As yet, I have not received a response from either SEAMOE (IMPACT customers) or IDRC (IMPACT Donors) with regarded to detailed information or analysis of the programme. However, I have found a document dating back to March 1980 that provides the first clear definition of the curriculum and the form of the delivery system. The project principles are listed as follows:
1. The project subjects are in need of a primary education. The students themselves can be in-school, out-of-school or adults.
2. The essence of education is the learning process (I am unsure of the true significance of this statement)
3. Learning can take place anywhere.
4. Multiple Entry and Exit points. Solve the drop-out problem
5. Progress in based on mastery and individual speed
6. Education is a socialising process with training in leadership
7. Education is the responsibility of parents, the community and the government. (That final part is obviously open to debate)
8. The teacher is the manager/facilitator of the learning process
The document then follows a distinctly positivist approach to cirruculum design (Blooms taxomony) following a logical path from national development goals (based on the curious notion of a new Filipino) through teaching strategies and terminating with the definition of classroom actions and anticipated Student outcomes and behaviours. Whilst the superstructure of the programme is very clear, this approach raises a potentially awkward ontological question of the rational approach to education and Africans traditional/spiritual view of life i.e there is more to learning than tangible, measured outcomes. On the other hand, the simplicity of classroom procedures is paramount for reasons that shall soon become clear.
The curriculum appears to be focused on literacy, numeracy and practical skills. The school population is seperated into basic (1-3)and advanced (4-6) streams and framed within an instruction based delivery system (form of learning) with the following operating modes:
1. Programmed Teaching: The more experienced students teach the less experienced students based on a predefined set of scripts (levels 6, 5, 4 teach levels 1,2,3 respectively). The groups have 4-8 students for each student teacher (with a combination of mixed ability groups forming discrete family). There is 30 mins of teaching followed by 30mins of direct tutoring for the slower students in the group and a limit of one task per class. A number of teaching strategies have been identified, each with their own set of predefined scripts as the basis for the teaching process. The strategies follow a same basic form:
Step 1: The teacher presents a task to be performed (skill or small body of information) and asks the student to perform the task .i.e you are to sound a letter. What is this sound of this letter.
Step 2: The teacher demonstrates the correct response or teaches part of the task the pupil didnt perform correctly.
Step 3: Repeat step 1
Step 4: The teacher asks the group to perform the task which the student performed correctly or the teacher demonstrated.
At first glance is seems to me that steps 1 and 2 should exchange places. Surely the student-teacher is required to provide a correct demonstration of the task before expecting an appropriate response. Whatever the correct version, the process is rote-based (therefore culturally familiar) and simple to model as a basis for training adolescent teachers.
2. Peer Group Learning (Advanced Stream): Elder pupils who are on the second half of the continuum (levels 4-6) use the peer group learning mode. Each group is composed of 6 members (max) who are heterogeneous in ability but who are studying on the same core modules. Each member of the group takes turns in acting as group leader and in answering questions. Contracting is an integral part of Peer Group Learning. Simply, a group promises, in writing, to complete a number of modules for the week. Due recognition is made of the performance of each group with respect to its contract. The majority of learning time for Levels 4-6 is given to peer-group learning. The main reason for this is to enable the children to help each other. This model would appear to have some similarity with the constructivist environment defined by Piaget and described in some detail in my original proposal.
3. Individualised Study (Advanced Stream): One period each day is given over to “individual pursuits”. This is the hour during which the more able students study enriched advanced modules (alone or in small groups). This is also the hour during which the less able members of peer groups review and study the core module which the whole group had been studying during the previous three period. This review period is often undertaken with a more knowledgable peer in a similar form to the peer tutoring model defined by Vygotsky which also formed part of my original proposal.
Based on the IMPACT format, it is suggested that a single Instruction Supervisor (adult teacher) can facilitate/oversee the learning of 200 students simultaneously. The overriding question remains, is it possible to extract a portion of IMPACT for research purposes based on a set of Kasoan priorities, without losing the intrinsic meaning and purpose of the programme. I might not be able to answer this question until after the research is complete but I wont be able to get started until I have a definitive set of project requirements based on Ghanaian development needs, curriculum aims and objectives, intended learning experience etc.
Finally, there is the question of sustainability. A report dating back to the late 1970s suggested that whilst the learning procedure produced positive student outcomes (in relation to control groups), the project expanded very rapidly (in the shape of Community Learning Centres) with varying degrees of success. However a contemporary, Enhanced programme (e-IMPACT) has since been commissioned, suggesting that the SEAMOE have confidence in IMPACTs ability to improve the current status of mass primary education in South East Asia. We await a response to my emails before making an assessment of the policy implications; is it possible that a government body has implemented a functioning, accessible, sustainable low cost system of education for the poor? If so, why isnt IMPACT a cornerstone of the UN plans to achieve universal primary education.