4. Overview and Discussion of Findings

In this section, (numbers in bold) refer forward to later sections of the text. See also (R12.1-R12.10).

4.1 The findings of this short, qualitative pilot study cannot be definitive, based as they necessarily are on a very small number of focus group discussions undertaken over a very short time period. Nor was it possible in such a short study to explore in depth the relationship between twin complexities of the pupil's understanding of risk and of the pupil's experience of science in schools. For the same reason, where "ability of pupils" is referred to, it is a subjective judgement.

4.2 However, this pilot study did not set out to be definitive. Rather, it sought to produce rapidly some pointers to further action/investigation, and this it has done. Our findings ring true to much experience, and they do raise important issues which merit further consideration. Webster McCabe Market Research, although experienced in working with young people, had no previous involvement with the risk-related issues dealt with in this study. As a result, they came to the study with no preconceptions of what they would find.

4.3 The terminology used in the report is that used by the young people and teachers themselves, and does not relate precisely to the formal definitions given for example in the 1995 HSE Discussion Document "Generic Terms and Concepts in the Assessment and Regulation of Industrial Risks".

4.4 The study found little evidence of lasting awareness of such curriculum support materials as those produced for the IChemE "Boxes into Schools" project even in those schools said to have received them (R1.3). The need for a longer term approach is already recognised by IChemE and the second phase of the "Boxes into Schools" Project will involve a network of local advisers to promote and support the use of these materials by busy teachers. Pupils interviewed also reported little awareness of safety campaigns conducted outside school or even of the active school-scientist/engineer partnership schemes which many schools reported to be pursuing (R1.6; R7.5).

4.5 The findings raise important questions about the effectiveness of curriculum materials which are delivered "one-off top-down" to schools. Where support materials are provided for schools, they should meet the long term needs of teachers in schools and should be seen by teachers as being of real value in the classroom. This requires that teachers should be fully involved in devising the materials, that the materials should evolve in response to teacher experience of their use, and that the teachers using them should be supported through INSET and in other ways.

4.6 There are important pointers to the need to establish a much better relationship of partnership and trust with the teaching profession on issues related to risk. In this teachers are no different from other sections of the community, and there are echoes of similar concerns expressed at the discussion on "Risk and Its Effects on Public Attitudes to Scientific, Engineering and Technological Developments" at the Building Bridges to Science COPUS Forum, Edinburgh, 1997 (informal notes of the discussion available from Eric Albone).

4.7 As in all things, the teacher is the key facilitator of pupil learning to understand and manage risk. The study however encountered considerable scepticism, even some cynicism, particularly among primary school teachers, in relation to the risks presented by science to the community (R7.9, R7.10, R11.4).

4.8 In addition, many teachers, both primary and secondary, felt so vulnerable in the classroom that their major emphasis was to seek to cocoon pupils from exposure to all possible hazard and to teach a rote approach to safety (R8.4, R8.5, R9.5). It is highly questionable how far such an approach to these issues prepares pupils for life in the real world. Real concern was expressed, both in the study and subsequently, that although there is now very great emphasis on safe teaching, we are failing adequately to teach safety.

4.9 One of many additional examples of this feeling of vulnerability was given by a primary school teacher who reported that she would not now allow any pupil to carry her china coffee cup back to the staff room for her in case the child might fall, break the cup and get cut. The LEA concerned knew of no guidance issued to that effect. Another not untypical example is the flurry of concern which erupted in the press about the safety of using of toilet roll tubes as materials from which pupils have for years constructed models and other objects - an extremely important resource particularly at a time when primary school budgets are so meagre (see for example "Artistic life of the toilet roll cut short by disease" Times Educational Supplement, June 7, 1996). This was countered by the CLEAPSS Primary Science and Technology Newsletter (8) Summer 1997 advice that "we do not believe there is a significant problem... we were not given any evidence to support a ban". However this nervousness is a fact of life, and it can hardly enhance the development of a balanced pupil attitude to risk.

4.10 Even so, the study findings are very encouraging in pointing to a great deal of wisdom and good sense displayed in the responses of many pupils (R3.10, R5.1). In a number of cases, understanding clearly developed as the result of discussion between pupils within the focus group itself (R3.4, R7.3, R7.5, R7.7, R7.8). There is a continuing need to make explicit the relevance of what is taught in school under a science heading with the real world situation outside school (R3.2, R10.1).

4.11 Many pupils were well aware that attitudes to risk had important non-rational components, and that feelings mattered a great deal (R3.6-R3.10, R5.3-R5.5, R6.5, R6.7). In particular, the importance of the attitudes of their peers, and of the familiarity of context of the risk were important. Pupils also reported that direct personal encounter (themselves or a friend) with the experience of injury or harm had a major impact on their attitudes (R4.3), and that news items on TV and also realistic drama with which the pupils identified also had a major impact (R4.2, R4.5). There is in this a pointer to the potential importance of seeking to work with groups of young people themselves in devising strategies for addressing issues concerned with communicating understandings of risk.

4.12 Throughout the study, it is clear that pupil understanding of risk arises in many contexts and that real life experience is particularly important. From this it follows that teaching pupils understandings and skills to deal with risk involves not only teaching facts and procedures, but also teaching pupils to recognise and deal with the non-rational factors, such as peer pressure, which colour attitudes and influence decisions in all people.

4.13 The way in which science is taught should make an important contribution to the pupil's understanding of risk. This is certainly the intention of the National Curriculum for Science. Rather little of this came across in this study, possibly because of the brevity of the study but possibly also because "teaching safety" (rather than merely "teaching safely"), teaching pupils to develop in their understanding of risk through science is in its infancy.

4.14 Certainly the link with reality which comes from science practical work, is much valued by pupils (R9.12), although circumstances (time; resources; worries about safety) are such that some teachers now feel less able to devote the time they would wish to realistic experimentation (R9.2). Risk clearly must be taught in a real context, rather than in abstract, and the potential contribution of pupil involvement in "science for real" partnerships which transcend the world of school was not explored in this study. Such partnerships as yet touch only a minority of pupils and it happened that these were not among the small sample interviewed.

4.14 Dr Jenny McWhirter's important literature review (1996), commissioned by RoSPA and dealing with the development of children's understanding of safety related concepts "Spiralling into Control" sheds important light on the way the perception of risk develops with age.

Thus, very young children focus on imaginary danger (ghosts, etc) or extreme hazards, and their response to these, and also to the real hazards they encounter, is to hide or run away even if this is inappropriate. They also believe that inanimate objects can have intentions to harm and it is important not to use language which enhances that belief. At an early age they cannot deal with abstract concepts, such as risk, and even at the age of 10, 50% believe that it is someone else's responsibility to keep them safe. Also the ability to see a situation from another persons point of view, which also has implications for attitudes to risk, develops with age. The following listing is taken from McWhirter's review paper.

McWhirter also points to the key role of the teacher:

"The curriculum should provide opportunities for pupils to develop their knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes building on the stage they have already reached. This will certainly involve challenging their understanding by providing appropriate information and activity tailored to their needs... Keeping safe is a practical skill and should be taught in an active way. Learning by your mistakes in the real world is risky but teachers and health professionals can provide controlled, structured settings which challenge children's strategies for keeping safe and extend their knowledge and skills... As adults we must avoid blaming children for accidents in which they are involved, helping them to learn from their mistakes... the shift of responsibility from an adult to the young person needs to be carefully managed..."

All this requires a degree of confidence about risk which was not abundantly evident in the teachers interviewed in this study.

McWhirter's review also points to remarkable gaps in our present knowledge which are very relevant to the concerns of this Report. These include the current lack of any systematic study of educational initiatives where the focus is to develop the young person's understanding of risk, and the lack of crucial research knowledge of the adolescent's understanding of risk.

Previous page...

Next page...

Return to index...

Home page...