School Improvement Through Performance Feedback 1st Edition A J Visscher R Coe

School Improvement Through Performance Feedback
1st Edition A J Visscher R Coe download
https://ebookbell.com/product/school-improvement-through-
performance-feedback-1st-edition-a-j-visscher-r-coe-51277328
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
School Improvement Through Drama A Creative Whole Class Whole School
Approach Spi Patrice Baldwin
https://ebookbell.com/product/school-improvement-through-drama-a-
creative-whole-class-whole-school-approach-spi-patrice-baldwin-2404784
Now Classrooms Leaders Guide Enhancing Teaching And Learning Through
Technology A School Improvement Plan For The 21st Century 1st Edition
Meg Ormiston Cathy Fisher Jamie Reilly Courtney Orzel Jordan Garrett
Robin Bruebach Steven M Griesbach Becky Fischer
https://ebookbell.com/product/now-classrooms-leaders-guide-enhancing-
teaching-and-learning-through-technology-a-school-improvement-plan-
for-the-21st-century-1st-edition-meg-ormiston-cathy-fisher-jamie-
reilly-courtney-orzel-jordan-garrett-robin-bruebach-steven-m-
griesbach-becky-fischer-51625302
School Improvement For All A Howto Guide For Doing The Right Work
Drive Continuous Improvement And Student Success Using The Plc Process
1st Edition Sharon V Kramer Sarah Schuhl
https://ebookbell.com/product/school-improvement-for-all-a-howto-
guide-for-doing-the-right-work-drive-continuous-improvement-and-
student-success-using-the-plc-process-1st-edition-sharon-v-kramer-
sarah-schuhl-51609760
Systemic School Improvement Interventions In South Africa 1st Edition
Godwin Khosa
https://ebookbell.com/product/systemic-school-improvement-
interventions-in-south-africa-1st-edition-godwin-khosa-51299128

From School Improvement To Sustained Capacity The Parallel Leadership
Pathway Francis A Crowther
https://ebookbell.com/product/from-school-improvement-to-sustained-
capacity-the-parallel-leadership-pathway-francis-a-crowther-6722194
Beyond School Improvement The Journey To Innovative Leadership 1st
Edition Robert D Davidovich Pauline M Nikolay Bonnie Laugerman Carol A
Commodore
https://ebookbell.com/product/beyond-school-improvement-the-journey-
to-innovative-leadership-1st-edition-robert-d-davidovich-pauline-m-
nikolay-bonnie-laugerman-carol-a-commodore-51239486
The School Improvement Specialist Field Guide 1st Edition Debra L Page
Judith A Hale
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-school-improvement-specialist-field-
guide-1st-edition-debra-l-page-judith-a-hale-51251418
Sustainable School Improvement Patricia Wright
https://ebookbell.com/product/sustainable-school-improvement-patricia-
wright-56826108
Beyond School Improvement Davidovich Robert Pauli Nikolay Bonnie
Laugerman Carol Commodore Rick Stiggins
https://ebookbell.com/product/beyond-school-improvement-davidovich-
robert-pauli-nikolay-bonnie-laugerman-carol-commodore-rick-
stiggins-59494500

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
THROUGH PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK

CONTEXTS OF LEARNING
Classrooms, Schools and Society
Managing Editors:
Bert Creemers,
GION, Groningen, The Netherlands.
David Reynolds,
School of Education, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Sam Stringfield, Center for the Social Organization of Schools, John Hopkins
University, USA.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT THROUGH
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK
EDITED BY
ADRIE J. VISSCHER
University ofTwente, The Netherlands
AND
ROBERTCOE
University of Durham, UK
I~ ~~~;~;n~~~up
LONDON AND NEW YORK

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Applied for
Copyright © 2002 Routledge
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without written prior permission from the publishers.
Although all care is taken to ensure the integrity and quality of this publication and
the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the
author for any damage to property or persons as a result of operation or use of this
publication and/or the information contained herein.
Published by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OXl4 4RN
270 Madison Ave, New York NY 10016
Transferred to Digital Printing 2008
ISBN I 0: 90-265-1933-8 (hbk)
ISBNlO: 0-415-43223-5 (pbk)
ISBN13: 978-90-265-1933-8 (hbk)
ISBN13: 978-0-415-43223-8 (pbk)
ISSN 1384-1181
Publisher's Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this
reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original
may be apparent
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Contents
Introduction xi
The School Performance Feedback Concept xi
The Origins of School Performance Feedback Systems xii
Structure
of the Book xv
References xviii
PART 1 Theoretical Introduction
Chapter 1 Evidence on the Role and Impact
of Performance Feedback
in Schools 3
1.1 Introduction 3
1.1.1 A Complex Picture 4
1.1.2 Towards a Conceptualisation
of 'Feedback' 5
1.1.3 Development
of Theory 7
1.1.4 Contexts for Performance
10
1.2 Relevant Research on Feedback Effects 11
1.2.1 Research on Feedback to Learners 11
1.2.2 Research on Feedback in
Organisational Settings 12
1.2.3 Specific Research on Feedback to Teachers/Schools 13
1.3 Conclusions and Discussion 17
1.3.1 Summary of Evidence about Feedback Effects 17
1.3.2 Implications for Practice 20
References 23
Chapter 2 A Typology of Indicators 27
2.1 Introduction 27
2.2 Rationale for a Typology
of Indicators 28
2.3 A Typology
of Indicators for Education 29
2.4 Cross-classifications and Links 32
2.5
Unit of Analysis -Another Dimension 33
2.6 There's Many a Slip Twixt Cup and Lip 33
2.7 Time 34
2.8 Innovations
or Inventions 34
2.9 Indicators and Evidence-based Practice and Policies
35
2.10 The Need for an 'Evidence-based' Kitemark 36
2.11 Indicators are not enough -Experiments are needed, urgently 37
References 37

Chapter 3 A Framework for Studying School Perfonl1ance Feedback
Systems
41
3.1 Introduction 41
3.2 The Factors that Matter 42
3.3 Conclusion
65
Acknowledgement 67
References 68 PART 2 Evidence on School Perfonl1ance Feedback
Chapter 4 The ABC+ Model for School Diagnosis, Feedback,
and Improvement
75
4.1 Introduction 75
4.2 Country (and State) Specific History and Context 76
4.2.1 An Overview
of Education Accountability in the USA 76
4.2.2 Education Accountability in Louisiana: Tracking
the National Model
78
4.2.3 Achieving Outcomes through a Focus on
Process:
The ABC+ Model 80
4.3 Evolution and Features of The ABC+ Model 82
4.3.1 Development
of the ABC+ Model 82
4.3.2 A Description
of the ABC+ Diagnostic and Feedback System 83
4.3.3 General Considerations Regarding the Feedback System 87
4.3.4 Assumptions of the ABC+ Model 89
4.4 Goals and Descriptions
of the Research
Process used in Three
Applications
of the ABC+ Model
90
4.4.1 Goals and Description of the SEAP-process 91
4.4.2 Goals and Description of the SAM Process 94
4.4.3 Goals and Description
of the East Baton Rouge Title I
Project 97
4.5 Features
of Three Applications of the ABC+ Model 98
4.5.1
Performance Dimensions Covered 98
4.5.2 Features of the SEAP Analysis Model 98
4.5.3 Features of SAM 100
4.5.4 Features of the EBR Title I Project 101
4.6 Case Studies from One Application of the ABC+ Model:
the EBR Title I Project 102
4.7 Feedback Given, Assistance Offered, and Effects from Three
Applications
of the ABC+ Model 104
4.8 Recommendations 109
Acknowledgement 110
Acronyms Used
in the Text of This Chapter
III
References 112

Chapter 5 Using School Effectiveness as a Knowledge Base for
Self-evaluation in Dutch Schools: the ZEBO-project
115
5.1 Introduction 115
5.2 The Dutch Context 117
5.3 The Development and Rationale
of the
ZEBO Project 119
5.4 ZEBO-PI: Content, Procedures, Feedback and Support 122
5.4.l Content
of ZEBO-PI 122
5.4.2 Procedure 127
5.4.3 Feedback and Support 127
5.5 The
Use of Feedback 130
5.5.1 Content and Clearness of the School Report, Recognisability of
the Results l32
5.5.2 Content and Clearness of the Classroom Report, Recognisability
of the Results 132
5.5.3 Validation
of Results l33
5.5.4 Dissemination and Discussion
of the Results l33
5.5.5 Comparing with Results
of Other Evaluations 134
5.5.6
Using ZEBO-PI for Improvement l34
5.5.7 Support l35
5.5.8 Conditions for Successful Self-evaluation l35
5.5.9 Suggestions for Improvement and extending
ZEBO-PI Instruments
l36
5.6 Lessons Learnt and Recommendations for Self-evaluation
and School Improvement 136
References
141
Chapter 6 Jolts and Reactions: Two Decades of Feeding Back
Information on Schools' Performance
143
6.l Introduction 143
6.2 The Case Study LEAs 145
6.3 The Current Performance Frameworks 146
6.4 The Development
of More Sophisticated Value-added
Frameworks for Comparison and Interpretation 148
6.5 Challenging Self-Images 149
6.6 Types
of Support Offered to Schools
150
6.7 Characteristics of Usage in Schools 152
6.8 Case Studies
of Schools 153
6.8.1 Attending to Some Basics 153
6.8.2 Building for a Broader Agenda 156
6.9 Cultures for the
Use of Information about Performance 157
6.l0 Direct Impact on Performance 159
6.11 Conclusions 160
Acknowledgements 161
References 161

Chapter 7 Performance Feedback to Schools of Students' Year 12
Assessments: The VCE Data Project 163
7.1 Introduction 163
7.2 History and Context 164
7.3 Project Description, Goals and Parties Involved 167
7.3.1 Basic Premise of Improvement 168
7.3.2 Context and Rationale for the Project 169
7.3.3 'Value-added'
and' Ability' -adjusted Measures 171
7.3.4 Responses to and Management of the Information 178
7.4 Lessons Learnt From the
Project 181
7.5 Concluding Comments 182
References 185
Chapter 8 Performance Indicators in Primary Schools 191
8.1 Introduction 191
8.2 Historical Context 192
8.3 Project Goals 193
8.4 Project Rationale 194
8.5 Historical Development
195
8.6 Features of the
Project 197
8.6.1 Data Collected 197
8.6.2 Outcome Indicators 198
8.6.3 Performance Standards Used 199
8.6.4 Units and Methods of Analysis 199
8.6.5 Data Collection, Analysis and Distribution 200
8.6.6 Presentation of Feedback 201
8.6.7 Confidentiality 206
8.7 Support for Schools 207
8.8 The Use of Data by Schools 208
8.9 The Relationship between PIPS and its Users 210
8.10 Empirical Evidence for a Positive Impact 212
8.11 Challenges 216
References 218
PART 3 Conclusions, Reflections and Recommendations
Chapter 9 Drawing up the Balance Sheet for School Performance
Feedback Systems 221
9.1 Introduction 221
9.2 Application of the Visscher Framework 222
9.2.1 Some General Conclusions on the Comparison with
the Framework 242
9.3 Discussion 243
9.4 Directions for Future Research 250
References 253
Index 255

Introduction
Robert Coe* & Adrie J. Visscher**
* University
of Durham, England
**University
of Twente, The Netherlands
In this introduction to the book the central concept
of 'school performance
feedback' will be defined first. Thereafter, attention will be paid to when
these systems came into existence and with which reasons. Finally, the
structure
of the book will be presented including information on the content
of each of the chapters.
The School Performance Feedback Concept
This book is about school performance feedback systems (SPFSs), that is to
say, information systems external to schools that provide them with
confidential information on their performance and functioning
as a basis for
school self-evaluation. Such systems have become widespread in education
in many parts
of the world. They share a goal of seeking to maintain and
improve the quality
of schools, and arise out of a belief in the power of
feedback to learn, and to produce change, often accompanied by a sense of
disillusionment at the lack of impact of other models of school
improvement.
This definition requires some explanation. The need for systems to be
external excludes informal, self-generated feedback of the kind that all
schools will have, and requires that the feedback be explicitly defined and
collected -part
of a system, rather than naturally occurring.

xii ROBERT CaE & ADRIE 1. VISSCHER
The word confidential separates SPFSs from systems of public school
performance accountability and for the support
of school choice, which
have rather different aims. Confidential information might also be provided
to local education authorities, school districts, or to governing bodies and
school boards, but the focus should be for school self-evaluation rather than
for public judgement.
It is acknowledged, however, that these three kinds of
aims (accountability, school improvement, support of school choice) in
practice sometimes are hard to separate and that some systems try to serve
as well accountability/school choice on the one hand
as school improvement
goals on the other, despite the tensions that are inherent between them.
The interpretation
of the content of information on -the school's
performance or functioning - must be taken broadly. School performance
here is likely to mean some kind
of contextualised measure for fair
comparison, adjusted to take account
of factors beyond the control of the
school. In the context
of students' academic achievements this is what has
come to be known as 'value added'. However, it is important to note that
'performance' may equally relate to other, non-academic outcomes
of
schooling (e.g. behavioural and affective), and may also include absolute as
well as adjusted performance measures. Information on the
'functioning' of
schools here relates to organisational and school process measures like the
resources spent, the subject matter taught, the instructional methods used,
etc.
A final essential component
of the definition is that the feedback should
provide a basis for
self-evaluation. This is a requirement more about its
aims than its actual use, since the latter will be known only after the
SPFS
has been implemented. However, the implication is that the feedback should
not simply have the potential to be used for self-assessment, but that such
judgements, once they have been made, should lead to some kind
of action,
e.g. the closer investigation where and why the schools underperforms, and,
thereafter, the development
of a school improvement policy.
The Origins of School Performance Feedback Systems
In schools, as in other organisations, a variety
of forms of informal and self
generated performance feedback has always existed; the most important
ones being student achievement scores. A number
of factors seem to have
contributed to the growth
of more formal school performance feedback
systems in many countries over the last twenty or
so years.
In many western countries in the
1980s and 1990s the rise of a political
climate
of public sector accountability can be observed. Although education
was not the first political sector where the government and taxpayers
wanted to have information on 'how their money had been spent' this

INTRODUCTION xiii
principle soon also made its entrance there. The pressure to evaluate and
report on the performance
of publicly funded educational institutions in
England for example is reflected by the publication
of league tables ranking
schools according to students' achievements, and by the creation
of a
formalised inspection regime (Ofsted, the Office for Standards in
Education). Although neither
of these is a SPFS in the sense defined above,
it is arguable that these kinds
of initiatives helped to create a climate in
which school performance feedback might be seen
as more salient than
previously.
Related to the accountability trend is the trend towards decentralisation
in the administration
of educational systems. Because of the fact that
schools have become more free in making local decisions on what will
happen within their organisations, they are more likely to seek the kind
of
information they can utilise for school quality control, i.e. some sort of
SPFS. Publicly available school performance indicators tended to be very
global and did not provide a basis for detecting and solving the cause(s)
of
underperformance. The latter required more detailed information.
Moreover, there is some evidence (e.g. Murdoch
& Coe, 1997) that
schools' perceptions
of the unfairness of the public judgements of their
effectiveness (cf. Visscher,
2001, for an overview of the drawbacks of
public school performance indicators) were often a factor in their choice to
implement a confidential value added school monitoring system. The
published school performance information included average raw
achievement
of a school's students which did not adjust for relevant features
of the student intake (e.g. the intake achievement levels of a school's
student population). Schools wanted more accurate and fairer data on their
own performance -among other things, to be sure about their performance
and about whether improvement was really needed or not. Value added
school performance information could often also be used as a defence to
parents and other stakeholders.
Another development that may have contributed to the attempt to
improve schools by feeding back information to them on how they 'are
doing' may have been the progress made in research in the twin fields
of
school effectiveness and school improvement. The former line of research
has resulted in a knowledge base (Scheerens
& Bosker, 1997) that can be
utilised in developing systems to monitor the quality
of schools (see for
example the chapter on the ZEBO-project). In several countries researchers
saw opportunities to apply the scientific progress that had been made over
the years in order to provide high quality school feedback, and for school
improvement (e.g. the body
of knowledge on how and where schools differ
in performance and school processes, how school performance can be
assessed accurately, which school characteristics prove to be associated with

xiv ROBERT COE & AORIE J. VISSCHER
school effectiveness and which features of evaluative data promote their
utilisation).
The other area, the field
of research on school improvement, may have
influenced the development
of SPFSs too, as scientific activity there showed
that educational change initiatives imposed upon schools were often not
very successful.
If schools themselves were convinced that something
needed to be changed, then 'ownership'
of the innovation and success were
much more probable. Receiving information on how your school is doing in
comparison with similar schools may be a powerful way to make you aware
-and determined -that something needs to be changed in your
organisation.
The increase in feeding back performance indicators to schools has also
been influenced by the development
of multi-level and value-added data
analysis models which enable the computation
of more reliable and valid
information on school functioning. The availability
of computerised systems
for information processing has made a significant contribution to the
logistics
of school performance feedback (cf. Visscher, Wild & Fung,
2001).
Some authors are pretty pessimistic about whether the kind of
correlational analysis carried out in school effectiveness research will
provide a basis for improving schools that differ in performance and that
operate in differing environments. In the perspective
of these authors,
schools are seen as differing strongly. In Chapter 3
of this book Visscher
refers to various school improvement experts (Dalin, 1998; McLaughlin,
1998; Miles, 1998) who stress the local variability
of schools, implying that
general, centrally developed policies and reform strategies will not lead to
educational change in all schools. Those authors think that schools differ so
much with respect to their performance levels (and the underlying reasons
for them), their innovation capacities and contextual characteristics, that
change efforts should take much more account
of what is called the 'power
of site or place'. Smith (1998) goes a step further. He states that as
practitioners know their educational practice best they should state the goals
and changes to be worked on and, after extensive training, try to accomplish
those. Adaptation to the user-context can then be achieved. A SPFS
maya
valuable tool within this perspective on school improvement, providing
timely, high-quality information on how a school 'is doing'
as a basis for
practitioner-led improvement actions. That may help practitioners in finding
problems in their schools as well as in solving them, before it is too late. An
important additional effect may also be that practitioners gain a better
insight into how their school works (enlightenment) and which interventions
work best in their situation.
Related to the pessimism
of the school improvement authors is the view
of Glass (1979) who regards 'education' as a very complex, highly

INTRODUCTION xv
uncertain and unpredictable system on which we possess only incomplete
knowledge. We should not
try to find eternal truths about which of several
things works well in particular circumstances, as a basis for planning and
manipulating education at a large distance from the teaching-learning
process in schools. What should be done is the diligent monitoring
of the
system while the services are highly decentralised, the actors are flexible,
and can choose from options what they consider best (instead
of precisely
implementing a universal approach that has been developed somewhere
at a
higher level).
Support for gradual, local interventions to improve may also be found in
the work
of Dahl and Lindblom (1963) who advocate the political theory of
pluralism. Although their work focuses not on schools but on societies, it
can be translated to the world
of schools quite well. In the view of Dahl and
Lindblom, instead
of goal-consensus among citizens competition between
them and the goals each has is a reality. The authors, therefore, hold a plea
for defining goals and values in a concrete context instead
of on the basis of
abstract goals. Those who have to decide simply do not possess enough
information and know-how on the system to be controlled to take solid
decisions. They recommend working on a trial and error basis: try to solve
manageable, short-term problems incrementally by making testable
interventions. This would lead to continuous adaptation and, hopefully,
improvement and also be more effective than taking big steps forward that
usually do not work.
Structure of the Book
This book consists of three parts. In the first part (Chapters 1 to 3) school
performance feedback is put in perspective by conceptualising it, presenting
the evidence we have on how feedback works, by presenting reflections on
the indicators that may be fed back, and by presenting a framework with the
variables that may influence the usage and effects
of
SPFSs. In Chapter 1,
Robert Coe summarises the evidence from the psychological, organisational
and educational literature on the effects
of performance feedback. Although
little
of this evidence comes directly from school contexts it includes
valuable information that can be translated to our topic. For example,
certain characteristics
of the feedback contents, of the way it is given, of the
nature
of the task about which information is fed back, and of the context in
which the feedback arises and is used prove to influence whether the
feedback enhances or depresses future performance.
In Chapter 2, Carol Fitz-Gibbon presents a typology
of school quality
indicators - a system for classifying and analysing the types
of information
that can be collected, and hence fed back to schools. A three-dimensional
classification is proposed, with the domains monitored, the timing
of data

XVI ROBERT COE & AORIE J. VISSCHER
collection and the unit of analysis forming its axes. Fitz-Gibbon clearly
illustrates the applications
of the typology and goes on to warn of the
difficulties
of interpreting evidence from indicator systems, and the need for
experimental studies, to determine the effects
of interventions in educational
systems.
Adrie Visscher thereafter provides a framework for the analysis
of the
usage
of school performance feedback systems and their effects in Chapter
3. The framework recognises the importance
of the nature of the
environment in which schools operate and which differs between them, but
also identifies three main classes
of variables that influence the way a SPFS
will be used and hence its intended and unintended effects. These classes
are the organisational features
of the school, the characteristics of the
implementation process, and the nature
of the SPFS itself (the last of which
is in tum influenced by the process
of its design). Visscher draws on an
enormous range
of school improvement, educational management, and other
literature and identifies some
35 variables within the classes that he
supposes to be important in understanding the usage and effects of SPFSs.
The second part (Chapters 4 to
8) of the book contains descriptions and
analyses
of a series of school performance feedback systems from around
the world. Many
of them are apparently very successful, in terms of their
popularity with schools and administrators (which is not self-evident at all
for innovations introduced into educational practice!).
The editors asked the authors
of these chapters to address the following
topics in the analysis
of their SPFSs:
• The basic idea(s) about what leads to school improvement on which their
SPFS-project is based, the project goals and involved parties.
• The SPFS-design strategy followed.
• The SPFS-features: domains monitored, units of analysis, the procedures
for data-collection, -analysis, -dissemination, and the way
of
information-presentation. • The support schools receive in interpreting and using the SPFS
information.
• Empirical evidence on the usage of fed back information in schools.
• The match between the nature of performance feedback and the nature of
schools as organisations.
• Evidence on the effects of school performance feedback.
• The problems experienced in attempting to improve schools VIa
performance feedback, and the factors that seem decisive for success.
In Chapter 4, Charles Teddlie, Susan Kochan and Dianne Taylor present
an approach to school performance feedback that has been developed in

INTRODUCTION XVII
Louisiana, USA. Their ABC+ Model incorporates school process data into a
school accountability system so that it can be used by schools for feedback,
diagnosis and improvement. The authors describe the development,
implementation and effects
of three different applications of the Louisiana
model, and conclude with some interesting lessons learnt from that process.
Chapter 5 contains an account by Maria Hendriks, Simone Doolaard and
Roel Bosker
of the ZEBO-project (an acronym for 'self-evaluation in
primary education' in Dutch) in the Netherlands, focusing particularly on the
measurement
of school process indicators within that project.
ZEBO is a
SPFS designed specifically to support primary schools
in quality assurance
and
is particularly noteworthy for its concern with the psychometric
qualities
of the school performance measurements. Also of interest is that
the school performance indicators measured have been based on the school
features that are shown by school effectiveness research to be associated
with school effectiveness.
John Gray provides an interesting account in Chapter 6
of his
involvement in SPFSs in the
United Kingdom over a number of years.
Drawing on case studies
of schools in two Local Education Authorities, he
describes how the focus has changed from a concern with understanding
school effectiveness through producing national systems
of accountability,
to developing the use
of such systems for school improvement. Alongside
this change
of focus has been a corresponding change in the kinds of data
collected and the models used for their analysis. Gray points to some
valuable lessons that have been learnt by the schools and LEAs
in the
acceptance and use
of feedback and in their responses to it. He also
identifies factors associated with schools' improvement and some potential
pitfalls in the use
of performance feedback.
In Chapter
7, Ken Rowe, Ross Turner and Kerry Lane describe a project
conducted in the state
of Victoria, Australia, to promote school
improvement through the use
of performance feedback using specific,
contextualised data to help schools to monitor their own effectiveness. The
chapter includes detailed responses from schools to the data, and the
overwhelmingly positive nature
of these responses is testimony to the
quality
of the feedback and, just as importantly, the care taken in its
presentation to schools.
Chapter 8 presents information on the development and characteristics
of
the Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS) project in the
United
Kingdom, by Peter Tymms and Stephen Albone. PIPS is part of a suite of
projects from Durham University that are unique in the way they have
evolved in response to demand from schools. Of particular interest in this
chapter are the lengths to which the authors have gone to systematically
evaluate the effects
of involvement in the project for the schools, and to
apply the same preference for data over opinion in their judgements about

XVJlJ ROBERT COE & ADRIE 1. VISSCHER
PIPS that they encourage the schools who use it to apply to their judgements
about their own effectiveness.
Chapter 9 makes up the third and final part
of the book, in which Adrie
Visscher and Robert Coe marshal and reflect on the evidence about the
implementation, use and impact
of systems of school performance feedback
presented in part
2. The perspectives presented by Coe, Fitz-Gibbon, and
Visscher in Chapters
1, 2 and 3 respectively are used to structure this
analytical enterprise. The authors
of Chapter 9 also formulate
recommendations for the design
of school performance feedback systems,
and the ways in which schools should be supported in using information for
school improvement, based on the lessons learnt from what has been tried,
and evaluated so
far. Finally, the editors formulate directions for future
research.
References
Dahl, R. & Lindblom, C. (1963). Politics. economics. and welfare: planning and
politico-economic systems resolved into basic social processes.
New
York:
Harper.
Dalin,
P. (1998). Developing the twenty-first century school: a challenge to
reformers.
In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (eds.),
International Handbook of Educational Change (vol. 5, pp.l 059-1 073).
DordrechtiBostoni London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Glass, G.V. (1979). Policy for the unpredictable (uncertainty research and policy).
Educational Researcher,
October, 12-14.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1998). Listening and learning from the field: tales
of policy
implementation and situated practice.
In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M.
Fullan & D. Hopkins (eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change
(vol. 5, pp.70-84). DordrechtiBostoniLondon: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Miles, M.B. (1998). Finding Keys to School Change: A 40-year
Odyssey. In A.
Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (eds.), International
Handbook
of Educational Change (vol. 5, pp.37-39). DordrechtiBoston/London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Murdoch,
K. and Coe, R. (1997). Working with ALlS: a study of how schools and
colleges are using a value added and attitude indicator system.
Durham: School
of Education, University of Durham,
United Kingdom.
Scheerens,
J. & Bosker, RJ. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Visscher,
AJ.
(2001, in press). Public school performance indicators: problems and
recommendations.
Studies in Educational Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION XIX
Visscher, AJ., Wild, P., & Fung, A. (eds.) (2001). Information Technology in
Educational Management; synthesis of experience, research and future
perspectives on computer-assisted school information systems.
Dordrecht/BostoniLondon: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

This page intentionally left blank

PART!
Theoretical Introduction

This page intentionally left blank

1
Evidence on the Role and
Impact
of Performance
Feedback in Schools
Robert Coe
University
of Durham, England
1.1 Introduction
There can be few statements in social science more likely to gain popular
agreement than the claim that giving feedback can improve a person's
performance on a task -and few topics that have been the subject of more
research. The use
of performance feedback in schools and other
organisations
is becoming more widespread every year and often presented
as needing no justification. However, the evidence about feedback effects is
mixed, complex and not well understood. Research results indicate that
feedback can be beneficial
to future performance, but it can also do harm.
Moreover, the relative lack
of evidence derived specifically from school
contexts makes it hard to predict confidently what the effects will be
in any
particular case.

4 ROBERTCOE
This chapter sets out to review what is known about feedback effects,
drawing on empirical evidence and theoretical understandings from
education, psychology and organisational behaviour. After a brief
consideration of the complexity
of feedback research, it will attempt to
clarify what
is meant by 'feedback'. A number of the theories that have
been proposed to account for the mechanisms
of feedback effects will be
examined. The conceptualisation of 'performance feedback' also requires
that different kinds
of 'performance' be defined, and research from three
particular contexts will be examined: feedback in learning, feedback on
performance
in organisational settings and, most relevant to the present
context, school performance feedback. The chapter will then attempt to
summarise the evidence about the effects of performance feedback in
relation to specific characteristics
of the feedback and of the task. Finally, it
will consider some
of the reasons for the difficulty of making predictions
about the impact
of feedback, particularly in school contexts.
1.1.1 A Complex Picture
Published research on feedback effects is extensive in terms of both its
quantity and the length of its history. Much of this research seems to be
characterised
by an apparent clarity about the benefits of feedback, despite
often seeming very unclear about precisely what 'feedback'
is or what kinds
of 'performance' may be helped by it. For example, Ammons' (1956)
influential review was already able to draw
on over
50 years of research and
concluded:
Almost universally, where knowledge of their performance is given to
one group and knowledge is effectively withheld or reduced
in the
case
of another group, the former group learns more rapidly, and
reaches a higher level
of proficiency. (p. 283).
However, many of the studies reviewed by Ammons, and subsequently
by others, did
in fact contain inconsistencies with this belief, but were
regarded
as anomalies or ignored (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Indeed, the
plausible view that feedback generally enhances performance
is still
prevalent
in the literature (e.g. Neubert, 1998). Nevertheless, a closer
examination
of the evidence reveals a far more complicated picture:
feedback is by no means always beneficial
in its effects, and identifying the
conditions under which
it may be expected to improve performance is far
from straightforward.

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK 'N SCHOOLS 5
Probably the most significant step forward in untangling this complexity
is Kluger and
DeNisi's (1996) meta-analysis. In analysing 131 studies'
(607
effects) on the effects of 'Feedback Interventions', Kluger and DeNisi found
that although the average effect was moderately positive (weighted mean
effect size
2
0041), over 38% of the effects were negative and the mode of the
distribution
of effect sizes was zero. They concluded:
F[eedback] I[ntervention]s do not always increase performance and
under certain conditions are detrimental to performance. (p. 275).
Similar results have been found in other recent reviews and meta
analyses (e.g. in Bangert-Drowns
et aI., 1991; Locke & Latham,
1990,
Balcazar et aI., 1985).
1.1.2 Towards a Conceptualisation of 'Feedback'
Perhaps inevitably, ideas about precisely what 'feedback' is do not always
seem to coincide. It is important, therefore, to clarify exactly what is meant
by
'feedback' in this context.
Much
of the early literature refers not to feedback but to 'Knowledge of
Results' (KR) or 'Knowledge of
Performance' (KP). These correspond to
information about the outcome
of the task undertaken, such as performance
on a test, the development
of a motor skill, compliance with a behavioural
injunction,
job productivity, etc. Excluded from this definition of feedback,
however, would be any information about the process
of how one undertook
the task, as, for example, the message
"you do not use your thumb for
typing" (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, p. 255).
Kluger and DeNisi adopt a definition
of feedback that is similar to the KRlKP concept, but their focus is more specifically on feedback as an
intervention that can be manipulated. Thus, they define Feedback
Interventions (PIs) as "actions taken by (an) external agent(s) to provide
information regarding some aspect(s)
of one's task
performance". They
therefore exclude 'natural' feedback arising without external intervention,
2
These 131 studies represent just 5% of the
3000 or so reports reviewed. The remainder
were excluded for a vanety
of methodological inadequacies such as lack of control
group, confounding
of treatments, lack of outcome measures or very small sample size
(i.e.
<10).
'Effect size' in this context is a measure of the difference between the performances of
experimental and control groups, expressed as a proportion of their standard deviation.
Where
an average effect size is calculated from a number of studies (e.g. in meta
analysis), individual results should be weighted so that large studies contribute more to
the overall average (Glass, McGaw
&
Smith, 1981).

6 ROBERTCOE
feedback that arises directly from the task, feedback that is not task-focused
and feedback that is actively sought.
Black and Wiliam (1998a) provide a useful conceptualisation
of the
feedback mechanism
by identifying four elements of a feedback system:
• data on the actual level of some measurable attribute;
• data on the reference level of that attribute;
• a mechanism for comparing the two levels and generating information
about the gap between the two levels;
• a mechanism by which the information can be used to alter the gap.
For Ramaprasad (1983), "Feedback is information about the gap
between the actual level and the reference level
of a system parameter
which is used to alter the gap in some
way" (p. 4). This definition is clearly
more restrictive in that it requires not only that the information must point
out a gap between performance and some standard, but even that it must
lead to action to address it. If the information
is not actually used in altering
the gap, then there is no 'feedback'.
This seems to limit unnecessarily what may be classified
as feedback and
rather to pre-empt the empiricaVtheoretical question about how feedback
works. Nevertheless, the concept
of a 'gap' between performance and some
standard seems to be important in conceptualising feedback effects.
Kluger and DeNisi (1996) list four possible ways a person may respond
to the gap: one can seek to alter the performance or the standard, abandon
the standard or reject the feedback. Each of these four options can be seen to
be the likely choice
in certain circumstances, and their Feedback
Intervention Theory (FIT) sets out
to predict which of them will be chosen
in a particular situation. This theory is described in more detail below.
However, they point out the need to take account
of the fact that in most
situations people have multiple goals or standards and that performance
itself -especially in complex tasks -can also be multidimensional.
Some writers have sought to identify what may be important dimensions
along which the characteristics
of feedback may vary. For example, in a
review
of the effects of feedback on performance in organisational settings,
Ilgen et
al. (1979) point out that feedback can originate from three kinds of
sources: other individuals, the task environment and one's self.
Prue and
Fairbank (1981) identify a further four dimensions: the mechanism used
to
transmit the feedback (e.g. written, spoken), the content of the feedback
message (e.g. comparison with others or with own previous performance),
the unit
of feedback receipt (individual or group) and the frequency with
which feedback is provided.

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 7
Kluger and DeNisi (1996) provide something a little more systematic in
their analysis
of significant feedback characteristics. They coded the studies
in their meta-analysis using the following variables, making predictions
from their FIT about the expected direction
of effect:
• feedback sign (positive or negative);
• feedback content:
-identifies performance
as right/wrong
-gives correct solution
-gives attainment level
-compares with previous performance
-compares performances with others'
-provides information on performance
of others
-designed to discourage
-designed to praise
-provided verbally (spoken)
provided in writing
-provided graphically
-provided from a computer
made public
-refers to group performance;
• feedback frequency.
The results
of their moderator analysis will be considered below.
It seems appropriate, for the purposes
of this chapter, to take a broad and
inclusive definition
of feedback and then to investigate the empirical
evidence about the conditions under which certain effects will be found. We
may therefore loosely define feedback
as
"information relating to some
aspect of task performance".
1.1.3 Development of Theory
Perhaps the most influential theory in the development of understanding
about feedback effects
is Thorndike's (1913) 'law of effect'. According to
this, positive feedback
is seen as reinforcement, negative feedback as
punishment. The former reinforces the correct behaviour; the latter punishes
the incorrect. However,
as Kluger and DeNisi (1996) point out, this theory
was never well enough specified to make clear predictions in any but a
narrow range of contexts, and perhaps more crucially, it was inconsistent
with many empirical results. Despite this, it had a substantial influence
on
research on feedback until at least the
1960s.

8 ROBERTCOE
Subsequently, a number of other theories have made predictions about
feedback effects, or have focused
on the concept of feedback, though
generally without aspiring to the same breadth and scope
as the law of
effect. Four of these in particular will be mentioned briefly.
First among these
is control theory or cybernetics (Carver & Scheier,
1981;
Podsakoff & Farh, 1989). This assumes that individuals' reactions to
feedback are determined by their desire
to close the gap between their actual
level of performance and their internal standards. Where the feedback
shows no discrepancy, subsequent goals and effort will remain stable.
Second
is the theory of goal setting (Locke & Latham, 1990), which
claims that task performance can be enhanced by setting specific,
challenging goals. Goal setting theory predicts that people are likely to
strive to improve their performance, provided the goal
is clear and they have
high commitment to it -commitment being determined by a combination
of
the desirability of the goal and a belief in its attainability. Feedback
moderates the effect of goal setting by pointing out the discrepancy between
goals and actual performance.
Third
is the theory of learned helplessness (Abramson et ai., 1978;
Mikulincer, 1994), according to which the repeated experience
of failure
leads individuals to adopt maladaptive performance strategies.
Fourthly, social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991). According to this,
individuals' reactions to feedback depend on two processes: a comparison
between the performance feedback and their own performance standards
(any discrepancy leading to dissatisfaction which motivates greater effort),
and a judgement
of self-efficacy. Beliefs about self-efficacy are both a
product
of feedback and a factor in determining responses to it. Negative
feedback may reduce self-efficacy, but
if it does not (for example, if
previous experience in similar tasks has been
of success), it is likely to lead
to increased effort to reduce the gap.
These four theories clearly overlap
in the extent of their coverage, the
evidence on which they draw and the predictions they make in a given
situation. There are also other theories which have been developed with
more specific applications, for example models of the feedback process
as it
relates to learning (Kulhavy
& Stock, 1989; Bangert-Drowns et ai., 1991) or
organisational behaviour (Balcazar et ai., 1985).
Perhaps the most comprehensive review and synthesis of this vast
literature
is by Kluger and DeNisi (1996), who attempted to build on these
theories
in so far as they relate to feedback, synthesising and improving as
necessary. The result is their Feedback Intervention Theory (FIT), which
has five basic propositions, and will
be briefly summarised.

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 9
The first is that behaviour is regulated by comparisons of feedback to
standards, with the four possible choices outlined above for removing the
'gap'. This argument is shared by both control theory and goal setting
theory, but while the former sees people
as primarily motivated to reduce
the gap, the latter accounts for behaviour in terms
of achieving a goal, rather
than simply eliminating a discrepancy. When individuals lack belief that
their actions are likely
to lead to success (perhaps as a result of repeated and
extremely negative feedback), they may be expected
to exhibit 'learned
helplessness' (Dweck, 1986; Mikulincer, 1994) and are most likely to
abandon the standard against which they are being judged. If abandoning
the standard completely
is not possible or desirable, it may be lowered
instead; alternatively,
if feedback suggests that performance exceeds the
standard, the latter may be raised. Finally, there
is some evidence that the
feedback is more likely to be rejected
if it is negative (lIgen et aI., 1979) or
comes from a source lacking in credibility or status (Brinko,
1990, 1993).
The likelihood
of rejecting the feedback message may also depend on
cultural and individual personality factors.
The second
of Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) propositions is that goals are
organised hierarchically. Within any task context, they argue, individuals
will often have multiple goals. For example, goals
of the self, such as the
desire to appear competent or avoid humiliation,
may be seen as being
located 'above' specific task goals. This idea can be used to explain why
people sometimes raise their goals; increasing the gap at one level may lead
to the reduction
of a gap at a higher level.
The third proposition
is simply that attention is limited and given only to
certain feedback-standard gaps.
Only those that receive attention are likely
to affect behaviour.
Fourthly, they postulate that attention is normally directed to a moderate
level
of the hierarchy, somewhere between the ultimate goals of the self and
the detailed and specific task outcomes. The more familiar a task, the more
low-level goals and task processes become automated and
so do not
normally receive attention.
Fifth and finally, is an argument unique
to Kluger and DeNisi's FIT: that
feedback interventions can alter the locus
of attention. Feedback often has
potentially serious implications (e.g. for the self) and
is therefore unlikely to
be ignored. Cues in the feedback message can direct attention to goals at a
particular level in the hierarchy. For example, too detailed feedback can
direct attention to low-level aspects
of a task, thereby preventing the
automation
of routine behaviour and thus inhibiting learning. Alternatively,
feedback that invokes self goals (e.g. by making norm-referenced

10 ROBERTCOE
comparisons of performance with that of others) can divert attention away
from the task altogether and hence have a similar effect.
Kluger and DeNisi use their FIT to make a number
of predictions about
feedback effects, and then test them against the findings
of their meta
analysis. They identify three classes of variables that determine the effects
of feedback: the cues in the feedback message, the nature of the task and
situational (and personality) variables. The results of the meta-analysis are
generally consistent with their theory, which they describe
as receiving
"partial support" (p. 275). Certainly, it offers great conceptual power and
deserves further testing and development.
1.1.4 Contexts for Performance
The preceding sections have attempted to clarify the definition of feedback
and present some
of the theoretical explanations that have been put forward
for its effects. However, if one
is interested in the impact of feedback on
task performance, it
IS clearly also important to conceptualise
'performance' .
The nature
of the task -on which feedback is being given and for which
subsequent changes
in performance are taken to indicate its effects -and the
context in which it
is performed can be very varied. Kluger and DeNisi
(1996) identify a number of characteristics and examine the evidence that
these factors moderate the effects
of feedback:
• novelty of task rules;
• complexity of the task;
• existence of time constraint;
• task duration;
• creativity demands of task;
• whether performance measured in terms of quality/quantity;
• whether performance measured in terms of ratings/objectively;
• whether performance measured in terms of latency (speed);
• whether performance measured on same task as feedback;
• task type:
physical
-reaction time
memory
-knowledge
-following rules
vigilance;
• whether study also used goal setting;
• threat to self-esteem for participants;

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 11
• external consequences of performance (rewards/punishments).
As much
of the available evidence about feedback effects is drawn from
learning and organisational (work) contexts it seems appropriate to give
specific consideration to them. However, the main focus
of this book is on
school performance feedback, so any evidence directly from schools will be
examined in some detail. Evidence from these three contexts will now be
presented.
1.2 Relevant Research on Feedback Effects
1.2.1 Research on Feedback to Learners
General models of the learning of students in schools, such as those
produced by Carroll (1963), Bloom (1976), Walberg
(1980) or Wang et al.
(1990), have attempted to identify factors associated with learning. In none
of these, however, is feedback an explicit or substantial element. It might be
concluded from this that feedback is not widely seen
as a fundamental
element
of effective instruction.
However, a number
of studies evaluating the effects of feedback on
learning show that feedback-focused interventions can have substantial
effects. A meta-analysis by Bangert-Drowns et al. (1991) synthesised the
results
of
40 studies (58 effects) of the effects of test feedback on learning.
Somewhat surprisingly, a number
of these experiments allowed the students
to access the 'feedback' (i.e. the correct answers) before attempting the test,
and -perhaps not surprisingly -the effect
of 'feedback' on subsequent
performance in these studies was often negative. With these studies
excluded, when different kinds
of feedback were compared, it was found
that 'corrective' feedback (i.e. feedback which provided either the correct
response or an explanation, or required the respondent to repeat until
correct) was more effective than simple right/wrong feedback. The mean
effect size for the former group
of experiments
(n=30) was 0.58.
Mory '(1991) conducted a review of the literature on the effects of
feedback on learning. Most of this literature describes experiments on fairly
low-level learning (for example 'verbal information', i.e. factual recall), and
the evidence about what kinds of feedback are most effective and why is
somewhat inconsistent. Mory highlights the importance
of 'response
certitude'
as a factor mediating learners' responses to feedback and the role
of feedback in error correction. However, it is not clear that the field is

12 ROBERTCOE
sufficiently well theorised for any substantive, well-verified predictions
about the impact
of feedback in a particular case to be made.
Studies investigating the role
of assessment in learning provide an
alternative view
of the role of feedback. A review of this research by Black
and Wiliam (1998a, and summarised in 1998b) estimated the effect size for
the impact
of 'formative assessment' on achievement to be between
0.4 and
0.7, and hence "larger than most of those found for educational
interventions" (Black
& Wiliam, 1998b, p. 4). Formative assessment was
defined here
as including all activities undertaken (by teachers or students)
to provide information which
is used as feedback to modify teaching and
learning activities. It would therefore be fair to say that their review
included studies evaluating a range
of quite different interventions.
However, performance feedback was an important -but by no means the
only -element of many
of them.
1.2.2 Research on Feedback in Organisational Settings
The theory of goal setting (Locke & Latham,
1990) is one of the best
developed and most researched in the field of organisational behaviour.
Strong support exists across a wide range
of contexts, tasks and goal types
for the finding that setting difficult, specific goals leads to enhanced
performance.
One of the early debates within this field concerned the
question
of whether apparent goal setting effects were in fact due to
feedback.
Locke and Latham
(1990) reviewed 33 studies which compared the
effects
of feedback, goal-setting and the combination of the two. They
found that each complemented the effect of the other, and the combination
was substantially more effective than either alone. They concluded that,
despite some methodological shortcomings
of the available research the
results were 'remarkably consistent
... Neither is really effective without the
other' (p. 197).
Neubert (1998) has taken this further with a meta-analysis
of studies
comparing the effects
of combined feedback and goal setting with goal
setting alone. Although he was able to include only
11 studies (16 effects),
the results were quite unequivocal, with a difference between the two
conditions corresponding to an effect size
of
0.59 (0.63 after correction for
unreliability) in favour
of providing both. A similar result was found by
Kluger and DeNisi (1996), who report that the overall effect
of feedback in
studies that used goal setting was higher
(0.51) than in those that did not
(0.30).

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 13
Other research in organisational settings has examined interventions in
which feedback plays a part, such
as Total Quality Management or
360-
degree feedback. The former focuses on systems rather than individuals and
advocates the use
of feedback that emphasises processes and behaviour, and
team rather than individual outcomes (Lam
& Schaubroeck, 1999). The
latter
is a system of managerial development which provides performance
feedback from a range
of perspectives: subordinates, peers, supervisors and
customers (Edwards
& Ewen, 1996). It would be fair to say, however, that
the number, and more particularly quality,
of available evaluations of these
interventions
is very limited. Despite the enthusiasm with which they are
advocated and adopted, there is very little good evidence about their effects.
1.2.3 Specific Research
on Feedback to Teachers/Schools
1.2.3.1 Fuchs and Fuchs
(1986)
A meta-analysis by Fuchs and Fuchs (1986) contained 21 studies (96
effects)
in which regular and systematic assessments of student performance
were fed back to teachers and used to modify individualised programmes
for those students. The overall effect size for such 'systematic formative
evaluation'
on academic achievement was
0.70 - a very substantial effect.
About three quarters of the effects were derived from studies involving
students characterised
as 'handicapped', although there was no significant
difference between the average effect with this group and that with 'non
handicapped' students. A number of other features of the feedback were
associated with larger effects, including providing the teachers with explicit
rules about how to use the information and requiring them to graph student
performance data rather than simply record
it. Studies that incorporated
some form
of behaviour modification were also more effective than those
that did not.
Although feedback was not the only element
of the interventions
analysed, and the generalisability of the findings may be questioned, Fuchs
and Fuchs' (1986) study does seem to suggest that giving teachers feedback
about student achievement could have quite substantial positive effects.
1.2.3.2 Cohen (1980)
Cohen
(1980) conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of feedback on
instruction, and concluded that " ... student-rating feedback has made a
modest but significant contribution to the improvement
of college
teaching"
(p. 336). However, the outcome measure used here was the change in the
instructors' behaviour
as rated by the students, and therefore may have been

14 ROBERTCOE
unrelated to change in student performance, or any other measure of
teaching performance. Even 'student progress', on which Cohen found an
effect size
of
0.30, is defined in his meta-analysis in terms of students'
ratings
of their own progress. This, again, may be quite different from
progress
as measured by achievement tests. In addition to these effects,
however, some
of the studies included in the meta-analysis recorded the
effects
of the feedback on student attitudes, and some recorded the effects
on student achievement. These are therefore
of more relevance to the
present review.
All the studies analysed by Cohen concerned the effects
of giving
student-rating feedback
to college teachers in the
US. The same three
studies recorded the effects
of the feedback on students' attitudes towards
the subject and on student achievement. All three provided the feedback in
the form
of a 'consultation' and one also provided another treatment group
with just printed feedback. Thus, a total
of four effects were calculated for
each outcome. Two
of the three studies (and three of the four effects)
allocated teachers randomly to treatments, the other used covariance
analysis.
In terms of the effect of the feedback on student attitudes, all four
comparisons favoured the feedback group and the overall effect size was
0.42. For student achievement, three
of the four favoured the feedback
group, while one showed better performance by the students whose teachers
had not had the feedback. The overall effect size on student achievement
was 0.19.
1.2.3.3 L'Hommedieu, Menges and Brinko (1988,
1990)
L'Hommedieu et al. (1988) conducted a meta-analysis to update Cohen's
(1980) synthesis. They found a further
28 studies evaluating the effects of
mid-term student ratings feedback on end-of-term ratings. The average
effect size was 0.34, which they describe
as 'small' (1990, p. 233). As in
Cohen's study, all these experiments were conducted with college teachers
in the
US; unlike in his study, none of the experiments used academic
achievement
as the outcome measure.
1.2.3.4 Brandsma and Edelenbos (1992,1998)
Brandsma and Edelenbos conducted an experiment in The Netherlands in
which specific forms
of training were given to school principals and
mathematics teachers, and the effects on their students' performance
evaluated.
Part of the training the principals received was in the
interpretation
of value added performance data for their own pupils. They

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 15
were also trained to implement other practices identified as optimal from the
school effectiveness research literature. The teachers were trained, at
somewhat greater length than the principals,
to structure their teaching and
to provide feedback to their pupils. Performance feedback was therefore
only a small part
of the experimental intervention.
The results were somewhat disappointing in that neither the principals'
or the teachers' training had any appreciable effect on subsequent student
performance, including on a retention test a year later. Moreover, the effect
of both interventions together appeared to be, if anything, slightly negative.
Whether this can be taken
as evidence about the effects of feedback is
questionable, since feedback to individuals on their own performance was
only a small part
of the interventions. However, it is interesting that the best
advice from school effectiveness research appeared to lead to no benefit at
all when it was applied
in a well-evaluated school improvement initiative.
1.2.3.5 Tymms (1995, 1997a, 1997b)
Tymms
(1990, 1995) has argued for the view that giving performance
feedback to schools can improve their performance and has conducted a
number
of experiments to investigate the effects of such feedback. The first
of these (Tymms, 1995) was concerned with teachers' responses to different
forms
of the feedback sent by ALIS
3 (a long or a short version) and to
receiving an invitation to attend
an in-service workshop.
Overall, the two
kinds
of feedback did not lead to significant differences in teachers'
attitudes or self-reported behaviour. There were some differences in the
responses for teachers
of different subjects, but given the low -and
differential -response rate, these are hard to interpret unequivocally.
Sending
an invitation to the in-service workshop did appear to lead to more
positive attitudes towards ALIS.
Tymms' second experiment was conducted
as part of the Value Added
National
Project (Fitz-Gibbon, 1997). Tymms (1997a) randomly allocated
257 primary schools to receive feedback about their value added
performance in a number of different ways. Once again, those who were
invited to INSET
(= In Service Education and Training) on the feedback
were more positive about
it.
The A-Level Information
System, a performance monitoring system for upper secondary
education in England. Approximately 800 schools participated in the project at this time.
See Fitz-Gibbon (1996) for further details.

16 ROBERTCOE
The form of feedback also had an effect on pupils' subsequent Key Stage
2 results,4 with those who received the data in the form of tables
subsequently achieving slightly better results than those who were sent
graphs. The difference was small (0.073 in terms of average KS2 level,
adjusted for previous KS 1 average and school percentage free school
meals), but corresponded to an effect size of 0.2. Interestingly, most of the
difference was accounted for by improvement in the level achieved in
English.
A third experiment conducted by Tymms concerned the effects
of
joining the Performance Indicators in Primary Schools
(PIPS) project
(Tymms,1997b; and Tymms
& Albone, this volume). It compared the 1997
performance of schools who had joined the
PIPS project at its beginning in
1993 with those who joined
as part of a whole LEA in 1996. The initial
invitation to join was sent to a random sample of schools in the LEA and the
majority
(8 out of 11) of those invited did join. The data suggest no clear
effect
of being invited to join the project but an association between
accepting the invitation and slightly better pupil attitudes.
1.2.3.6 Coe (1998b)
Coe's doctoral research included an experiment with a group of teachers in
the
ALIS (A-Level Information System) Project (Fitz-Gibbon, 1996). Half
the teachers received information about the value added performance and
attitudes
of each class they had taught during the last three years and 'target'
grades for their current students, with the other half (the control group)
receiving no information beyond what their school had already received
from
ALIS. Analysis showed the two groups of students to be well matched
before the intervention but subsequently those whose teachers received the
additional feedback achieved on average about a third
of an A level grade
better than the controls (effect size = 0.30,95%
CI: [0.02,0.58]5).
At first sight this seems to be quite a substantial impact for the feedback
sent, but there are a number of reasons for caution in its interpretation.
Firstly, the sample was quite small with just
44 teachers in six institutions
and the result only just reached statistical significance within a multilevel
4 Key
Stage 2 (KS2) assessment consists of national tests in Maths, English and Science
(SATs), taken by all pupils
in maintained schools in England and Wales at the age of
about 11. Key
Stage I is determined by teacher assessments of achievement in Maths
and English
at age 7.
5 This is a '95% confidence interval' for the estimate of the size of the effect in the study.
It may be interpreted as indicating the error or uncertainty in an estimate from a
particular experiment. Statistically,
95 % of 95% confidence intervals can be expected to
contain the true population parameter.

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 17
model. This allows the possibility that it was simply an accident of
sampling. Secondly, there was some attrition of the sample in supplying
outcome data, which could have biased the result. Thirdly, not much is
known about how the feedback was used and hence how it might have had
this effect. Those who received the feedback reported spending quite varied
amounts
of time on it and even more varied levels of ease in understanding
it -neither of which appeared to be related to the effect it had on them.
Those who were not sent feedback had in some cases generated and
analysed similar kinds of information for themselves.
Despite these reservations, however, Coe's results do suggest that
providing individually targeted feedback to teachers about their students'
performance may be a way to enhance it. At any rate, such a practice would
be worth further research.
1.3 Conclusions
and Discussion
1.3.1
Summary of Evidence about Feedback Effects
The most comprehensive synthesis of research on feedback effects is Kluger
and DeNisi's (1996) meta-analysis.
Overall, they found an effect size of
0.41 (0.38 after various exclusions), which they interpret as "suggesting
that, on average, FI has a moderate positive effect on performance" (p. 258).
However, the wide range of effects found suggested that various features
of
the feedback, the task or its context were significant moderators of the
effect. Knowing under what conditions feedback can optimally enhance
performance is far more valuable than simply aggregating results from a
large number of different contexts and finding the total to be positive.
1.3.1.1 Characteristics of the Feedback
A number of features of the feedback were found by Kluger and DeNisi
(1996) to be significantly associated with larger effects. These included
giving the 'correct solution' in the feedback (mean effect size 0.43,
compared with 0.25 for those that did not), giving feedback from a
computer (0.41, compared with 0.23), and negative associations for verbal
feedback (0.23 compared with 0.37 for other kinds) and frequently repeated
feedback (0.32 for interventions in the top quartile of frequency, 0.39 for
those in the bottom). None
of these differences, however, are particularly
large.
Slightly more substantial was the difference between the effect
of
feedback that compared individuals' performances to their previous

18 ROBERTCOE
performance (0.55) and feedback that did not (0.28). It should be noted
however, that the former type was relatively rare, the average being based
on
just
50 effects, compared with 380 for the latter. The direction of this
difference is predicted by FIT because such feedback directs attention to the
task-motivation level and has a clear reference (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996,
p.
270).
Even larger differences were found between feedback where the
experimenter had designed a destructive message or cues in the feedback in
order to discourage the recipient (i.e. 'discouraging' feedback, mean effect
=
-0.14) and feedback that did not have this rather extreme quality (mean =
0.33). Similarly, feedback designed to praise the recipient had a smaller
effect (0.09) than other kinds (0.34). These findings are also in line with the
predictions
of FIT, since discouraging feedback or praise would be expected
to direct attention to the self rather than to the task.
The implications
of these results for school performance feedback are
not easy to determine.
In this context there are no 'correct solutions' and
one might object to subjecting schools to too frequently repeated feedback
irrespective
of its effects on performance. FIT predicts that computer
delivered and written feedback should be more effective than verbal
feedback since the more personal delivery
of the latter may direct attention
away from the task towards other situational goals.
It may therefore be that
keeping the feedback impersonal is desirable, though it seems unlikely that
the difference will be that great.
The findings regarding 'destructive' feedback and praise also seem to
suggest that feedback must be carefully presented to promote a task focus.
However, the effectiveness
of feedback that compares individuals'
performance with past performance seems at odds with the general principle
that feedback should avoid directing attention to the self. Moreover, FIT
also predicts that norm-referenced feedback should have a reduced effect, a
prediction not supported by Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) review. In fact,
studies that have specifically investigated the effects
of this kind of
feedback suggest that there is a strong interaction between an individual's
performance level and the effects
of norm-referenced feedback; those whose
performance is below average are harmed far more by it than those above
(Butler, 1988; McColskey & Leary, 1985). Coe's (1998a) recommendation
is that feedback should seek to make people focus
on the task or on their
performance relative to their past achievements, and avoid directing
attention to comparisons between their performance and that
of others.
Coe (1998a) also examined evidence about a number
of feedback
characteristics not considered in Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 19
He suggests that the way feedback is given can influence the likelihood of
its having a beneficial effect. Ideally it should be made to seem credible and
accurate and perceived
as providing information and supporting self
determination, rather than
as surveillance or control. It should seek to
generate feelings
of competence but not complacency. Moreover, it should
encourage recipients to attribute their level
of performance to the effort they
have applied or to specific, alterable factors such
as their choice of strategy,
and so make them feel they have control over the outcomes.
1.3.1.2 Characteristics of the Task
One of the problems acknowledged by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) is the lack
of an adequate taxonomy of the tasks in which the effects of feedback on
performance have been evaluated. Their predictions about the moderating
effects
of different variables were given rather mixed support by the data
and they conclude that the lack
of such a valid task taxonomy
"poses a
serious obstacle for FI research" (p. 275).
Nevertheless, a number
of task characteristics were found to be
associated with enhanced feedback effects. Some
of these referred to quite
specific types
of task, such as whether a task was physical (effect size -
0.11) or not (0.36), whether it was a memory task (0.69) or not (0.30) and
whether it involved simply following rules (0.19) or not (0.36). Such
differences are
of little relevance to understanding the impact of school
performance feedback, however.
Three factors were
of more practical significance. The first of these has
already been mentioned: the use
of a goal setting intervention. Although
only 37 effects (9%
of the total) did use goal setting, there was a moderate
but significant difference between the effect in these studies
(0.51) and the
average for the others (0.30). Kluger and DeNisi acknowledge the weight of
evidence supporting the effectiveness of goal setting and attribute their
relatively modest difference at least partly to an artefact
of the small number
of studies that have used goals without feedback as a control group.
Certainly, since goal setting is an independently manipulable intervention, it
would seem that feedback effects should be maximised by ensuring that
individuals have clear, specific and challenging goals related to their task
performance against which the feedback can be used to measure
performance.
The second factor associated with differential effectiveness was task
complexity. Kluger and DeNisi (1996) found that the difference between
feedback and no feedback was substantial for simple tasks (effect size
=
0.55). However, for tasks in the top quartile of complexity (107 effects),

20 ROBERTCOE
feedback had essentially no effect at all (effect size = 0.03). This result is
particularly interesting in view
of the relatively modest effects of goal
setting on complex tasks and the fact that precisely these tasks might be
expected to be most relevant for drawing inferences about school
performance. A meta-analysis by Wood et al. (1986) showed that the
majority
of goal setting studies were limited to relatively simple tasks and
that its effects were appreciably smaller for complex tasks. The effect size
for goal setting on the simplest tasks was
0.76, compared with 0.42 for the
most complex. A later review by DeShon and Alexander (1996) was even
more pessimistic, stating that "setting difficult goals on complex tasks has
not increased performance and has even resulted in performance
decrements" (p. 18).
However, Neubert (1998) found an interesting interaction between task
complexity and the role
of feedback in goal setting. When Neubert's
analysis was restricted to complex tasks (6 effects), the difference between
combining feedback with goal setting and the latter alone rose to
1.02. This
suggests that although goal setting may be less effective in general for
complex tasks, the role
of feedback in facilitating goal setting effects may
be particularly important for these tasks. However, this area is one where
findings seem somewhat mixed and hard to interpret; making confident
predictions about feedback effects is likely to be even harder.
The third and final characteristic identified
as significant in Kluger and
DeNisi's analysis was the extent to which self-esteem was perceived to be at
threat from the feedback message.
In those studies where the threat was low
the effects
of feedback were much higher (effect size for studies in the
bottom quartile
of ratings of threat to self-esteem =
0.47) than in those
characterised as posing high threat (effect size
=
0.08). It seems likely that
performance feedback given to teachers could be seen as extremely
threatening and hence, on the basis of this result, be expected to have very
little positive effect on future performance.
1.3.2 Implications for Practice
As has been said, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) summarise their Feedback
Intervention Theory by saying that feedback effects depend on three classes
of variables: the cues in the feedback message, the nature of the task
performed and on situational/personality variables.
In order to predict the
impact
of giving feedback it is important to understand the relationships
between these variables and their effects; in order to optimise its impact it is
necessary to know which variables can be altered and to manipulate them
accordingly.

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 21
Cues in the feedback message may direct attention away from the task,
for example by diverting it
to the self, raising issues of self-efficacy or
causing individuals to focus on wider self-goals or issues
of self-perception.
Cues may also determine attributions for success or failure and
so influence
future performance.
On the other hand, feedback that directs attention to
past performance or to learning processes (for example, corrective
feedback) may help
to focus attention on task goals. However, the level of
specificity of feedback can have mixed effects, since if it is too specific it
may direct attention below the level necessary for optimal improvement, or
if too detailed, may confuse and actually impair learning. The manipulation
of cues in the feedback message should certainly be largely within the
control
of the person designing the feedback system. However, the
complexity
of their effects makes it hard to draw general implications for
practice.
The relationship between task characteristics and feedback effects is also
complex and not well understood. Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) FIT predicts
that feedback effects will be greatest when the cognitive demands of a task
are least. A review by Coe (1998a) points also to factors such
as the
complexity
of the task, the existing level of task-motivation and the
availability
of other information or instruction that may help to improve
performance. Feedback effects seem to be greatest when each
of these three
factors
is minimised. However, a review by Goodman (1998) emphasises
the difference between improving performance while practising a task and
true learning. She suggests that, for tasks that provide little inherent
feedback, external feedback can actually interfere with feedback derived
directly from the task and
so inhibit long-term learning. In practice, of
course, the nature of the task is likely to be fixed, so this variable cannot be
manipulated.
The most important situational variables are concerned with task goals.
Clear goals and feedback that clearly shows a gap between desired and
achieved performance produce optimal feedback effects. Personality
variables are also important in moderating the effects
of feedback on
performance. Individual differences in characteristics such
as self-esteem,
locus
of control and achievement-orientation have been shown to influence
reactions to feedback (Coe, 1998a). Kluger and DeNisi (1996) view these
differences in terms
of the differences in the self-goals that are salient for
different people (for example, those low
in self esteem are particularly
anxious to avoid negative stimuli). According to their FIT, feedback that
resonates with these salient goals is likely to divert attention away from the
task and thus debilitate performance.

22 ROBERTCOE
Despite the apparently good fit between the data and their theory,
however, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) are somewhat cautious in drawing
implications for practice. They point out that although feedback can
substantially improve performance under certain conditions,
if this is
achieved through an increase in task-motivation, it may not be sustained
after the feedback is removed.
In some cases, the costs of providing
continuous feedback might outweigh the benefits
of improved performance.
On the other hand, if the effect of the feedback is through task-learning
processes, then "the effect may create only shallow learning and interfere
with more elaborate learning" (p. 278). Further research and development of
the theory are required to establish whether effects are lasting and efficient.
1.3.2.1 Specific Application to School Performance Feedback
A number of studies of school performance feedback have been summarised
above, but it is not clear that there
is an emerging body of knowledge about
its effects. Although it is not impossible other studies may exist, it seems
unlikely that the overall impression
of ignorance could be dispelled. Very
few evaluation studies have directly addressed this issue; those that have
generally suffered from limitations that make their findings hard to interpret
unequivocally. In short, we cannot confidently say what the benefits
of
giving schools performance feedback may be, or how those potential
benefits may be maximised.
Given the complexity
of the kinds of feedback that can be given to
schools about their performance, the varying contexts
of school
performance, and the range
of ways feedback can be provided, it is
extremely difficult to make any kind of generalised predictions about its
likely effects. The low level of our theoretical understandings
of feedback,
the lack
of evidence about many aspects of its effects and, most crucially,
the limitations
of the evidence derived from school performance contexts
make any such predictions extremely speculative. Even for a specific case in
which the moderating variables referred to above are known, it would often
be hard to make an unequivocal prediction; different factors often work in
opposite directions and the balance of effects is usually uncertain.
Moreover, such a well-described case would, in practice, be the exception
rather than the rule.
Although feedback is often perceived to be universally beneficial, the
evidence is far from supporting this perception. Feedback can be harmful to
performance almost
as often as it improves it. In designing and
implementing feedback systems, we should be conscious that they cannot be
guaranteed automatically to
do good.

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 23
However, the evidence is also clear that, under the right conditions,
feedback can have a substantial effect on improving task performance. The
potential for benefit
is indeed great. Some of the evidence that school
performance feedback can help schools improve has been reviewed above;
more is provided
in the chapters that follow. Above all, it seems important
that when feedback systems are implemented, they are created with the best
knowledge about likely effects, that their characteristics are well monitored
and documented and, perhaps most important
of all, that their effects are
evaluated rigorously. In this way, we can hope that ultimately school
performance feedback systems whose effects are known to be beneficial
will be developed and improved.
References
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman,
M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness
in humans: critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 1,
49-74.
Ammons, R.B. (1956). Effects
of knowledge of performance: a survey and tentative
theoretical formulation. Journal
of General Psychology, 54, 279-299.
Balcazar,
F., Hopkins, B.L., & Suarez, Y. (1985). A critical, objective review of
performance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7
(3/4), 65-89.
Bandura,
A. (1991) Social cognitive theory of self regulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50, 248-287.
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik,
e.e., Kulik, J.A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The
instructional effect
of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational
Research, 61,213-38.
Black,
P., & Wiliam, D. (l998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment
in Education,S, 1,7-74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (l998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Kings College London, School
of Education.
Bloom, B.S. (1976). Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Brandsma,
H.P., & Edelenbos, P. (1992). School improvement through systematic
feedback
of pupil level data at the school and classroom level: an experiment. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research,
Enschede, The Netherlands, June 1992.
Brandsma, H.P., & Edelenbos, P. (1998). The effects of training programmes for
principals and teachers
in secondary education: a quasi-experiment based on
educational effectiveness indicators.
Paper presented at the International
Congress
of School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Manchester,
January 1998.

24 ROBERTCOE
Brinko, K. T. (1990). Optimal conditions for effective feedback. Paper presented to
American Educational Research Association annual conference, Boston MA,
April 1990. EDRS No.: ED 326155.
Brinko,
K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: what is
effective?
Journal of Higher Education, 64, 5,574-93.
Butler, R, (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivations: the effects
of
task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58,1-14
Carroll, I.B. (1963). A model
of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64 (8)
723-33.
Carver, C.S.,
& Scheier, M.F. (1981). Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control
Theory Approach
to Human Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Coe,
R. (1998a). Can feedback improve teaching? A review of the social science
literature with a view to identifying the conditions under which giving feedback
to teachers will result in improved performance.
Research Papers in Education,
13 (1), 43-66.
Coe,
R. (1998b). Feedback, Value Added and Teachers' Attitudes: Models,
Theories and Experiments. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Durham.
Cohen, P.A (1980). 'Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving
college instruction: a meta-analysis
of findings'. Research in Higher Education,
13,4,321-341.
DeShon,
R.P., & Alexander, R.A (1996). Goal setting effects on implicit and
explicit learning
of complex tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,
65, 1, 18-36.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American
Psychologist,
41
(10) 1040-1048.
Edwards, M., & Ewen, A (1996). 360-degreefeedback. New York: AMACOM.
Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1996). Monitoring Education: Indicators, Quality and
Effectiveness.
London: Cassell.
Fitz-Gibbon,
C.T. (1997). The Value Added National Project: Feasibility Studies
for a National System of Value Added Indicators (Final Report). London:
SCAA
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: a
meta-analysis.
Exceptional Children, 53,
199-208.
Goodman, I.S. (1998). The interactive effects of task and external feedback on
practice performance and learning.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,
76 (3), 223-252.
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher,
C. D. & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequences of individual
feedback on behavior in organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-
71.
Kluger,
AN., & DeNisi, A (1996). The effects of Feedback Interventions on
performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary Feedback
Intervention Theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119,2,254-284.

EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN SCHOOLS 25
Kulhavy, R.W., & Stock, W.A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place
of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1 (4),279-308.
Lam, S.S.K., & Schaubroeck, J. (1999). Total quality management and performance
appraisal: an experimental study
of process versus results and group versus
individual approaches.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 445-457.
L'Hommedieu, R., Menges, R.I., & Brinko, K.T. (1988).
The effects of student
ratings feedback
to college teachers: a meta-analysis and review of research.
Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University, Centre for the teaching
professions, Evanston, IL.
L'Hommedieu, R., Menges, R.I., & Brinko, K.T.
(1990). Methodological
explanations for the modest effects
of feedback from student ratings. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 2, 232-241.
Locke, E.A.,
& Latham,
G.P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E.A., Saari, L.M.,
Shaw, K.N., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and
task performance 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90,125-152.
McColskey, W., & Leary, M.R. (1985). Differential effects of norm-referenced and
self-referenced feedback on performance expectancies, attributions and
motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 275-284.
Mikulincer, M. (1994). Human learned helplessness: A coping perspective. New
York:
Plenum Press.
Mory, E.H. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications
for future research.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 3, 5-20.
Neubert, M.J. (1998). The value of feedback and goal setting over goal setting
alone and potential moderators
of this effect: a meta-analysis. Human
Performance,
11 (4) 321-335.
Podsakoff,
P.M., & Farh, J-L. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on
goal setting and task performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,
44(1), 45-67.
Ramaprasad,
A. (1983).
On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28,4-
13.
Thorndike, E.L. (1913).
Educational Psychology.
Volume 1: The original nature of
man. New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
Tymms P.B. (1990). Can indicator systems improve the effectiveness of science
and mathematics education? The case
of the
UK, Evaluation and Research in
Education,
4, 2, 61-73.
Tymms
P.B. (1995). Influencing educational practice through performance
indicators.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6, 2, 123-145.
Tymms,
P. (1997a). Responses of headteachers to value added and the impact of
feedback. The Value Added National Project, Technical Report: Primary 3.
London: SCAA.

26 ROBERTCOE
Tymms, P. (1997b). The impact of indicators on primary schools. Paper presented
at Evidence-Based Policies and Indicator Systems Conference, University
of
Durham, July 1997.
Walberg, H.J.
(1980). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F.H.
Farley &
N. Gordon (Eds) Psychology in Education (pp81-11O). Berkeley:
McCutchan.
Wang,
M.e., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1993). Toward a Knowledge Base for
School Learning. Review
of Educational Research, 63,3,249 -294.
Wood, R.E., Mento, A.J.,
& Locke, E.A. (1987). Task complexity as a moderator of
goal effects: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,416-25.

2
A Typology of Indicators
Carol Taylor Fitz-Gibbon
University
of Durham, England
2.1
Introduction
One of the major problems in designing a feedback system is the selection
of indicators to include. This selection can only be made on the basis of the
purposes
of the system. Consideration of the range of possible kinds of
indicators provides a starting point, and ideally one would do this within a
conceptual framework that would help
to make sense of the process of
monitoring and the flow of information. Furthermore, just as each doctor
does not invent a new thermometer, perhaps each social scientist should be
ready to use existing instruments rather than invent new ones. A typology
might also assist in this process
of standardisation.
If feedback is to be used in an attempt to help schools improve, one of
the key issues is what is monitored and fed back. This chapter presents a
conceptual tool that can be used to classify the various kinds
of information
that might be included: in short, a typology
of indicators. In putting this
forward it also raises questions about the description
of innovations and the
need for rigorous experimental evaluation.

28 CAROL TAYLOR FITZ-GIBBON
2.2 Rationale for a Typology of Indicators
Why do we need a typology of indicators? Because it would be useful to
have agreed ways to retrieve information and compare data from one district
or local authority to another, or from one country to another.
Communication will be facilitated by having agreed ways to store
information and that means imposing some broad structure on the data, (i.e.
having a typology) so that the terminology or taxonomy is not a problem.
Eventually, there should be a huge relational database management system
in which not only names
of indicators are stored but also the exact questions
used to elicit responses for certain indicators. These questions or items
should be stored in the same database and made widely available. Many
representative samples
of data should also be available in the database for
retrieval and cross-referencing. Thus,
if we want to know how attitude to
school varied with age in secondary schools in in the year
2000, we should
be able to find this information in a database, eventually.
So how do we go about suggesting a structure, a typology for indicators
in education? One approach is to scour the literature and write down the
name
of every variable mentioned in research. There is a small-scale
example
of this approach in an Annex to a chapter entitled 'Curriculum
Indicators in International Comparative Research' by
Pegrum, Voogt and
Plomp in the OECD publication entitled Measuring the Quality of Schools
(OECD, 1995). Under the headings 'Content Indicators', 'Time Indicators',
'Instructional Characteristics Indicators', 'Participants' Indicators', they list
more than 130 variables. They noted the lack of consistent terminology.
Yet another list arises from the OECD which set up working parties to
look at indicators under the headings 'Achievement', 'Flow', 'Resources',
'Attitudes' and 'Expectations'.
The lists will proliferate and almost no one proposing lists offers
justification for the categories. How can we become less arbitrary and create
a framework before the information overload becomes impossible? There
are a few approaches. First it needs to be recognised
as desirable (if not
always attainable) that,
if we are to have lists, they should as far as possible
reference
mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories so that there is a
place for every indicator and only one place for each indicator in the
typology. Secondly the typology must have some sort
of rationale or
structure to guide navigation through the reams of indicators. It will also
help
if the typology reflects categories that have been used in research for
which there is, therefore, a body
of information and some experience in the
use
of the categories.

A TYPOLOGY OF INDICATOR FOR AN Ev ALUA TION-FEEDBACK APPROACH 29
It might be thought that a typology should be based on a theory. One could,
for example, start with Carroll's model
of school learning (Carroll, 1963).
This model, formulated in terms
of time needed to learn and time spent in
learning, is elegant and attractive but focuses only on learning.
Other
models could be Scriven's (1994) simple formulation that achievement is a
function
of opportunity, effort and aptitude. More generally we could
consider the theory that behaviour is a function
of person, environment, and
person-by-environment interactions. But the level
of generalisation is so
high
as to provide little guidance. In contrast one could also tum to
elaborate diagrams, such
as those used in so-called causal modelling
(Blalock, 1966).
The problem with these theories and models
is that they are often based
on a single dataset and seem to promise more than they deliver. They could,
by their very specificity, constrain the types
of variables chosen for
investigation and thus prevent the more careful development
of actual
datasets. The typology
of indicators should point to new possibilities, not
only document the past.
Most diagrams are constructed in two dimensions
so they fit on a flat
page, but our indicator system taxonomy needs multiple links in n
dimensions, which is feasible in a relational database, but not easy to
represent in a flat diagram.
In summary, we need categories that are exhaustive, mutually exclusive as
far as possible, and do not pre-determine details.
2.3 A Typology of Indicators for Education
Figure 1 suggests the top level of a typology of indicators. It could be seen
as the first level of a branching, hierarchical, multi-dimensional storage
space for indicators. It has the simple virtue of a mnemonic (abcdef) and it
is mercifully small.
There is always an ethical dimension in social science and in indicator
systems that ethical dimension demands that
we measure what matters ...
not what is easy to measure, but what matters. And what matters is
outcomes, in both the short-term, and most particularly in the long-term.
Outcomes or goals have long been dealt with in education, and Bloom's
taxonomy provides the first three categories in the typology. He proposed
cognitive, affective and psycho-motor goals (Bloom, 1956).
In order to
create a useful mnemonic I suggest renaming the 'psycho-motor'
as
'behavioural' so that the goals can now be
ABC. These 'behavioural' goals
will include the psycho-motor, but also physical skills, physical health and

30 CAROL TAYLOR FITZ-GmBoN
socialised behaviour -the actions that speak louder than words. There is no
point in our measuring attitudes as though that were a sufficient measure.
We need also to measure behavioural outcomes
as there is a large literature
suggesting that attitudes and behaviours are not always closely linked
(Rosenberg et
aI., 1960). Indeed, the behavioural/physical indicator group
could be expanded
to include physical skills such as co-ordination or
clumsiness, sports achievement and practical skills such
as carpentry or
sculpture.
TIME >
en
~
en
85
e:::E en
5
.... ~ .... 0
DOMAINS TO BE au
Ell; ou
>0
.... E-< .... E-<
MONITORED
Il;
..2p:; !:i~ ~~
z
ell; ~o .£0 .....
A* Affective, e.g. attitudes,
aspirations, feelings
Goals B* Behavioural, e.g. skills,
actions
C* Cognitive, e.g. achievements,
beliefs
Groups D Demographic descriptors, e.g.
sex, ethnicity, SES
E Expenditures, e.g. resources,
time and money
Policies
F Flow, e.g. who is taught what
for how long: curriculum
balance, retention, attendance,
allocations
Note: All the vanables could relate to pupils, parents, teachers, schools, LEAs or countnes
I.e. there IS a
third dimension to the diagram, that
of the unit of analysis.
Categories chosen by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to set up working
parties were: achievement, flow,
resources, attitudes and expectations. These are all included in Figure I
which has the virtue
of an alphabetical mnemonic.
*cf. Bloom's Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives, 1956.
Figure 1. Typology of Indicators for Education.
We could also have a second level
of physical health with associated
process variables
of level of exercise, drugs and diet.
Under 'behaviour -
social' we could include school attendance patterns, drug taking,
philanthropy, employment. Indeed the long-term outcomes
of socialised
behaviour are perhaps the most important outcomes for society. We need to
know
if certain types of schooling produce better citizens, happier

A TYPOLOGY OF INDICATOR FOR AN EVALUATION-FEEDBACK APPROACH 31
individuals, than other types of schooling. It is, for example, alarming that a
27 year-old follow-up
of one of the early childhood interventions
(Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997) showed twice the delinquency rate
in those
who in their early childhood education had been pushed towards cognitive
achievement with direct instructional strategies
as opposed to those who had
been in early childhood classes using child-focussed, exploratory
approaches. Anything that might halve or double the delinquency rate has
enormous financial implications for society, let alone implications regarding
the quality
of life of individuals and the construction of a civil society.
The ABC goals, affective, behavioural and cognitive, can also be seen as
the heart, the body and the mind, which about covers the territory as far
as
pupil-centred outcomes are concerned.
The D set
of indicators describe groups, the demographic descriptors
such
as age, sex, ethnicity, socio-economic status, country of origin, country
of residence, enumeration district, all the unalterable variables (Bloom,
1979). These seem to so fascinate social scientists that they waste a lot
of
time analysing datasets using some poorly defined categories such as
ethnicity and thereby continuing the notion that this kind
of stereotyping is
acceptable. However, that
is a controversy that has to be dealt with
elsewhere.
The E category
of indicators is one that is all too rarely integrated with
all the others, namely expenditures. Economists seem to operate as a
separate category
of researcher. (In England they have even declined to join
the Academy
of
Social Sciences.) Education costs money and money is
limited and we should know the cost
of everything. To measure the cost
does not mean that one
is trying to cut costs, but to get the best value for
money, for which there are other competing uses, such
as in Health and
Social Services. Expenditure is part of the general category of resources and
includes not only Euros and dollars but also time. The time that a new
innovation demands is part
of the cost of that innovation.
The final category is
FLOW, a charming word adopted by the OECD.
Life flows, events flow, the arrow of time gives the direction, and flow is
complicated, often chaotic, sometimes smooth. In this taxonomy or
typology, flow means who does what, how, and for how long. In statistical
terms, these are cross-classifications or interaction effects. This is where the
complexity
of an indicator system is recognised. There is little point in
knowing what amount
of time is given without saying given to what, by
whom, for what. The curriculum is specified for certain age groups, at
certain costs, with certain goals. The curriculum is,
of course, central to
education. What children are taught may have far more important effects

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

ihmisen vähäpätöisyyttä suhteessaan maailmankaikkeuteen ja
eritoten suhteessaan selittämättömään arvoitukseen.
Sen jälkeen seurasi puolustus. Luotsi oli ottanut laivan oman
piirinsä ulkopuolelta eikä siis ollut vastuunalainen. Mitä majakan
vesien mittaamiseen tulee, niin luottaa luotsi mieluummin omiin
maamerkkeihinsä kuin kurjaan kompassiin, joka ehkä näyttää väärin.
Laivan lastina oli rautaa, ja siksi ei hän luottanut kompassiin. Mitä
maamerkkeihin tulee, niin ei tarvitse niin kovinkaan olla
meritottuneen tietääkseen, kuinka näennäiset etäisyydet saattavat
muuttua eri säiden vallitessa. Sitte maalasin minä merimaalauksen,
jossa oli lunta mailla ja sumua ilmassa. Luotsi oli siis kaksinkerroin
viaton, mutta vielä enemmän, hän ei ainoastaan ollut viaton, vaan
kapteeni oli rikollinen. Kapteeni oli maannut onnettomuuden
tapahtuessa ja nyt sanotaan luotsiohjesäännössä, että "päällysmies
vastatkoon itse laivan ohjauksesta kuitenkin luotsin opastamana."
Täällä oli juurtunut se huono tapa, että luotsia pidettiin päällikkönä
niin pian kuin hän astui laivaan. Tämän epäkohdan täytyi muuttua,
sillä luotsi ei ole mikään merenkulkija vaan ainoastaan opas. Hän ei
voi lokata, hänen ei tarvitse tehdä merkityksiä eikä tuntea jokaisen
laivan purjehduskuntoisuutta. Luullaan, että luotsia saa pitää
jonkinlaisena Kristuksena, joka jokaisen onnettomuuden sattuessa
saa kantaa niskoillaan kaikkien merikapteenien synnit. Ei niin!
Ruotsalainen kauppalaivasto on kyllä huomaava, ettei sen etuja saa
hutiloida. Parannuksen aika on käsissä, ja nyt täytyy parannuksen
tapahtua — nyt tai ei koskaan!
"Mutta merivahingonselitys, väitätte, hyvät herrat. Se on väärä,
vastaan minä, se on valetta alusta loppuun. Ette taida tietää, kuinka
merenvahingonselitys laaditaan? Niin, laivuri, joka enimmäkseen
makaa ja nukkuu, hän juuri laatii selityksen tapahtumasta, jota hän

ei koskaan ole nähnyt, ja sitte lukee hän sen laivaväen kuullen, jotka
puoleksi ovat aito ulkomaalaisia ymmärtämättä Ruotsin sanaakaan,
ja sitte kirjoittavat he selityksen alle vannoen autuutensa nimessä.
Luullaanko, että niin saa jatkua? Minä voisin syyttää heitä, koko
seuraa vääränvalan teosta, mutta minä en sitä tee. Nyt olen minä
lausunut ajatukseni, niin totta kuin nimeni on Larsson, ja mitä minä
olen sanonut, on tosi selvä kuin päivä, siitä piru vieköön voitte olla
varmoja, koko liuta!" Ja sen sanottuani löin minä nyrkilläni pöytään
niin että paukahti.
Puhkesi myrsky, olin kadottanut mielenmalttini. Sapelit kalisivat,
enkä muista sen enempää ennenkuin olin eteisessä, jonne minut
kaksi tykkimiestä kaikella kohteliaisuudella työnsi.
Harhailin kaupunkia harmin ja häpeän vallassa. En uskaltanut
käydä tapaamassa luotsia, joka nyt ehdottomasti oli mennyt mies.
Pian tuli pimeys ja minä hiiviskelin "Hässingstångenin" ulkopuolella
tavatakseni veljeä ja saadakseni tietää asian päätöksen. — Turhaan!
Silloin menin minä "Rauhalaan" saadakseni jotain syödäkseni.
Ensimmäisenä äkkäsin minä laivurin. Hän istui yksin pöydän ääressä
nojaten päätään kättä vasten ja näytti hyvin alakuloiselta. "Ajatteles,
ehkä minun syytökseni on tepsinyt ja minä olen syössyt hänet
onnettomuuteen! ajattelin minä edelleen. Niin, muita minä en suo
pahaa kenellekään ihmiselle." —
Minä menin miehen luo.
"Hyvää iltaa, kapteeni! Kuinkas sujui?"
"Miksette sanoneet minulle edes sanaakaan edeltäpäin ennenkuin
menitte turmelemaan luotsiparan asian!"

"Mitä hän sai?"
"Kaksi vuotta!"
"Niin, mutta minä valitan korkeampaan oikeuteen!"
"Älkää sitä tehkö, herra, ei se ole mikään tavallinen tuomioistuin!"
"Mutta puolustukseni!"
"Niin olipas se soma juttu! Ensimmäinen osa olisi vaikuttanut
lieventävänä asianhaarana, mutta toinen! Tehän olitte väärässä joka
kohdassa, paitsi siinä, että esititte luotsin valehtelijaksi, sillä
puhuihan hän vaaten ensimmäistä tunnustustaan. Ei siinä kyllin.
Olitte saattaa minut tilaan, mikä minulle olisi saattanut koitua sangen
vaikeaksi. Luulitte kai minun tahtovan vahingoittaa poikaa.
Päinvastoin, minä aijoin huutokaupan kautta pelastaa hänelle hänen
talonsa. Tämän olette melkein tehneet mahdottomaksi. Luuletteko
ehkä, että minulla itselläni nyt on hauskaa. Ette tiedä, mitä maksaa
laivurille menettäessään laivansa. Saan alkaa uudestaan
perämiehenä. Olin aikeissa matkustaa kotiin mennäkseni naimisiin,
sillä minulla on morsian, mutta siitä ei nyt tule mitään, sillä minä
kadotin kaiken mukana olevan omaisuuteni.
"Minua vastaan viskatut syytöksenne otti asiamies mielihyvällä
onkeensa, hän ilmoitti asian laivanomistajalleni, ja kuka tietää,
mihinkä kohtaloon ne minut saattavat. Nyt täytyy minun päästä
Itämeren kautta kotiin jouluksi, eikä siitä tule mitään huvimatkaa
avoveneessä. Mistä minä kevääseen saakka elän, sen Jumala
tiennee. Herra, olisitte tehneet oikein, jos olisitte tukkineet suunne!"

Kuin kirottu menin minä miehen luota, enkä sen koommin koskaan
nähnyt häntä enkä luotsia. Eikös tämä ollut hupainen kertomus!
"Oh, hupaisuuden vuoksi niin… mutta ei se myöskään todista,
ett'ei pidä auttaa lähimmäisiään", väitti D. Ei vaan saa olla tuhma!
"Sitä tulee tuhmaksi, niin pian kuin vehkeilee auttaakseen ihmisiä.
Tule sinä vaan minun luokseni, jos olet pulassa, ja jos sinä onnistut
saamaan minut liikutetuksi, voit olla varma vankeudesta tai pyövelin
pölkystä aina sen mukaan kuinka avuliaaksi minä itseni tunnen.
Ihminen on kurja laitos, ja minä olen kaikista kurjin — hyvää yötä!"
Ja hattu syvällä silmillä ja kädet taskuihin painettuina syöksähti
Markus Larsson ulos ovesta ja riensi pitkin askelin katua ikäänkuin
hän olisi tahtonut juosta pois kaikesta, mikä muistutti häntä
onnettomasta luotsista.

KANSALLINEN SIVISTYSLAITOS
Kansallisteatterin kansliassa lyö kello yksitoista. Muutamien nuorten
harjoituksiin aikovien näyttelijöiden täytyy mennä odoteltuaan tunnin
Kuninkaallisen Majesteetin hovisoittokunnan ja teatterin
kansallisjohtajaa.
Heti sen jälkeen tulee sihteeri, joka ei ole ennen ehtinyt, koska
hän on ollut virantoimituksessa siviiliviraston eläkelaitoksessa.
Selitettyään vahtimestarille, ettei johtokuntaa voi tavata ennen
kahta, istautuu hän kirjotuspöytänsä ääreen ja alkaa sepustaa
johtavaa kirjotusta hovilehteen. Johtokunnan hänen
kirjotettavakseen antaman aineen nimi oli:
Kansallinen sivistyslaitos. Ja hän kirjotti:
"Ei tapahdu ensi kerran, että pyhyyttä häväisevät kädet solvaavat
kansallissivistyksen temppelipihoja ja Kustaa III:nen luomaa." Kynä
seisahtui. Hänellä ei ollut huono pää, ja hänen aivonsa suvaitsivat
työskennellä omin päin kynän kulkiessa. Ja aivot ajattelivat: Kustaa
kolmannen luoma! Mikä aihe! Ruotsalainen teatteri oli olemassa 200
vuotta ennenkuin Kustaa III:s kutsui maahan saksalaisia säveltäjiä.
Kustaa kolmannen luoma! Onko pyhän häväistystä jonkun

solvaaminen sentähden, että se oli Kustaa kolmannen työtä?
Yksinvaltius väärän valan teossa, väkiviinavirta, garcons bleus,
korulauseparsien käytäntöön ottaminen julkisessa elämässä,
sydämmettömät sotaretket olivat myöskin Kustaa kolmannen luomia,
eikä 1809 vuoden miehiä, jotka kävivät niiden kimppuun, ole
pidettävä pyhän häväisijöinä. Tämä on siis korupuhetta! Niin
ajattelivat aivot, mutta kynä ei pyyhkinät lausepartta vaan jatkoi
ominpäin:
"Sata vuotta on kulunut siitä, jolloin nämä portit avattiin ja nyt
tahdotaan ne sulkea ikuisiksi ajoiksi! Onko tämä totta! Me emme sitä
usko! Me toivomme ja uskomme täydestä sydämmestämme, jos
nimittäin asia kehittyy siihen, että temppeli on tieltä laastava,
kaikkien yhtenä miehenä kokoontuvan sen ympärille huutaen: älkää
koskeko pyhäkköön! Kuninkaallisen luojan henki liikkuu vielä vetten
yli ja lausuu: tulkoon valkeutensa. Ja pyhän häväisijät saavat
kahdesti miettiä ennenkuin murtavat kivenkään kuninkaallisesta
muistomerkistä!"
Kynä pysähtyi taas! "Annas minun ajatella", sanoivat aivot.
"On niin aikaista", sanoi kynä! Mutta aivot ajattelivat.
Kuninkaallinen muistomerkki? Siinähän oli kovin paljon kuninkaallista
ja meidänhän piti puhua kansallisesta sivistyslaitoksesta!
Ja muuten, talonpojat tunnustavat toistaiseksi vain yhden luojan
olemassaolon! Mutta sehän oli jo kirjotettu. Kynä imi enemmän
mustetta ja alkoi taas ryöpsähdellä.
"Me valitamme kotimaisen näytelmäkirjallisuuden puutetta. Kuinka
me sitten valitammekaan, kun kansallinen teatteri (hän kirjotti ensin
kuninkaallinen, mutta pyyhki sen) ei enään ota hentoja taimia

suojelukseensa niinkuin se tähän asti on tehnyt ja jota laitosta ilman
ei meillä olisi yhtäkään nimeä isänmaallisessa
näytelmätaiteessamme!"
— Nyt sinä valehtelet, sanoivat aivot: Messenius, Gyllenborg,
Hallman, Bellman, Kexell, Envallson, Björn, Börjeson, Blanche, Jolin,
Hedberg olivat tulleet edustetuiksi kuninkaallisella näyttämöllä
saavutettuaan suuren maineensa jo muilla näyttämöillä.
Kustaa kolmannen, Kellgrenin ja Leopoldinko oopperatekstit ilman
soittoa ja soiton kera, muodostaisivatko ne kansallisen
näyttämötaiteen?
Nyt saapui kansallisen näytelmätaiteellinen maunmäärääjä
luotsihallituksesta, missä hän oli kanslistina ja toi mukanaan
kappaleen, minkä hän heti tahtoi esitettäväksi. Luotsiosastopäällikön
rouva nimittäin oli näytelmäksi muodostanut ranskalaisesta Le
Printemps nimisestä muotilehdestä otetun kertomuksen ja
makuneuvos oli sitä muutellut ja antanut sille nimen Herttuatar. Siinä
oli sopiva osa "herttualle" ja kuusi pukua herttuatarta varten. Kaikki
oli omiansa takaamaan kappaleen menestyksen eikä sihteerillä ollut
omasta puolestaan mitään sitä vastaan.
Nyt kysyttiin neuvoa kansallisrahastonhoitajalta, joka juuri tuli
armeijahallinnosta ja kuului "tuntijana" teatterijohtokuntaan, hän
vakuutti luettuaan näytelmän nimen ja rooliluettelon, kappaleen
menevän 25 kertaa. Lupasi antaa puoltosanansa. Vähitellen
saapuivat kamarikollegiosta kuninkaallisen teatterin
kansalliskamreeri, jonka tehtävänä oli valvoa kansallissihteerin
toimia, sitten Ruotsin Näytelmällisen Kirjallisuuden kansallisylihoitaja
valtiopankin rahakonttorista. Muita ei saapunut ennen kello 3, jolloin
Herttuatar oli hyväksytty näyteltäväksi, osat olivat jaetut ja johtaja

saapui maaherravirastosta. Nyt täytyi kiireellisesti toimittaa asia, sillä
johtajan täytyi kello neljä olla valtiomarsalkan virastossa.
Ensin luki hän hovilehteä varten kirjotetun johtavan, muutti
lauseparren kuninkaallinen kansalliseksi. Sen jälkeen hyväksyi hän
Herttuattaren näyteltäväksi.
Ruotsin näytelmällisen Kirjallisuuden Kansallisylihoitaja ilmotti nyt,
että hänellä oli valmiina suunnitelma henkivarustusväen
kappaleeseen, minkä hallitus oli tilannut. Sen jälkeen pyysi johtaja
saada kuulla sitä kaikessa lyhykäisyydessä. Sisältö oli seuraava:
Luutnantti Aksel rakastaa tyttöä, jolla ei ollenkaan ollut rahoja, hän
päättää ampua itsensä, mutta silloin tulee eräs ystävä ja toimittaa
hänelle mahdollisuuden virkaylennykseen, jos hän kirjoittautuu
jäseneksi seuraan henkivarustusväen ystävät. Aksel jättää
ampumisen, mutta muuan talonpoika, joka ei luota
henkivarustusväkeen, vastustaa sitä, niin että siitä ei tule mitään.
Kolmannessa näytöksessä syttyy sota. Kuuluu villiä huutoja.
Ruotsalaiset joutuvat tappiolle sentähden, ettei heillä ole
henkivarustusväkeä ja talonpoika haukutaan pataluhaksi. Kuitenkin
poltetaan Akselin toverit luuvalla ja Aksel ylennetään kapteeniksi.
Sitte haukutaan taas hiukan talonpoikaa ja Aksel joutuu naimisiin.
Esirippu laskee alituisella talonpoikien haukkumisella sekä
kehoituksella yleisölle kirjoittautumaan henkivarustusväen ystävien
seuraan, minkä vuosimaksu on viisi kruunua vuodelta. Kappale
hyväksyttiin heti näyteltäväksi isänmaallisen tarkoituksensa tähden,
mutta sitä ei saa nyt näytellä ennenkuin valtiopäivien jälkeen.
Kansallisrahastonhoitaja jättää kaksi kappaletta, jotka hänen
kälynsä on kääntänyt, ja makuneuvos hyväksyy ne.

Kansalliskamreeri huomauttaa nyt, että esille tuomatta on vielä
hiilivadillinen ruotsalaisia alkuperäisiä teoksia. Johtaja kysyy
makuneuvokselta, onko hän lukenut niitä ja kun tämä on vastannut
myöntävästi, käsketään vahtimestari viemään hiilivati ullakolle.
Kukaan ei ole vielä saanut selville, miksi ruotsalaisia alkuperäisiä
teoksia säilytetään hiilivadissa.
Sitten alkaa vastaanotto. Sihteeri istautuu ulomman huoneen
ovensuuhun ja hän tietää, kenen hänen pitää laskea huoneeseen.
Muille ilmotetaan, että johtajalla on niin paljon tehtäviä, että olisi
parasta tulla uudestaan perjantaina. Tämä ilmotus tehdään
säännöllisesti kaikille näytelmäntekijöille, jotka eivät kuulu
kansallisteatterin kansliaan, kaikille alottelijoille ja kaikille teatterin
jäsenille, joilla on palkkaa alle 2,000 kruunua.
Markiisitar lasketaan ensin huoneeseen, sillä hänen asiansa on
tärkein.
Ensimäisessä näytöksessä lilavärinen atlaspuku kuuden kyynärän
pituisine laahustimineen.
— Pyydän, kahdeksan kyynärää; herttuattarella oli seitsemän
kyynärää
Docotissa tai Koketissa!
— Siis kahdeksan. Te naiset olette sellaisia kiusankappaleita. Viisi
vaatekertaa crepinistä ja seitsemän cyklonista puolen cottillonin;
kaksi riviä stalaktiitista tehtyjä nappia selkään.
— Pyydän, kolme riviä; prinsessalla Monsieur Jean'issa oli kolme
riviä.

— Kolme riviä stalaktiitista tehtyjä nappia… Toinen näytös:
viheriästä bombastista tehty poloneesi kallerioineen à la Dauphine;
seitsemän rintaröyhelöä, kalmukista tehtyjä, nikkelöityine hakasineen
sekä koprolitista tehtyine espagnoleineen. Kolmas näytös:
lohenkeltainen robe ynnä juovitetut viistoleikkelyt ja volangit a la
Concorde; passementerie prune.
— Mahdotonta! Kolmannen näytöksen sortiita en voi laittaa ilman
tunique chorivari — — —
— Täytyy sopia! Kamarioikeus on tehnyt muistutuksia naisten
puvuista.
— Pyh! kamarioikeus! Mitä on taiteella tekemistä kamarioikeuden
kanssa. Vai arveleeko johtaja, että sitä voi lausua loppusanat
puettuna passementerie russe'en?
— Miten kuuluvat loppusanat? En muista!
— "Isäni! Te hylkäätte lapsenne sentähden, että hän rakastaa
miestä, jolla on vain 6,000 frangin korot! Oi, Jumalani, tätä minä en
elävänä kestä!"
— No miksi se ei käy päinsä?
— Eikö johtaja käsitä, että nämä sanat täytyy lausua polvistumalla
ja silloin täytyy hameen riittää…
— Minä kiitän! Taide ennen kaikkea! Neljänteen ja viidenteen
näytökseen saa neiti itse hankkia puvun!
— Itsekö! Mahdotonta! Tiedättekö johtaja, mitä maksoi toinen
puku, joka minulla oli Cocotte'ssa?

— En! Mutta se oli hurmaava!
— Kokonaisen kuukauden palkan!
— Hm! — Millä neiti eli sen kuukauden?
— Hm! — Säästöillä.
— Jatkakaa siis säästäen niin ei meidän tarvitse saada moitteita
kamarioikeudelta! Anteeksi, mutta minulla ei ole enempi aikaa!
— Yksi ainoa sana!
— Ei ole aikaa! Rekisööri saa tulla!
— Yksi ainoa sana: Neiti Rose on sanonut, että…
— Hiljaa, minä en tahdo kuulla teidän kirottuja juorujanne. Ulos!
Rekisööri tulee huoneeseen. Herttua on Lysekilistä käsin
ilmoittautunut kipeäksi, Anatole ei tahdo olla herra Pettersonin
vastanäyttelijänä, kreivinna ei voi tulla kuin vasta lokakuun
ensimäisenä päivänä.
— Vai niin, herttua tahtoo näytellä sairasta ja tulla kukitetuksi
kuten tavallisesti ensi kertaa esiintyessään; ja kreivinna samalla
tavalla, vaikka vaatii transparangia. Kuinka tässä siis saadaan
ohjelmisto —
— Onhan meillä "Kuppi teetä", "Kaksi kuuroa" ja "Hän ei ole
mustasukkainen."
— Siinä herra on oikeassa. Merkitkää ne. — Hyvästi! Johtaja
soittaa kamreeria.

— Odottaako siellä montakin ulkona?
— Huone on täpösen täynnä.
— Tuokaa siis minun päällystakkini ja hattuni. Käsky täytetään.
— Nyt täytyy minun mennä!
Kamreeri kulkee edellä ja raivaa tietä lumiauran tavoin ja
pikajunan nopeudella kulkee johtaja läpi ulompien huoneiden, missä
odottelevat ovat rynnänneet paikoiltaan ja seisovat molemmin puolin
kumarrellen; pian on hän eteisessä ennenkuin kukaan on ehtinyt
ahdistaa häntä.
* * * * *
Valtiopäivämies Håkan Olsson on hyviä vuosia elettyään
onnistunut säästämään hiukan rahoja; hän oli kauan tuntenut syvää
sivistyksen tarvetta, mutta aikaa ei ollut riittänyt sen hankkimiseen,
mikä ei oikeastaan näkynyt parantavan ihmisiä, vaan pää-asiallisesti
ylvistyttävän niitä, mikäli hän saattoi päättää sivistyneistä
tovereistaan kamarissa.
Hän oli teatterimäärärahoista väiteltäessä saanut silmänsä auki
kansallisen sivistyslaitoksen tarpeellisuudesta, mikä kuninkaallisen
teatterin nimellä oli kaikkien tukholmalaisten ylpeys ja ihastus. Se
olisi muutamien herrojen väitteen mukaan parain ja halvin laitos
kansallisen sivistyksen hankkimista varten, ja sen vaikutukset olivat
mittaamattomat, ja sen ohessa koituisi kansalle ikuinen häpeä, jollei
se tahtoisi maksaa sen vuotuisia velkoja.
Tosin oli herra Olsson käynyt monessa muussa teatterissa ja hän
oli saanut sekä huvia että henkistä hyötyä, mutta oikein sivistyneeksi

ei hän koskaan ollut tuntenut itseänsä. Useiden nuorten konttoristien
seurassa oli hän päinvastoin tuntenut itsensä hyvin
sivistymättömäksi, kun he alinomaa ahdistivat häntä kysymyksillä,
oliko hän nähnyt neiti Rosea Cocottena tai herra Anatolea Monsieur
Jeanina ja hänen oli täytynyt vastata kieltävästi. Parantuneine
olosuhteineen ja sivistyneiltä konttoristeilta saamiensa selityksien
vaikutuksesta valtasi hänet syvä kansallisen sivistyksen tarve, ja hän
päätti jakaa siitä myöskin vaimolleen ja tyttärelleen.
Hän osti siis pääsyliput pieneen kansallisteatteriin ja hän odotti
jännityksellä, mitenkä kansallinen sivistys iskisi häneen ja hänen
perheeseensä, ja tekisi heistä valistuneita isänmaanystäviä.
Näytellään kolminäytöksinen huvinäytelmä Monsieur Jean Cassaskon
(makuneuvoksen merkki) ranskalaisesta alkuperästä toimittama
käännös. Esirippu nousee, näkyy iso brysseliläinen matto
nojatuoleineen sekä liesi heilurikelloineen.
Kamarineitsyt tulee silkkihameessa, katsoo ruusunpunaista pilettiä
ja sanoo jotakin, jota ei voi kuulla. Herra Anatole tulee toisesta
ovesta ja suutelee häntä yli olan. Herra Anatole on varustettu
kultanuppisella kanelikepillä, nenäkakkuloilla, sikarettikoneella sekä
paksuilla kellonperillä. Hänen paitansa on kaareen leikattu "alas
solisluun putkiin saakka", kuten Håkan Olsson lausui kotiin tultuaan.
Anatole valmistaa sikaretin ja sanoo jotakin kamarineitsyeelle. Silloin
astuu huoneeseen markiisitar, viittaa kamarineitsyelle, joka heti
käsittää asian ja sentähden poistuu. He jäävät kahden kesken.
— Herrani!
— Rouva markiisitar!

Anatole asettaa luotaan sikarettikoneen ja ottaa käteensä
kaneliputken.
— Mikä asia tuottaa minulle näin aikaisen vierailun kunnian?
Anatole ruoskii housujaan putkella.
— Suoraan sanoen, rouva markiisitar, en tiedä, mikä oikeuttaa
Teitä tekemään sellaisen kysymyksen.
— Teidän poissaolonne oikeuttaisi Teitä minulta kysymään, miksi
teidän läsnäolonne oikeuttaa minua kysymään teiltä!
("Mikä kahdenpuhelu: charmanttia!" Heikko kättentaputus! —)
Anatole tekee kulmaviivan brysseliläiseen mattoon, asettaa nenälle
kakkulansa, ruoskii sohvaa putkellaan ja sanoo seisten selin
markiisittareen:
— Sentähden, että minä rakastan teitä! Markiisitar kääntää hänelle
selkänsä ja surauttaa laahustimen jalkojensa ympäri, sitte kääntää
hän päätään ruumiin pysyessä liikkumattomana, asettaa kasvot
selälle, leuka puristettuna yli selkärangan ja sanoo sfinksintapaisella
hymyllä:
— Tänään on kaunis ilma.
Anatole purskahtaa hermostuttavaan nauruun ja ottaa taasen
esille sikarettikoneen. Markiisitar kietoo laahustimen ja menee, hän
pysähtyy keskelle mattoa ja avaa suunsa ikäänkuin hän aikoisi sanoa
jotakin, muttei sano mitään vaan menee.

Raikkaat kätten taputukset kutsuvat hänet heti näyttämölle
vastaanottamaan yleisön suosionosotukset. Herttua seisoo yleisön
takana astuakseen ensikerran syksyllä esille lysekiililäisen raivonsa
jälkeen, hän kiehuu raivoissaan. Hän antaa näyttämön olla hetken
tyhjänä jotta se tuulettuisi markiisittaren hyväksi kaikuvista
kättentaputuksista ja hän antaa Anatolenkin seistä siinä
epätoivoissaan. Nyt kun katsomo on käynyt kuolonhiljaiseksi ja kun
alkaa kuulua hiljainen kuiskutus, "nyt hän tulee", astuu herttua esille
hitaasti, ohimennen, välinpitämättömästi. Näyttää siltä, ikäänkuin
hän todellakin olisi ollut sairas, mutta ei Lysekilissä vaan Venedigissä,
hänen kasvonsa ilmaisevat sanomattomia kärsimyksiä, ikäänkuin hän
olisi elänyt talven paloavannossa.
Kaikuva kättentaputus tervehtii häntä, mutta hän ei ensialuksi
kuule sitä, hänen silmänsä katsovat sanoin selittämättömään
kaukaisuuteen. Vihdoin hän herää, katselee hämmästyneenä
ympärilleen: "mitä tämä merkitsee?" Sellaista ei hän koskaan ollut
odottanut. Heikko tuntemisen hymy liitää hänen kalpeilla huulillaan,
hän tulee liikutetuksi, kulkee kuiskaajan luukulle ja kumartaa käsi
sydämellä.
Melu lakkaa ja Anatole, joka on kärsinyt helvetin tuskia turhaan
yrittäessään keskeyttää kättentaputuksia, iskee nyt sanottavallaan:
— Jean! Sinäkö siinä todellakin olet, vanha kunnon ystävä! Mikä
onnen sattuma on meidät yhteen vienyt?
Jean syleilee Anatolea syvästi liikutettuna ja sanoo häntä vanhaksi
veikokseen. Anatole huomaa hänen olevan onnettoman näköisen,
pyytää istumaan ja kertomaan.

Jean istautuu ja vaipuu olkapäihinsä saakka nojatuoliin: Anatole
tarjoo hänelle sikaretin, josta hän ystävällisesti kieltäytyy, sitte alkaa
hän kertoa. Håkan Olsson nukahtaa ja herää parahiksi kuullakseen
lopun. Jean on perikadon partaalla, niin että hänellä on vain 6,000
frangin korot, eikä tiedä, mitä hän enään tekisi elämässä, mikä on
ryöstänyt häneltä kaikki hänen haaveluulonsa.
Anatole kehottaa häntä hakemaan ministerin paikkaa Neapelissa,
mutta
Jean on liian ylväs työtä tehdäkseen.
— Ja nyt sinä aijot ampua itsesi, sanoo Anatole.
— Minä pitäisin sitä pyhänä velvollisuutena sukuani kohtaan, jonka
nimeä minulla on kunnia kantaa, mutta minä en voi nykyään sitä
enään tehdä, sillä — — — minä — — — rakastan. (Hän nousee ja
asettuu seisomaan lieden viereen).
— Rakastatko sinä? Ja ketä?
— Markiisitar de Carambolea.
— Markiisitar de Caramboleako?
Anatole lentää pystyyn ja polkee mattoa kiiltonahkakengillään.
Jean antaa pään vaipua solisluiden väliin, nostaa vasenta
etujalkaa, lyö heikosti kerran lattiaan ja kuiskaa tuskin kuuluvasti:
— Tjaa!
Sitte huomaa hän Anatolen liikutuksen, hän nostaa taas päänsä
hitaasti olkapäille, pyöristelee silmiään molempien etu-alojen välille

ja huudahtaa:
— Mikä sinua vaivaa? Mielesi on liikutuksissa?
— Ei mitään! Ei mitään! Pyörtymyskohtaus; kyllä se pian ohi
menee!
Jean syöksähtää esille, tarttuu Anatolen olkapäihin, katselee häntä
suoraan silmiin ja huudahtaa:
— Sinä rakastat markiisitarta!
Anatole pujotteleikse hänen syleilystään, poimii sikarettikoneen,
putken ja hatun, syöksyy juosten raolla olevasta ovesta ja huutaa:
— Minä rakastan häntä!
Mutta Jean on huomannut ilkeän juonen ja tahtoo ennättää ennen
kättentaputuksien kilpailussa, heittäytyy takaperin matolle niin, että
pää työntyy resooria vasten.
Esirippu lankee. Jean huudetaan näyttämölle ja saa kukkavihon,
mutta
Anatole ei uskalla mennä näyttämölle.
Toisessa näytöksessä ovat koko kansallisteatterin oppilaskoulu ja
näytelmätaiteelliset jäsenet, joilla on palkkaa alle 200 kruunun,
kokoontuneina markiisittaren luona suunnattoman suuren piljaartin
ympärille. Teetä ja sampanjaa tarjottaessa punoutuu seuraava,
henkevä kahdenpuhelu:
— Guerre!
— Carambolage!

— Pott!
— Markööri!
— Köö!
— Milieu!
— Taashi!
— Cinque!
— Huit!
— Dix!
Tämä on johdantokohtauksena piakkoin tapahtuvaan isoon
loppuselkkaukseen. Oppilaskoulu poistuu ja markiisitar tulee Jeanin
seuraamana.
— Minä olen teille velkaa tunnustuksen, rouva markiisitar.
— Te ette ole minulle mitään velkaa.
— Minä rakastan teitä.
— Entä sitten?
— Te rakastatte Anatolea.
— Entä sitten?
— Minä olen mennyt mies.
— Entä sitten?

— Minä ammun hänet.
— Sitä ette tee!
— Miksen?
— Siksi, että rakastatte minua.
Markiisitar on vetäytynyt alas vasenta etu-alaa kohden, hän viskaa
vasemmalla pohkeellaan laahustimen kulissien väliin, lankee
polvilleen ja sulkee sormensa ristiin.
— Te ette tapa häntä, kun minä pyydän teitä, eikö totta?
— Minä tapan hänet!
Jean alkaa nyt kulkea takaperin uunia kohden ja markiisitar ryömii
eteenpäin polvillaan seuraavan vuoropuhelun aikana:
— Ei!
— Kyllä!
— Ei!
— Kyllä!
— Ei!
— Kyllä!
Nyt on menty täyttä vauhtia ja nyt täytyy kääntyä. Jean asettaa
vasemmalla jalallaan laahustimen paikalleen ja kulkee takaperin alas
vasemmalle etu-alalle markiisittaren ryömiessä hänen jälessään;

Kohtaus on mitä jännittävin, sillä saattaa joka hetki odottaa hameen
repeytyvän vyötäreiden kohdalta ja irtaantuvan, mutta kaikki käy
hyvin kunnes Jean syöksyy ulos ovesta. Silloin markiisitar päästää
intiaanihuudon ja ryömii pitkin pöytiä ja tuoleja kunnes lopen
väsyneenä heittäytyy suulleen ja korolla tunnustelee, onko laahustin
hyvässä asennossa.
Anatole syöksyy huoneeseen.
— Missä on se katala!
Markiisitar toipuu närkästyksestään, ettei saanut osakseen
kättentaputuksia, ja vastaa terävästi:
— En minä tiedä!
— Te valehtelette, Cocotte! Hän oli juuri täällä! Haa, minä
huomaan, että te salaatte jotakin minulta ja minä vannon, että teillä
on hänen kirjeensä povellanne. Antakaa se tänne!
— Ei minulla ole kirjettä!
— Antakaa se tänne!
Anatole repii rikki hänen hameenvyötärönsä ja saa kirjeen
käsiinsä.
— Haa, katala!
Mutta markiisitar syöksyy hänen kimppuunsa ja ottaa kirjeen
takaisin. Nyt alkaa hyvin jännittävä kohtaus. Anatole ryntää
markiisittaren kimppuun, työntää hänet takaperin sohvalle ja asettaa
polvensa hänen rinnalleen. Markiisitar potkii häntä vatsaan, päästäen

tukahutettuja tuskan huutoja ja vie salaa kirjeen suuhunsa.
Markiisitar puree hänen sormiansa ja sylkee hänen kasvoihinsa.
Anatole lyö häntä kasvoihin ja sanoo häntä cochonneksi. Markiisitar
selittää nielleensä kirjeen, jonka jälkeen Anatole pyörittelee itselleen
sikaretin ja menee.
Esirippu!
Sisäänhuutoja.
Hän menee alas ravintolakellariin ja tapaa muita valtiopäivämiehiä,
etevät taiteilijat kansallisteatterista ovat kutsuneet heidät illallisille.
Håkan Olsson on myös kutsuttu, sillä kansallisnäyttelijät pitävät
kaikista valtiopäivämiehistä. Hän menee sentähden näytännön
loputtua noutamaan naisensa ja vie ne kotiin ja saa tietää, että he
ovat olleet hyvin onnellisia ja että kääntäjä on kaksi kertaa tullut
esiinhuudetuksi.
Nordissa oli toimeenpantu pienet, huikeat illalliset ja sekä Jean
että Anatole olivat isäntinä. Håkan Olsson oli rehellisesti maksanut
pilettinsä eikä ymmärtänyt, että velvollisuus oli kiittää
kansallisnäyttelijoitä siitä, että ne hyvänluontoisesti palvelivat. Tämä
ei lainkaan näkynyt vaikuttavan heidän luonteisiinsa, sillä he olivat
hyvin hilpeällä tuulella. Jean kävi heti Olssonin kimppuun ja otti
hänet syliinsä.
— No, oliko setä tänä iltana meihin tyytyväinen? Jean nimittäin ei
koskaan ollut nähnyt talonpoikaa paitsi kuninkaallisissa
kansallishuvitilaisuuksissa ja luuli sentähden, että heitä kaikkia
sanottiin sediksi.

— Kyllä minä olin hyvin tyytyväinen iltaani, ja minä huomaan nyt,
että näytelmistä voi oppia yhtä ja toista, jota ei ennen ole tietänyt.
— No kas vaan! Setä siis tunnustaa niiden olevan sivistävää huvia?
— Niinpä niin, minun täytyy sanoa, etten koskaan ole tuntenut
itseäni niin sivistyneeksi kuin tänä iltana ja tämä
kansallisnäytteleminen on siunattu asia. Se on totta se.
— Hän lausuu sanansa hiukan tyhmästi, kuiskasi Anatole, mutta
hän on luotettava.
— Mikä oli sen nimi, joka sai rouvan kumoon sohvalle? kysyi
Håkan
Olsson.
Anatole hämmästyi.
— Minähän näyttelin sitä osaa, sanoi hän loukkaantuneena.
— Häh, vai näyttelijäkö? Näyttelijä näytteli oikein rennosti.
— Eikö valtiopäivämiehellä ollut ohjelmaa, kysyi Jean.
— Ei ollut, minä en koskaan käytä ohjelmaa, sillä minä menen
teatteriin katsomaan kappaletta enkä näyttelijöitä.
— Ei näyttelijättäriäkään? ehätti Anatole pisteliäästi.
— En niitäkään. Minä tahdon aina ajatella ketä ne esittävät, enkä
ketä he ovat.
— Sitä ja tätä, jonnin joutavata joukkoa! kuiskasi Jean ja Anatole
myönsi.

Illallisen jälkeen piti Jean loistavan puheen, mainiten Kustaa
kolmannen luomia pyhäkköjä, häväisijöitä ja häpeäpilkkuja.
Håkan Olsson vastasi:
— Hän ei mielellään käynyt oopperassa, sillä hän ei ymmärtänyt
ulkomaalaisia kieliä; (Hyvä!) hän ei äänestäisi kahta äyriäkään
kansallisoopperan hyväksi, sillä sellaista ei ollut olemassa ja
ulkomaalaista saattoivat hoitaa samat soittoniekat ilman, että he
olivat kansallismusikanttia, (Hyvä!) mutta dramaattista hän tahtoi
puoltaa. Hän, joka vietti hiljaista, erillään olevaa elämää maaseudulla
eikä koskaan päässyt tilaisuuteen seurustella hienoston keskuudessa,
hänellä oli paljon enemmän opittavaa kansallisnäytännön kappaleen
katselemisesta, sillä hän sai sen kautta nähdä ja kokea, kuinka
hienot ihmiset elivät ja ajattelivat elämänsä. Teatteri, hyvät herrat,
on sivistyslaitos, se on ase, joka on hyvin vaarallinen, eikä sitä
sentähden pidä jättää sivistymättömien ihmisten käsiin niin, ettei se
kääntyisi hallitusta vastaan. Hyvät herrat, te olette kestinneet niin
runsaasti, että luulen sanoneeni ajatukseni hiukan epäselvästi, mutta
joka tapauksessa se oli hyvää tarkottava. Mitä tulee Kustaa
kolmannen luomaan, niin en luule sen olevan minäkään esteenä
käymästä oopperan kimppuun, joka nielee kaikki, minkä
dramaattinen ansaitsee, (Hyvä!) sillä me olemme ennen käyneet
erään Kustaa kolmannen luoman kimppuun.
— Mihinkä niin?
— Kustaa neljäs Adolfiin! (Kätten taputuksia) enkä luule sentähden
saaneemme mitään häpeäpilkkuja. Maljanne, hyvät herrat!
Hurraa-huutoja! Håkan Olssonia nostetaan ja kannetaan tuolissa.

— Hän ei ole niin tuhma, kuin päältä näyttää, sanoi Jean.
— Hänellä on repo mielessä, sanoi Anatole, kun he lähtivät
juhlasta.

VIHITTYNÄ JA VIHKIMÄTTÄ
Raastuvanoikeuden notario oli eräänä kauniina kevätiltana kävelyllä
Humlegårdenissa. Hän kuuli laulua ja soittoa Rotundasta ja näki
valon tulvehtivan isoista akkunoista valaen valoaan äsken
puhjenneiden lehmusten varjoihin.
Hän meni sinne ja istautui yksinäisen pöydän ääreen lähelle lavaa
ja tilasi totia.
Ensin lauloi muuan ilveniekka surullisen laulun "Kuolleesta
rotasta." Sitte astui lavalle ruusunpunaiseen lenninkiin puettu nuori
tyttö ja lauloi: "Og intet aer saa deilig som en maanskinstur." Hänen
katsantonsa oli suhteellisesti viaton ja omisti laulun viattomalle
notariollemme. Sellaisesta suosiosta mielissään alkoi hän hieroa
sopimuksia, mitkä alkoivat sillä, että hän tarjosi pullon oikeata
liljeholmilaista ja ne päättyivät kahdella kalustetulla huoneella
kyökkineen ja tarpeellisine mukavuuksineen Ladugårdslandetilla.
Tämän teoksen suunnitelmaan eivät kuulu nuoren miehen tunteiden
tutkiminen yhtä vähän kuin huonekalujen tai tarpeellisten
ulkohuoneiden kuvaaminenkaan.
Joka tapauksessa, he olivat hyviä ystäviä.

Mutta ajan sosialististen tarkoitusperien tartuttamana ja kaivaten
aina saavansa nähdä onnensa silmiensä edessä, päätti notario itse
muuttaa huoneustoon sekä asettaa ystävättärensä
taloudenhoitajattareksi, johon tämä mielellään suostui.
Mutta nuorella miehellä oli perhe; se tahtoo sanoa hänen
perheensä piti häntä jäsenenään ja koska arveltiin hänen
loukanneen yleistä siveyttä ja siten langettaneen varjon
perhearvolle, kutsuivat hänet hänen vanhempansa ja siskonsa
kuulemaan varoitusta. Koska hän piti itseään liian vanhana
kuunnellakseen sellaista loppuun, katkesivat sovinnonhieronnat ja
kanssakäynti.
Tämä kiinnitti hänet yhä enemmän hänen omaan kotiinsa, ja
hänestä tuli hyvin kotoarakastava avio — anteeksi epäaviomies. He
olivat onnellisia, sillä he pitivät toisistansa, eivätkä mitkään siteet
painaneet heitä. He elivät hilpeässä levottomuudessa peläten
kadottavansa toisensa ja he tekivät sentähden kaikki saadakseen
omistaa toisensa. He kaksi olivat yksi, mutta jotain heidän
elämästään puuttui: seuranpitoa. Yhteiskunta ei huolinut heistä, eikä
notario ottanut vastaan mitään vieraskutsuja suuresta maailmasta.
Oli jouluaaton päivä, ankara päivä perheiselle miehelle. Notario joi
aamukahviaan saadessaan kirjeen. Kirje tuli eräältä sisarelta, joka
sydäntäsärkevällä tavalla pyysi häntä kotiin jouluillaksi. Hänen
vanhat tunnelmakielensä alkoivat värähdellä ja hän oli pahalla päällä.
Antaisiko hän hänen, ystävättärensä, vaimonsa istua yksin kotosalla
sellaisena iltana? Ei? Täytyisikö hänen paikkansa kotoisen
joulupöydän ääressä olla tyhjänä, paikkansa, josta hän ei koskaan
ollut poikennut? Hm! Sellainen oli asiain tila mennessään
virastoonsa.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

School Improvement Through Performance Feedback 1st Edition A J Visscher R Coe

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

School Improvement Through Performance Feedback 1st Edition A J Visscher R Coe

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79