EVALUATING THE HOSPITAL PROJECT

by Margaret Brooks 

At the Child Study Centre evaluation of both the project and the childrens learning within it is continually in process. We found The Project Approach: A Practical Guide For Teachers very helpful. It provided a framework for us to think about our project at each stage of it's development. There were descriptions of the kinds of learning that occur in project work.

Phase 1

Initial Planning

The hospital is a part of the children's community and has been visited by many of them for one reason or another. They have many questions they would like to research. There is great potential within the hospital project for providing a wide range of children's activities from all strands of the curriculum. We were particularly interested in providing opportunities for socio/dramatic play. However socio/dramatic play requires that the roles the children are going to play are clearly defined and easily organized into fairly realistic schemes. For example: a reception, a waiting room, an examination room and perhaps one kind of specialty. This not only allowed for several different roles to be played out but also had a natural built-in organization.

If we were to study the whole hospital then the play schemes would be too complex for the children to organize and learn from. We narrowed the topic down to one specific area of the hospital: radiology and bones. We were aware that we could always expand it to include new specialties like a maternity unit or ambulance depot later.

Phase 2

Setting parameters worked well for us. The children were able to study the roles in much more depth when the choice of role was limited and the functions they performed critical to the smooth running of a practice. For example: a patient could not suddenly switch roles and become both doctor and patient. As a patient first they had to go through an admission procedure and wait in the waiting room until the doctor was free to see them.

This structure allowed us to build in opportunities for the children to practice skills they already had as well as learn new ones. For example; they knew how to write their own names, but in the role of receptionist they also had to be able to write the names of the patients. They knew how to measure blocks, but in the examination room they had to measure a part of the body and record the length and the part they were referring to.

Working in the examination room allowed the children to bring their own knowledge to the project as well as acquire new knowledge. For example: they knew that the doctor often listened to the heart and chest but did not know that the instrument was a stethoscope and that there were specific things being listened for or that different parts of the body made different noises.

Socio/dramatic play provided scope for including a wide range of levels of ability and approaches to learning. For example: the more socially confident children were the first to take on the role of receptionist and test their skills in gathering information from their peers and organizing the process. The less demanding role of patient allowed other less confident children to participate while also observing how a receptionist might function so that they too could try out this role.

'Bones' as a topic allowed us to incorporate other forms of learning besides socio/dramatic play. Bones were reasonably easy to acquire for hands on manipulation and exploration. Different kinds of bones were classified, drawn, charted, researched, weighed, modeled, measured, etc. and each of these activities produced evidence of the children's learning and use of basic academic skills in another context.

There were many kinds of discussion in this project. There were large group discussions where ideas were shared, new information presented, consensus built, assertions tested, confusion unraveled and disagreements mediated. There were small group discussions that did the same, both with and without an adult. There were many opportunities for one on one discussions between child and child, and between child and adult. We have found that the likelihood of interactive learning and the co-construction of knowledge taking place is much greater in small groups and on an individual basis, therefore we planned more time and space for this to happen.

Phase 3

A project on 'bones' allowed us access to two forms of assessment, summative and formative. In the Child Study Centre assessment tends to be mostly formative assessment and we have found that project work allows us to manage our time so that we are able to collect quality samples. We use many different ways of collecting evidence and interpreting children's learning.

Observation

Our role in sociodramatic play is very flexible so we found it easier to shadow a child and make notes about specific events. For example: within a set time period, curriculum content, type of skills or processes, changes in the child's thinking or even whether the child is actively engaged or not.

Audio/video tape

We use these for assessment and for record keeping. A video of our hospital waiting room and reception area allowed us to see many things; group dynamics, understanding of the function of the area, planning, organization, motor skills, complexity of play schema, the kinds of language used, quality of interactions between peers and adults, the kinds and amount of scaffolding different children need to participate, etc. We also used these video clips to show parents what the children were doing and as a focus for discussion with children. We collected clips over a period of time and examined them for changes and growth.

Discussion, interviewing and conferencing.

Talking with children about their work gives us wonderful insights into how they are thinking.

Portfolios.

Working with 3 - 5 year olds has presented us with tremendous challenges in assembling portfolios that adequately represent some children's work. In our 'bones' project we were able to collect a wide variety of writing samples from charts, labels, prescriptions and stories etc.. Photographs of their block x-ray machines, pharmacy and nursery, were also put into the portfolio.

Checklists

We have a checklist, that is linked to the curriculum guide for ECS in Alberta, the guides our record keeping. We believe that thoughtful assessment can contribute much to the public debate on effective teaching. If we can strengthen it with classroom evidence that supports the strengths and weaknesses of new structures and if it reports on children's learning, then it can be a very powerful professional activity and can enable teachers to take much of the responsibility for curriculum development.

References and resources in this area that I have used:

• Bruner, J.S. (1986) ACTUAL MINDS, POSSIBLE WORDS. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chard, S. (1992) THE PROJECT APPROACH: A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR TEACHERS. Edmonton, University of Alberta Printing Services.
• Katz, L. & Chard, S. (1989) ENGAGING CHILDREN'S MINDS: THE PROJECT APPROACH. New Jersey: Ablex.
• Pollard, A. & Tann, S. (1987) REFLECTIVE TEACHING IN THE PRIMARY CLASSROOM. London: Cassell.
• Rowland, S. (1984) THE INQUIRING CLASSROOM. London: Falmer.
• Wood, D. (1988) HOW CHILDREN THINK AND LEARN. Oxford:

To select another project click here

Last revised: October 17, 1996