. Beyond the black box. Cambridge: The Assessment Reform Group.

Barnett, T. (1985) Pupil Personality and Styles of Teaching. Pastoral Care, 3 (3), p. 207-215.

Barth, R.S. (1996) Building a Community of Learners. Paper prepared for California School Leadership Center, 1996.

Beresford, J. (1995) Classroom Conditions for School Improvement. A Literature Review. Paper prepared for ICSEI, Learning from Each Other, London, October.

Beresford, J. (1997) Ask the children. Reading, 31 (1), April, p. 17-18.

Beresford, J. (1998) Collecting Information for School Improvement. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Beresford, J. (1999a) Some reflections on the conduct and reporting of inspections in England and Sweden. Paper presented to ICSEI 99, San Antonio, January.

Beresford, J. (1999b) Assessment of Classroom Performance - by pupils? Improving Schools, 2 (2), p. 28-29.

Beresford, J. (1999c) Matching Teaching to Learning. The Curriculum Journal, 10 (3), p. 321-344.

Beresford, J. (work in progress) Classroom Conditions for School improvement: students' views. PhD thesis.

Beresford, J. and Payne, G. (1997) Generating data for school improvement - the role of the external researcher in school improvement. Paper presented to BERA Conference, York, September.

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998a) Inside the black box. Mimeo, King's College, London.

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998b) Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1), p. 7-75.

Blum, R.E. (1997) Learning What Students Think About School Restructuring. In Restructuring Collaborative, op. cit. Chapter 1.

Bowyer, M. (1981) The Independent Learning of a Foreign Language. Forum, 23 (2), p. 41-42.

Boyd, B. and Reeves, J. (1996) Listening to children's voices. Paper presented at BERA Conference, Lancaster, September.

Boyd, B. and Jardine, S. (1997) "Sometimes our views get lost". Listening to young people talking about school. Paper presented at BERA Conference, York, September.

Brophy, J. and Good, T.L. (1986) Teacher behavior and student achievement. In Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan. 3rd edition, chapter 12.

Campbell, I. (1993) Disaffected School Students. Forum, 35 (3), p. 89-90.

Campbell, R. (1986), Social Relationships in Hearing Children Read. Reading, 20 (3), p. 157-167.

Castelijns, J. (1996) Responsive instruction to enhance young children's task motivation. Paper presented to BERA Conference, Lancaster, September.

Centre for Successful Schools, University of Keele (1990) Pupil Survey of School Life. Questionnaire, University of Keele.

Chaplain, R. (1996a) Making a strategic withdrawal: disengagement and self-worth protection in male pupils. (Eds.) Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. op. cit., chapter 8.

Chaplain, R. (1996b) Pupils under pressure: coping with stress at school. (Eds.) Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. op. cit., chapter 9.

Cockett, M. (1996) Improving attendance and reducing disaffection: Finding strategies which last. Paper presented to BERA Conference, Lancaster, September 1996.

Coleman, P. and Collinge, J. (1998) The Good Teacher: A Student Perspective. Paper presented at ICSEI, Manchester.

Consortium on Chicago School Research (1996) Charting Reform in Chicago: The Students Speak. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Cooper, P. and Fielding, M. (1998) The Issue of Student Voice. Paper presented at ICSEI, Manchester, January.

Cunliffe, A. (1995) How do my students believe they learn? Paper presented at Conference of Australian Science Teachers' Association.

Daniels, S. and Welford, G. (1990) Self-assessment: Pleasant Surprise or Harsh Reality? Evaluation and Research in Education, 4 (1), p.1-10.

Dann, R. (1996) Pupil Self-Assessment in the Primary Classroom. A Case for Action. Education 3-13, October, p. 55-59.

Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (1995) Improving the Quality of Schools - ask the clients? School Organisation, 15 (1), p. 5-12.

Day, J. (1996) The Reckoning. In (Eds.) Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. op. cit., Chapter 12.

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H. and Beresford, J. (2000) Leading Schools in Times of Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.

DFEE (1997) Excellence in schools. Cm 3681. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

De Pear, S. (1997) Excluded pupils' views of their educational needs and experiences. Support for Learning, 12 (1), p. 19-22.

Doddington, C., Flutter, J. and Rudduck, J. (1999) Improving Learning: The Pupils' Agenda. A Report for primary schools. Cambridge: Homerton College. April.

Elliott, J. (1997) 'Disaffected pupils': perspectives on the problem. Paper presented to BERA Conference, York, September.

Elliott (Julian), Stewart-Smith, Y. and Hildreth, A. (1997) Attitudes to education - a three nation comparison. Paper presented at BERA Annual Conference, York.

Epstein, J. L. and McPartland, J. M. (1976) The Concept and Measurement of the Quality of School Life. American Educational Research Journal, Winter, 13 (1), p. 15-30.

Faccenda, J. and Fielding, M. (1992) Learning Styles in FE. Model-making Colleges.

Fielding, M. (1994), Valuing difference in teachers and learners: building on Kolb's learning styles to develop a language of teaching and learning. The Curriculum Journal, 5 (3), p. 393-417.

Fielding, M. (1999) Taking Education Really Seriously: two years hard labour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29 (2), p. 173-181. Editorial. June.

Flutter, J., Kershner, R. and Rudduck, J. (1998) Thinking about Learning, Talking about Learning. A report of the Effective Learning Project. Cambridge: Cambridgeshire County Council and Homerton College.

Flutter, J., Rudduck, J., Addams, H., Johnson, M. and Maden, M. (1999) Improving Learning: The Pupils' Agenda. A report for secondary schools. Cambridge: Homerton College. April.

Galloway, D., Leo, E., Rogers, C. and Armstrong, D. (1995) Motivational styles in English and mathematics among children identified as having special educational needs. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, p. 477-487.

Gibbs, S.E. (1989) The Final Frontier. Independent Learning and the Role of the Library. School Librarian, 37 (1), p. 10-11.

Gipps, C. (1992) What We Know About Effective Primary Teaching. London: The Tufnell Press.

Gipps, C. and Tunstall, P. (1997) Effort, ability and the teacher: young children's explanations for success and failure. Paper presented at BERA Conference, York, September. (Also Oxford Review of Education, 24 (2), p. 149-165, 1998)

Gonzalez, G. and Gilbert, J. (1979) 'A' Level Physics by use of an Independent Learning Approach: some case studies of classroom interaction. British Educational Research Journal, 5 (2), p. 185-196.

Gracie, M. (1981) Closely Observed Children. Forum, 23 (2), p. 42-44.

Hacker, R. G. and Carter, D. S. G. (1987) Teaching Processes in Social Studies Classrooms and Prescriptive Instructional Theories.British Educational Research Journal, 13 (3), p. 261-269.

Haroun, R. and O'Hanlon, C. (1997) Do Teachers and Students Agree in their Perception of What School Discipline Is ? Educational Review, 49 (3), p. 237-250.

Harris, A. (1995) Effective Teaching. SIN Research Matters, 3, Summer. London Institute of Education.

Hayes, D. (1993) The Good, The Bad, The Ugly and The Memorable: A Retrospective View of Teacher-Pupil Relationships. Education 3-13, 21 (1), p. 53-59.

Hazelwood, R. D., Fitz-Gibbon, C. and McCabe, C. (1988) Student Perception of Teaching and Learning Styles in TVEI. Evaluation and Research in Education, 2 (2), p. 61-68.

Hickey, C. and Fitzclarence, L. (1999) Peering at the individual: Problems with trying to teach young males not to be like their peers. Paper presented at BERA Annual Conference, Brighton, September.

Homerton-Schools Research Circle (1997) Making Your Way Through Secondary School. Research Briefing. Series 1, Number 2.

Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M. and West, M. (1994) School Improvement in an Era of Change. London, New York: Cassell.

Hopkins, D., West, M. and Beresford, J. (1995) Creating the Conditions for Classroom Improvement. An Interim Report. Paper delivered at ECER, Bath, September.

Hopkins, D., West, M. and Ainscow, M. (1996) Improving the Quality of Education for All: Progress and Challenge. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Hopkins, D., West, M., Ainscow, M., Harris, A. and Beresford, J. (1997) Creating the Classroom Conditions for School Improvement. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Hopkins, D., West, M. and Beresford, J. (1998) Creating the Conditions for Classroom and Teacher Development. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 4 (1), p. 115-141.

Hord, S.M. (1997) Speaking with High School Students in the Southwest. In Restructuring Collaborative, op. cit., Chapter 4.

Hubbard, G. (1997) Pupil-managed co-operative learning: why and how pupils interact and co-operate. Paper presented at BERA Conference, York, September.

Jackson, D., Raymond, L., Weatherill, L. and Fielding, M. (1998) Students as Researchers. Paper presented at ICSEI, Manchester, January.

Joyce, B. and Weil, M. (1986, 3rd edition) Models of Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Joyce, B., Showers, B. and Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1987) Staff Development and Student Learning: A Synthesis of Research on Models of Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45 (2) p.11-23.

Joyce, B., Calhoun, E. and Hopkins, D. (1997) Models of learning - tools for teaching. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Kaminski, F. (1999) Semi-independent Learning: an approach to mixed-ability grouping - a case study. Forum, 41 (2), p. 78-82.

Kershner, R. (1996) The meaning of 'working hard' in school. (Eds.) Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. op.cit., chapter 6.

Keys, W. and Fernandes, C. (1993) What do students think about school ? Slough: NFER.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning. Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kyriacou, C. (1998, 2nd edition) Essential Teaching Skills. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.

Lahelma, E., Hakala, K., Hynninen, P. and Lappalainen, S. (1999) 'We have far too few men!' Analysing the discussion on the need for more male teachers. Paper presented at ECER, Lahti, September.

Levin, B. (1994) Improving Educational Productivity. Putting Students at the Center. Phi Delta Kappan, June, p. 758-760.

Levin, B. (1995) Improving Educational Productivity through a Focus on Learners. Studies in Educational Administration, 60, p. 15-21.

MacBeath, J. (1998) Just think about it. Times Educational Supplement, 10 April.

Maden, M. and Rudduck, J. (1997) Listen to the learners. Times Educational Supplement, 4 July.

Maden, M. and Johnson, M. (1998) Pupil Attitude Surveys - shedding light on dark corners. Paper presented at ICSEI, Manchester, January.

Marzano, R.J., Arredondo, D.E., Brandt, R.S., Pickering, D.J., Blackburn, G.J. and Moffett, C.A. (1992) Dimensions of Learning. Teacher's Manual. Aurora: ASCD/McREL Institute.

Meece, J.L. and Miller, S.D. (1996) Developmental Changes in Children's Self-Reports of Achievement Goals, Competence, and Strategy Use during the late Elementary Years. Paper presented at AERA Annual Conference, New York.

Miller, D., Parkhouse, P., Eagle, R. and Evans, T. (1999) Pupils and the Core Subjects: A Study of the Attitudes of Some Pupils Aged 11-16. Paper presented at BERA, Brighton, September.

Morgan, C. and Morris, G. (1999) Good Teaching and Learning: Pupils and Teachers Speak. Buckingham: Open University Press.

MORI/Campaign For Learning (1998) Attitudes to Learning '98. London: Campaign For Learning.

Newman, E. (1997) Children's Views of School - A Vehicle for developing Teaching Practice. Paper presented at BERA Annual Conference, York, September.

Newton, P. and Harwood, D. (1993) Teaching Styles and Personal and Social Education: How Far Have 'Active Learning' Strategies Permeated the Secondary Curriculum? Pastoral Care, 11 (1), p. 36-42.

Norwich, B. (1998) Developing an inventory of children's class learning approaches. Educational Psychology in Practice, 14 (3), p. 147-155.

Osborn, M. (1997a) When being top is not seen as best. TES, 10 January, p. 14.

Osborn, M. (1997b) Learning, Working and Climbing the Ladder: Pupil Perspectives on Primary Schooling in England and France. Paper presented at ECER, Frankfurt am Main.

Osborne, J. and Collins, S. (1999) Pupils' and Parents' Views of the Role and Value of the Science Curriculum. Paper presented at BERA Annual Conference, Brighton, September.

Parker-Rees, R. (1997) The Tale of a Task: Learning Beyond the Map. In Pollard, A., Thiessen, D. and Filer, A. (Editors) (1997) Children and their Curriculum. The Perspectives of Primary and Elementary School Children. London: The Falmer Press. Chapter 2.

Perkins. P. (1999) Mini-Targets: An Approach to Target Setting. Improving Schools, 2 (1), p. 16-17.

Raynor, D. (1995) Identifying Trends in Pupil Self-assessment at different ability levels. Pastoral Care, June, p. 29-31.

Restructuring Collaborative (1997) Look Who's Talking Now. Student Views of Learning in Restructuring Schools. Portland: Regional Educational Laboratory Network.

Rosenshine, B. and Stevens, R. (1986) Teaching Functions. Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. 3rd edition. Chapter 13. New York: Macmillan.

Rudduck, J. (1995) What can pupils tell us about School Improvement? Paper presented at ICSEI, London, October.

Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. (Eds.) (1996a) School Improvement: What Can Pupils Tell Us? London: David Fulton Publishers.

Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. (1996b) Pupil voices and school improvement.

Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. (Eds.) op. cit., chapter 1.

Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. (1996c) Reviewing the conditions of learning in school. Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. (Eds.) op. cit., chapter 13.

Rudduck, J. and Flutter, J. (1998) The Dilemmas and Challenges of Year 8. Cambridge: Homerton College.

Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum (1996) Teaching for Effective Learning. Dundee: Scottish CCC.

Shaughnessy, J. and Kushman, J.W. (1997) Research in the Hands of Students. In Restructuring Collaborative, op. cit. Chapter 3.

Slavin, R. E. (1993) Cooperative Learning in OECD Countries: Research, Practice and Prevalence. Paper for Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD, September.

Smees, R. and Thomas, S. (1998) Valuing pupils' views about school. British Journal of Curriculum and Assessment, 8 (3), p. 7-9.

Sutcliffe, J. Age weakens thirst for knowledge. Times Educational Supplement, 22 May.

Testerman, J. (1996) Holding At-Risk Students. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (5), p. 364-365. January.

Towler, L. and Broadfoot, P. (1992) Self-assessment in the Primary School. Educational Review, 44 (2), p. 137-151.

Wallace, G. (1996a) Engaging with Learning. (Eds.) Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. op. cit., chapter 5.

Wallace, G. (1996b) Relating to Teachers. (Eds.) Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. op. cit., chapter 3.

Wallace, J. and Wildy, H. (1996) Old Questions for New Schools: What are the students doing? Paper presented at AERA Annual Conference, New York.

Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D. and Walberg, H.J. (1993) Toward a Knowledge Base for School Learning. Review of Educational Research, 63 (3), p. 249-294.

Warrington, M. and Younger, M. (1996) Homework: dilemmas and difficulties. (Eds.) Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. op. cit., chapter 7.

West, M., Hopkins, D. and Beresford, J. (1995) Conditions for School and Classroom Development. Paper delivered at ECER, Bath, September.

West, M. and Beresford, J. (1998) Issues of Equity and Diversity in Classrooms: Some of the problems confronting school improvement programmes. Paper presented at ICSEI 98, Manchester, January.

Wragg, E. (1997) Countdown to the new millenium. Guardian Education, 8 April.

Yaakobi, D. & Sharan, S. (1985) Teacher beliefs and practices: the discipline carries the message. Journal of Education for Teaching, 11 (2), p. 187-199.