The THRILL project: research into goal attainment.
Yvonne Leeman & Willem Wardekker (Windesheim, The Netherlands)
(yam.leeman@windesheim.nl)
EAPRIL, Trier, 2009
The Thrill project was explicitly intended as a pilot. It was to explore the possibilities of integrating its
founding principles and aims into the normal curricula of occupational schools. This was a condition
put on the project by the funding agency, but as a goal it was explicitly shared by the project leaders.
To make that possible, and also to be able to quickly redress problems, the project worked in sixmonthly cycles. Beginning with a small number of students, each cycle accommodated more and
generally also larger groups of students, and more teachers were involved. All in all, the project
consisted of five such cycles. Once integrated, the project was intended to contribute to a number of
goals, some at the institutional level, others aiming at students. In the official documents meant for
the funding agency, the latter category consists of two goals:
a. augmenting students’ professionalism regarding dealing with clients, research and development
skills, integral thinking, the connection between theory and acting, and competence in taking action;
b. promoting learning careers and successful transfer to other levels of education.
Clearly, these descriptions are meant to satisfy the funding agency’s desire for qualification
outcomes. In our conversations with the project leaders, however, their emphasis clearly was on
individuation.
Thrill has something to offer that schools and work placements do not. It is, therefore, a special form
of learning with special learning goals. These goals are important for students’ occupational
development. Thrill works on this development. Characteristics of this method of working should also
find their way into the participating schools. These characteristics are, for example, stimulating
reflection, inquiry-based learning and supportive coaching.
It will be clear from this description that the Thrill project emphasized the ‘individuation’ aim of
education, while assuming that in the curricula of the participating schools, the aims of qualification
and socialization would already be adequately represented. This, of course, is in line with the
motivation behind many recent innovations in education, where the development of integrated
competence and personal growth are considered to be more important in a time of rapidly changing
knowledge and occupational structures. In our interviews, it became clear that the project leaders
saw this aim as the most important. Together with them, we specified this aim for the participating
students as follows:
Becoming aware of one’s own potential and capacities, and the development of selfconfidence (‘agency’), coupled with the acquisition of subject-oriented occupational
competences in the more traditional sense.
This aim is clearly oriented towards the long-term personal development of individual students. The
underlying idea is that, through co-operation with students from other courses of study and
different levels of professional education, students have the opportunity to develop a positive image
of their own possibilities. This was seen as especially important for the students at the lowest (vmbo)
level, who often (as was also clear from our interviews) see themselves as more or less skilled future
1
workers, carrying out the orders and plans specified by others. It was hoped that the project
environment would stimulate them to find their own possibilities to co-operate at a higher level.
Educational aims such as these, which essentially see education as an aid for students in developing
their individuality and identity, are much discussed at this moment, for instance in relation to the
task of citizenship education in a pluriform social world or the development of a critical occupational
identity.
The accompanying research
In order to obtain funding for the project, the originators had to conform to the requirement of the
funding agency (Het Platform Beroepsonderwijs) that the project be evaluated. The present authors,
professors at Windesheim University of professional studies, were asked to carry out part of this
research task. Originally, the Platform (as funding agency) wanted us to do an evaluation study in
which learning results would be the main criterion. We thought this technically impossible (as at the
time we were asked, the first cycle of the project had already started, so no base level measurement
was possible) as well as undesirable (because the intentions of the project were more oriented
towards individuation than towards disciplinary learning results, an orientation we shared). We
carried out a form of design based research concentrating on clarifying and improving the
pedagogical model behind the project. Both we and the project leaders deemed this a necessary
contribution. The project leaders had a primarily technical background, and were somewhat naive in
thinking that organizing a realistic and co-operative work environment for the students would be a
sufficient condition for student motivation and results in terms of individuation.
Our research contribution, then, concentrated on interviewing the participating students and
teachers as to their experiences in the project. Our interviews concentrated on a number of aspects
derived from the project goals; the most important of these were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Insight in structure of professional field
Insight in own career possibilities
Insight in own learning process
Discipline-related knowledge and skills
General professional skills
Creative attitude
Social skills
Insight in relationship with commissioner and in product requirements
Altogether, we interviewed the project leaders, most of the teachers involved, some parents, and 56
students of the three different educational levels. Of these, 25 studied at the lowest level, the vmbo
(voorbereidend middelbaar beroepsonderwijs) . After each cycle, we reported back on our findings,
so that the project could be (and sometimes was indeed) changed according to our
recommendations. In the earlier cycles especially, these recommendations were directed at
implementing procedures for clarifying the project goals, also for students, and implementing
reflection possibilities. As researchers, however, we had no power over actual changes, which were
also made for organizational reasons and often had a ‘quick and dirty’ character. The project was
‘owned’ by the project leaders who made all decisions, sometimes in consultation with us and/or
2
with the schools, but also with an eye on the goal of upscaling the project to a generally usable
pedagogical approach.
Research findings: The vmbo students
In this paper we focus on our research findings on the student in de lowest educational track: the
vmbo. The students were sufficiently motivated to participate in Walibi Thrill. They wanted to do
something for the Walibi park (although it was disappointing that it was all less real than expected).
They had confidence in the school and the teachers. The biggest general complaint was the length of
the school day. The day was much longer owing to travelling from school to the workplace. (Not a
single student of the highest level (hbo) mentioned this complaint.)
‘I do actually like it but I think the times could be shorter. I always get home at half past
three. I would rather leave at half past one / two o’clock so that I’m home by half past two. I
really think that would be better. Now you’re here the whole day. It just gets worse and
worse. At a certain point you’ve had enough.’
The problem is that vmbo students tend to see themselves in the same way as most of the teachers:
as pure executors of the plans and prescriptions of others, both in school and in their (future) jobs.
They adopted a wait-and-see stance, taking little initiative themselves. They had reconciled
themselves to never being the boss. They are used to complying and not demanding a say for
themselves when collaborating. When they do not agree with something, instead of saying so, they
show it in the way they behave.
‘The mbo-ers (students of a level between vmbo en hbo) are more involved with drawing on
paper. We work with our hands from those drawings, and the hbo-ers sort of direct
everything. They take note of the safety requirements and tell us how many centimetres
something has to be.’
Interviewer: ‘In the future if you have to make service calls at customers’ houses, then you
need to know all about safety too.’
‘We haven’t done anything about safety at school yet. Well, the first chapter but that was
more about high voltage current.’ (...)
Itr: ‘So in your team the hbo-ers are clearly the boss.’
‘Yeah.’
Itr: ’And the mbo-ers?’
‘They don’t do much, as far as I can see. They use the computers. But … it doesn’t make much
difference to me. As long as I’ve got something to do. I’d rather do something with my hands
than be at the computer all day.’
It is exactly this attitude the project aimed to change by forming groups of students from different
levels of education. In principle, this gave all students the opportunity to participate in the forming of
ideas and decisions. Students were to be taken seriously as product developers. Thus, at least there
was a possibility for the students to develop self-confidence and agency, important elements in the
formation of an occupational identity as an autonomous thinker and worker.
However, at least four elements in the project appear to have worked against this aim. In the first
place, work goals for the students were specified according to their educational level. As a
3
consequence, vmbo students normally got tasks that teachers and students of the higher level saw as
fit for their capabilities. Often, they were not really treated as developers. This would seem to have
diminished the stimulation to function at a higher level for vmbo students. In the second place,
teachers, being oriented towards the timely production of an end result, did not always stimulate
vmbo students to think autonomously. This led to a ‘schoolish’ attitude towards the project.
‘At school you’re given a detailed assignment that you have to do, whereas at the Thrill
project you have to think of it yourself. I prefer the detailed assignment. Otherwise it’s not
much different to school. The teacher at school explains more and gives more guidance. If
you have to do something and it doesn’t work, then the teacher takes the time to explain it
properly. After that you have to try and do it again yourself. The teacher at Thrill also gives
good guidance but when something doesn’t work here then the teacher shows you how to
do it and then you carry on again afterwards. The teacher, not you, solves the actual
problem.’
In the third place, the rather minimal relation with the amusement park staff and the dominant role
of the teachers meant that students perceived the project as ‘not quite real work’ and rather closer
to school work than, for instance, a work placement. They felt that work placement would give them
more of a feel for the circumstances of real work. And in the fourth place, the measures taken by the
‘third researcher’, although intended to enhance the students’ motivation and agency, probably
lacked in stimulation to interpret themselves and their role in the project in a way that differed from
their ‘normal’ view of themselves and of school. As students experienced the project more like a
school situation than like a work environment, they preferred a tighter organization where they
could keep working without having to ‘think too much’.
Especially the last element was evident in our observations of the groups of students at work. There
was a clear difference between the attitudes and the work ethos of the students from different
school types. The hbo students, who were assigned the task of group leaders, would be organizing
the work and giving out tasks for the other students. The mbo students would be behind a computer,
either finding technical specifications on the Internet or looking at websites that attracted their
general interest. The vmbo students would, either individually or at most in groups of two, be busy
with making a part of the planned object- if they were not taking time off to smoke or have a chat.
‘On the whole I like it here but you mustn’t just sit there and stare out of the window. You
can do that - bang a few nails in a bit of wood and that’s it. Last week I did that myself, did
nothing all day, then I was really fed up with it.’
It seemed to us that often, students would invest more time and energy in their assignment, refining
the product beyond the technical necessity, possibly in order to avoid getting a new assignment or
having to help others. We seldom observed the form of inter-level co-operation and mutual
creativity intended by the project.
When we interviewed vmbo students, elements of this attitude surfaced. They adopted a wait-andsee attitude: if at some moment there was no work on the project for them, they would do school
work or play outside, but would not take initiatives to change the situation. They had a basic trust in
teachers, school, and generally those ‘above’ them; they seemed content when school and project
did not have higher expectations of them but took care to keep them working. They were not
4
accustomed to voicing their ideas, be it on the project, on school, or on their own learning and
perspectives – which made it all the easier for higher level students merely to give them assignments
meant to get the product ready in time, without reference to ‘higher’ project goals. Moreover, the
vmbo students seemed happy with this, they were accustomed to taking orders. Many of them tell
us they have learned to co-operate in a group, and some of them explicitly point out the cooperation with people who have a different level of education. When asked what exactly they
learned, they cannot answer though. This at least means that there has been little or no guided
reflection on one of the most important project goals.
Interviewer: ‘What’s the most important thing that you’ve learnt here?’
‘Working together with others from different levels.’ (This was said as if it had been
rehearsed.)
Itr: ‘Can you give us an example?’
(Thinks about it...) ‘Not really... I don’t really know.’
Itr: ‘Something that you’ve learned about working together?’
(Thinks about it for a long time…) ‘Not yet. How long have we been doing this? I think it’s
already five weeks. First everything with polystyrene. That took up three or four weeks. Now
we’ve just started welding. So we’ve not really done anything important yet that you can
really work on together...’
Itr: ‘You’re a team. You hear how the others talk. Do you learn anything from that?’
‘Yeah, you learn to respect the opinion of others, I guess. That you also sort of take them
seriously.’
Conclusions
The research findings on the mbo students and the hbo students differ from those on the vmbo
students. For example the hbo-students in general reported to have learned about their potential
and capacities during Thrill. The students of the three different educational levels experienced, while
working together in groups, different learning possibilities. These insights bring us to the following
conclusions on the pedagogical design:

The complexity of designing a learning environment for heterogeneous project groups:
–
–
authentic learning:
•
differs with school level and discipline
•
allowing for mistakes in an authentic situation
cooperative learning:
•
problems with role assignment
•
Teachers need to learn to coach students
•
Evaluation of individual students is difficult
•
Relation with the regular school curriculum needs to be organized and made clear to
students
5