AZSTT Funded
Transition in Science Education using Connecting Technologies
FINAL REPORT
November 2012
1
Contents
Contents .................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Name and contact details of Provider ............................................................................... 3
2. Title of Project ................................................................................................................... 3
3. Names of project team and list of schools/teachers involved. ........................................... 3
4. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 4
Rationale ................................................................................................................................ 4
5. Distinctiveness ................................................................................................................... 6
6. Project aims and objectives ............................................................................................... 6
7. Clearly defined objectives .................................................................................................. 7
8. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 7
9. Project details .................................................................................................................... 7
Timeline.................................................................................................................................. 8
10. Evaluation Strategy.......................................................................................................... 9
11. Project achievements/outcomes/impact. .......................................................................... 9
12. Evidence of impact ......................................................................................................... 10
13. Sustainability of the project ........................................................................................... 10
14. Dissemination strategy................................................................................................... 11
15. Conclusions/Recommendations ..................................................................................... 11
16. A short statement of up to 60 words............................................................................... 12
References ............................................................................................................................... 13
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix A Data Collection Instruments ............................................................................ 14
Appendix B Independent Internal Evaluation Report .......................................................... 15
Appendix C Illustrative data ................................................................................................ 20
Appendix D Dissemination information............................................................................... 21
2
1. Name and contact details of Provider
Principle Investigator: Dr. Andrew Chandler-Grevatt
Replaced Mr. James Williams (February 2012)
School of Education and Social Work, Essex House, University of Sussex, Falmer,
BN1 9QQ.
[email protected]
2. Title of Project
TRANSECT:
Transition in Science Education using Connecting Technologies
3. Names of project team and list of schools/teachers involved.
Project Team
Dr. Andy Chandler-Grevatt, Principle Investigator, University of Sussex
Joan Williams, Researcher, University of Sussex,
Julie Farlie, Project Coordinator, University of Sussex,
Professor Judy Sebba, University of Sussex
Dr. Chris Brown, Evaluator, [email protected]
Schools and Teachers involved
Berrywood Primary School, Hampshire, Dilys Mugford
Hiltingbury Primary School, Hampshire, Emma Green and Catherine Pollack
Otterbourne Primary School, Hampshire, Brian Macdonald
Ticehurst and Flimwell Church of England Primary School, East Sussex, Laura
Chown
Thornden Secondary School, Hampshire, Steve Smith
Uplands Community College, East Sussex, Mary Bellhouse
Wildern Secondary School, Hampshire, Rachel Habgood
3
4. Introduction
Rationale
The transition from primary to secondary school is a critical time for children, and the
move from primary to secondary science often represents one of the biggest
changes in pedagogy that a child encounters and can invoke intense anxiety
(Hargreaves and Galton, 2001). The experience of working in specialist laboratories
and coping with different approaches to science teaching and learning from the
specialist staff involved, can lead to interruption and a lack of continuity and
progression in science.
The University of Sussex is one of only five providers nationally currently offering a
specialist Key Stage 2-3 science Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programme. This
recruits up to 15 high quality science graduates who train as specialist transition
teachers. Because of this, the Department of Education has expertise in transition
teaching in science addressing the differing pedagogies of primary and secondary
science teaching. We have strong partnerships with secondary and primary schools,
easing the selection of high quality schools, teachers and trainees.
The differing pedagogies employed in primary and secondary science is a significant
issue, the main reason for pupils’ dissatisfaction with lower secondary school
science lies with poor pedagogy, (Russell, 2009: 3). The TRANSECT project
provided support to develop innovative work which allowed secondary teachers to
observe primary pedagogy (and vice versa) through an innovative form of two way
communication, allowing them to explore each other’s teaching perspectives and
analyse the reasons for their pedagogical approach.
A recent Wellcome Trust report (Russell, 2009: 3) on transition states that highquality sharing of pedagogy and practice between primary and secondary teachers is
key to improving transfer issues, helping pupils to recognise the value of the work
they have done at primary school and to see their learning in science in terms of
progression rather than repetition. Transition issues have been investigated over a
number of years (e.g. Nisbet and Entwistle, 1969, Nicholls and Gardner, 1999) with
various reports highlighting the need for collaborative work which recognizes the
pedagogic approaches taken by primary and secondary teachers, as well as the
importance of bridging units of work across the phases and the role of pupils in
mentoring and collaborative working (Gorwood, 1986; Galton and Willcocks, 1983;
Galton et al., 1999, 2003, 2009; Hargreaves and Galton, 2001)
The TRANSECT project used a new form of video and audio technology
(comparable to Skype and Videoconferencing) to facilitate the sharing of practice
and pedagogy, with the added benefits of pupil to pupil collaboration, pupil to pupil
mentoring and subject knowledge transfer (pupil to pupil and teacher to teacher) built
in. The technology consisted of portable high definition cameras which can be
streamed between schools and controlled via an interactive whiteboard. Real time
4
video and audio allowed the participants to observe without travelling or changing
the dynamics of the lesson.
A key factor in sharing pedagogy and practice lies in facilitating skills exchange while
avoiding the need to remove teachers from one school to visit another. Using video
and audio technology, real-time communication between schools utilizing standard
school IT (grid for learning) networks is now possible. Pupils and teachers can
observe one another and, when appropriate, communicate directly. These ‘teaching
observatories’ offer a powerful tool for improving knowledge and understanding of
the pedagogies across primary and secondary schools and develop strong coaching
and mentoring links between pupils in both phases.
The justification for developing ‘teaching observatories’ comes from the recognition
that for research evidence to impact on practice, the evidence should be generated
partly from practitioners’ knowledge (Hiebert et al., 2002). Others (e.g. Eraut, 2000,
Ratcliffe et al., 2004) have shown the importance of ‘tacit’, and ‘craft’ knowledge in
this process. Hiebert et al (2002) suggested that professional knowledge should be
placed in the public domain, so it can be accumulated and shared with others. This
would make it open to scrutiny, which may lead to verification and improvements in
the knowledge base.
To this end, the system was set up to facilitate the recording of ‘best practice’ in
teaching and learning. This allowed for a high degree of reflectivity and interactive
professional development. The term best practice can be contentious and subject to
varying definitions. In this instance it focused on skills and competencies in science
teaching in upper primary and lower secondary classes, valuing teachers’
professionalism, encouraging reflective practice and giving pupils a voice and role
(as coaches and mentors) across the transition phase. In selecting schools and
teachers that displayed ‘best practice’ key characteristics identified were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
classrooms that have an active approach to teaching and learning that is
enquiry based;
engagement of pupils with meaningful context-led teaching;
opportunities for pupils to explore, observe and test hypotheses;
teachers promoting higher order thinking skills;
classrooms in which misconceptions are elicited and addressed;
classrooms in which AfL is practised by teachers and where pupils are
receptive to constructive feedback and aware of their own progress and
attainment.
A key outcome of the project was to examine the links between primary pedagogical
theory and practice and secondary pedagogical theory and practice. Recording
expert teachers of primary and secondary science enabled us to create an archive of
best practice. Alongside this archive, the project produced associated documentation
5
made explicit links between pedagogical theory and practice in science teaching and
learning. Primary teachers were able to observe secondary pedagogy and talk to
teachers about the reasons for their approach; aspects of good secondary practice
were incorporated into primary science pedagogy and vice versa.
Overall, therefore, the project enabled:
•
Teachers to observe remotely others teaching and reflect upon secondary or
primary science pedagogy;
•
Pupils to collaborate on cross-phase science projects and investigations;
•
Examples of ‘best practice’ in primary and/or secondary teaching and
learning, made available for participants throughout the life of the project
(either through DVD or online secure video archiving);
•
Secondary pupil mentoring of primary pupils, easing the transition of primary
pupils to secondary science.
Collaborative working between primary and secondary teachers through this
interactive system is a powerful tool for developing ‘communities of practice’. Recent
research at Sussex has established that reflective teaching can be effectively
achieved utilizing such technologies (Marsh et al., 2010). The linking together of
professionals and pupils in the manner specified holds strong potential for innovation
in science teaching across the primary/secondary transition.
5. Distinctiveness
The TRANSECT project is unique in its attempt to bring together the use of
communication technologies and science education between the primary and
secondary phases.
6. Project aims and objectives
Overall aims.
The proposed work aimed to facilitate the transition between primary and secondary
science by:
•
Facilitating the sharing of experience and practices by selected groups of
teachers across the primary and secondary phases of education.
•
Encouraging critical reflection on these practices by means of structured
video-linked dialogues and online discussions.
•
Providing opportunities for pupil mentoring and support whereby Yr 7 pupils in
secondary schools were partnered through the use of this technology with Yr
6 pupils in local primary schools.
6
•
Breaking down perceived or real barriers in science education across the two
phases of education.
•
Easing transition concerns for Yr6 learners by demystifying secondary school
science.
•
Consolidating the value of previous science work undertaken by Year 7
learners.
•
Providing a transferable model of good practice relevant to Science CPD
across a range of UK contexts.
7. Clearly defined objectives
•
Teachers to observe remotely others teaching and reflect upon secondary or
primary science pedagogy;
•
Pupils to collaborate on cross-phase science projects and investigations;
•
Examples of ‘best practice’ in primary and/or secondary teaching and
learning, to be available for participants throughout the life of the project
(either through DVD or online secure video archiving);
•
Secondary pupil mentoring of primary pupils, easing the transition of primary
pupils to secondary science.
8. Summary
Three secondary schools and four of their partner primary schools trialled a project
that aimed to use communication technologies to support transition between primary
and secondary science. Each group of schools decided on a project that the pupils
carried out in their individual schools and communicated their results between
schools via Skype. Alongside this, teachers were encouraged to have a lesson
filmed, edited and submitted onto a secure YouTube channel. Teachers from each
phase were asked to watch and comment on the lessons they observed. The aim
was to increase their understanding of the pedagogy and subject content across
phases in the respective schools. Two of the three groups of schools successfully
completed their project.
9. Project details
There were three strands to the project:
1. Pupil Project:
Schools carried out a project that was decided between a class of primary (Year 6)
and a class of secondary school (Year 8) children. The project took place in each
school and ideas, results and information were exchanged using Skype between the
classes.
7
University Contacts: Andy Chandler-Grevatt and Joan Williams
2. Teacher ‘Sharing’ (Lesson filming):
One lesson was filmed and edited in each school. Teachers within each school
watched the edited video of the lesson on a secure website, discussed and formulated
questions regarding transition issues. Used Skype or meet to discuss the lessons.
University Contacts: Andy Chandler-Grevatt and Joan Williams.
3. Evaluation (Questionnaires and Interviews):
To find out the extent to which the interventions have supported transition,
questionnaires and interviews were used to capture information about the experiences
and attitudes of the pupils and teachers involved. The children involved completed
questionnaires twice (once before and once after the activities) and participated in two
interviews. The teachers were also interviewed before and after the activities.
Led by the Evaluator, Dr. Chris Brown, overseen by Professor Judy Sebba.
Timeline
Month
March
2012
Pupil Project
Projects decided by
Primary and
Secondary school.
Make timeline.
Decide upon the
classes involved.
Teacher ‘Sharing’
Secondary school filming
date(s) decided
Primary school filming date(s)
decided
Filming consent forms sent out
and returned
Evaluation
Pupil Questionnaire
1 carried out by
schools and returned
to UoS.
Teacher Interviews
1 carried out at
school or by Skype.
Complete
Pupil interviews 1
carried out at school
or by Skype.
AC-G & JFW to visit
all schools
April
Secondary school filming of
lesson(s)
Return all
Questionnaires
Interview transcript
analysis
May
Note
SATs
early May
Late May: School
Projects take place
Primary & Secondary school
filming of lesson(s)
June
School Projects take
place
Pupil Skype –toSkype sessions
Primary & Secondary school
filming of lesson(s)
Teacher-to-teacher feedback
via Skype
July
8
Pupil projects end.
End of Primary
involvement
August
Teacher interview 2
Teacher interview 2
Transcript analysis
September
Pupil interview 2
Pupil interview 2
Transcript analysis
October
Week
1:Questionnaires in
Secondary only
10. Evaluation Strategy
The project was evaluated both formatively and summatively under the supervision
of Professor Judy Sebba Director of Research School of Education and Social Work
University of Sussex.
Formative data were collected by means of short questionnaires and interviews from
teachers, pupils and university educators to elicit their perspectives on levers and
barriers to cross-phase learning – both at the level of science education itself and
with respect to the kind of CPD that interactive video/audio technology and the
TRANSECT project allowed.
Summative data were collected before and after from teachers and pupils to
measure the perceived impact of the intervention, including its effect on anxiety
about science (separately for girls and for boys), learning outcomes, and changed
ways of working among both primary and secondary science teachers.
The outcomes of the project were assessed through interviews undertaken by a
researcher (Grade 7), Dr. Christopher Brown under the supervision of Professor
Sebba, who provided quality assurance on the research and reporting.
11. Project achievements/outcomes/impact.
The outcomes from the TRANSECT project included the:
a) facilitation of communication between staff and pupils about science in primary
and secondary schools.
b) improved use of communication technology such as Skype and Youtube to aid
communication between primary and secondary pupils and teachers.
9
c) sharing of exemplar videos of primary and secondary lessons between teachers of
each phase.
d) identification of barriers in using communication technology between schools and
possible ways of addressing these.
e) ‘testing’ out of one functioning model of transition using communication
technology, that can be used again within the schools involved and be shared with
other participating schools and further afield.
12. Evidence of impact
From the pupils in primary school in this study, most have greater expectations of secondary
school science lessons than of their current primary school lessons (Appendix C).
Primary school pupils do not have any perceived barriers specific to science lessons
Appendix C and interviews).
Teachers and pupils from both phases are generally keen to get involved in transition projects
(Interviews and researcher observation).
There are a number of factors that can hinder the successful outcomes of a transition project
using technology. These include lack of expertise using communication technology, failure of
hardware or software, timetable alignment, differing priorities and time restrictions of
primary and secondary schools, changes in staff roles and staff absence (Interviews).
The use of communication technology does allow communication between primary and
secondary school teachers and pupils when it is difficult for physical site visits (Evidence
from projects).
Teachers and pupils in both phases prefer face-to-face or on-site visits to the use of
communication technologies (Interviews).
Secondary school teachers are much more willing than primary teachers to be filmed
(Researcher observations).
Teachers in both phases are not motivated to make the time to watch videos of other teachers
teaching (Researcher observations).
Teachers who were videoed did have learning gains related to their own practise from
watching the edited video (Feedback from teachers).
The researchers noted that the video of the primary lesson showed subject knowledge that is
often repeated in Key Stage 3 lessons. In contrast, the videoed Key Stage 3 lessons showed
activities and subject knowledge that have already been addressed in Key Stage 2.
13. Sustainability of the project
10
The Youtube website is accessible to all TRANSECT schools in which they can
continue to upload and comment on videos.
All TRANSECT schools have the functioning technology that can be used for future
years, some alongside transition projects in other subject areas.
The schools in Case Study 2 are continuing to develop their model and the
framework is being shared with all TRANSECT schools as well as being used in
dissemination as an example of a working model.
14. Dissemination strategy
The schools all fed back their findings and shared them with all participants. All
participants have password access to the Youtube channel. The findings informed
this report.
The project team organised a collaborative dissemination meeting at the University
of Sussex in which all participating schools were invited, as well as trainee teachers
and teachers from Brighton and Hove, East Sussex and West Sussex. This took the
form of an Open Seminar, at the Department of Education, University of Sussex, on
15th October 2012.
The team have arranged a dissemination workshop at the Association of Science
Education Annual Conference, University of Reading, January 2013.
See Appendix D for details.
At least one submission to an academic journal will be made summarising the
findings of the TRANSECT project.
A short paper will be written and submitted to the ASE Education in Science for
school teachers. The summary of the study and the resources produced will be
shared with PGCE students on the University of Sussex Primary and Secondary
initial teacher training courses.
15. Conclusions/Recommendations
Communication technologies support transition best when:
There is a designated member of staff in each school that can oversee the project, as well as a
‘deputy’ to step in when needed.
Both primary and secondary schools agree a timetable of events in advance and make time in
within it for events that involve both primary and secondary teachers and pupils.
Projects that take place over a short period are more likely to succeed.
11
Pupils from each phase should be given time to ask general questions of each other at the
start and end of the project before the main project takes place. This would aid their focus on
their joint project.
Teachers need to develop a suitable pedagogic approach to managing groups who are
communicating via a single webcam.
The watching of videos of peers lessons from each phase needs to be planned as part of a
programme of professional development, rather than an optional activity.
16. A short statement of up to 60 words.
The use of communication technologies to promote school transition in science
has been shown in these three secondary schools to enhance a better
understanding of primary science pedagogy and practice. This is more likely to
be achieved where a designated member of staff oversees the project and
teachers undertake peer observation as part of their regular professional
development.
12
References
BARMBY, P., KIND, P. M. and JONES, K., 2008. Examining Changing Attitudes in Secondary School
Science, International Journal of Science Education, 30: 8, 1075 — 1093.
ERAUT, M. 2000. Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70, 113-136.
EVANGLOU, M., TAGGART, B., SYLVA, K., MELHUISH, E., SAMMONS, P., and SIRAJBLATCHFORD, I. 2008. What makes a successful transition from primary to secondary school,
Nottingham, Department for Children Schools and Families.
GALTON, M., BRAUND, M. & DIACK, A. 2009. Primary Secondary Transfer in Science. Perspectives on
Education. London.
GALTON, M., GRAY, J. & RUDDOCK, J. 2003. Transfer and Transitions in the Middle Years of
Schooling (7-14). London: Queen's Printer, DfES.
GALTON, M., HARGREAVES, L., COMBER, C. & WARD, D. 1999. Inside the Primary Classroom: 20
Years On, London, Routledge.
GALTON, M. & WILLCOCKS, J. 1983. Moving From the Primary School, London, Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
GORWOOD, B. 1986. School Transfer and Curriculum Continuity, London, Croom Helm.
HARGREAVES, L. & GALTON, M. 2001. Moving from the Primary Classroom, London, Routledge.
HATTIE, J. 2008. Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, New
York City, Routledge.
HIEBERT, J., GALLIMORE, R. & STIGLER, J. W. 2002. A Knowledge Base for the Teaching Profession:
What Would It Look Like and How Can We Get One? Educational Researcher, 31, 3-15.
HOWE, A. 2011. Managing primary-secondary transfer: lessons learned?, in Howe, A. and Richards, V
(eds) Bridging the transition from primary to secondary school, Abingdon, Routledge.
KIND, P., JONES, K. and BARMBY, P. 2007. Developing Attitudes towards Science Measures,
International Journal of Science Education, 29: 7, 871 — 893.
NICHOLLS, G. & GARDNER, J. 1999. Pupils in Transition: Moving Between Key Stages, London,
Routledge.
NISBET, J. D. & ENTWISTLE, N. J. 1969. The Transition to Secondary School, London, University of
London Press.
RATCLIFFE, M., BARTHOLOMEW, H., HAMES, V., HIND, A., LEACH, J., MILLAR, R. &
OSBORNE, J. 2004. EPSE research report: science education practitioners' views of research and its
influence on their practice. York: University of York.
RUSSELL, H. 2009. Foreword: Primary Secondary Transfer in Science. Perspectives on Education.
London.
13
Appendices
Appendix A Data Collection Instruments
Pupil Questionnaire
Based on previous work by Kind et al. (2007) and Barmby et al. (2008)
Attached separately: Primary and secondary questionnaires
Interview with Pupils: Schedule
Pupils were interviewed in small groups.
A semi-structured interview was used:
What are you looking forward to in science in secondary school?
What are you concerned about with doing science in secondary school?
What do you think of the project with Year 6/ Year 8?
Interviews with Teachers: Schedule
A semi-structured interview was used:
What do you think are the barriers to transition in science for pupils in Year 6/
Year 7?
What do you think of the project with Year 6/ Year 8?
How do you think the project will/has contribute/d to transition?
14
Appendix B Independent Internal Evaluation Report
TRANSECT INITIAL INTERVIEWS
Chris Brown
I have set out below the key findings of my interviews with pupils and teachers from
TRANSECT schools:
School A– Responses from pupil interviews
I have arranged the responses from School A pupils into the following themes:
Issues with ICT
Skype was viewed as clunky and often seemed to ‘break’. Issues with ICT distracted focus
from the activity.
Execution
Some pupils felt that the exercise itself was repetitive, with the primary pupils asking
‘formulaic’ questions and/or the secondary pupils required to ask things in a standardised
way. This wasn’t always the case and others felt that they were afforded more freedom; but
when it did occur pupils felt it detracted from the value of the exercise.
Pupils were generally negative in their attitudes towards Skype and felt that physical
interaction would be more effective. Pupils suggested that if primary pupils visited School A,
for example, that they would i) be able to undertake and see science in a real life secondary
setting; ii) be coached by secondary pupils through their project of choice. They would also
benefit from having the attention of those pupils directed on them for significant periods of
time.
The exercise was thought to suffer from a lack of information/preparation time for pupils.
For instance, some argued that if they had been told what the experiment was going to be
in advance, they could think about and tailor their questions more effectively. In some
cases, where they were told about the project plans in advance and asked to critique these,
pupils felt that this aided their own learning as they revisited basic science principles.
Alternatives
The idea of longer term science ‘buddy-ing’ was posited and well received.
Pupils ultimately suggested that Skype is a second best option to physical interaction (and
would still be so, even if there had not been any issues relating to ICT).
Assisting transition
15
Science was seen as one of the ‘big’ subjects and so a natural target for this type of project.
Interestingly, though, these pupils didn’t recall science and learning science in a new
environment with new equipment etc. as being one of the things that unduly worried them
about transition (mainly they had been worried about being bullied or not knowing anyone).
School: School A – Responses from teacher interviews
I have arranged responses from School A teachers into the following themes:
Issues with ICT
Teachers also admitted that ICT issues meant that Skype didn’t always work properly (it
froze etc.). In addition, the position of the cameras meant that there could only be a focus
on a limited number of pupils – one to one Skype sessions were viewed as potentially more
effective.
Assisting transition
Transition issues in science mainly revolved around safety (Yr 6s generally wanted to ‘blow
stuff up’ and needed to be shown why this couldn’t be done). As such this type of project
didn’t effectively address this specific transition related goal.
School: Primary A – Responses from pupil interviews
Pupils were enthused by the scheme and saw the point to it (but admitted that were
technological issues). Positives include:
i)
ii)
The ability to see how secondary pupils tackled the issues and the equipment
they used
The chance to get more familiar with the secondary context
Pupils wanted more regular sessions – perhaps one for each major topic covered.
School: Primary A – Responses from teacher interviews
Overall, teachers here weren’t convinced that their pupils gained any more in terms of their
scientific knowledge: they had thought of most of the issues themselves.
Issues with ICT
Again, it was felt that ICT related issues sometimes made the process very ‘dry’: there was a
reference to the pupils coming up in twos to answer questions while the others looked on.
An issue here is that in a class of 34 pupils, the others can begin to misbehave because they
get bored.
School: Primary B – Responses from pupil interviews
16
As an idea pupils marked it as an ‘8’ or ‘9’ out of ten, but only scored it as a ‘6’ or ‘7’ in terms
of the reality. Primarily this is due to ICT related issues and pupils said that they would
prefer face to face contact.
School: Primary B – Responses from teacher interviews
Teachers felt that the scheme had great potential. Unlike Primary A, the school had no
physical link-up with School A and so this scheme provided the only opportunity pupils had
to get an indication of what secondary science might be like.
It was suggested that more effective timetabling and co-ordination would make execution
better. Also that there needs to be a clearer and more embedded process.
School: Secondary C and Primaries D & E
Secondary C and Primaries D & E, a telephone interview with the science teacher revealed
the folowing:
Secondary C has a good relationship with their feeder schools (e.g. they come in to do taster
lessons). This scheme is thus viewed as something that augments what is already in place.
The scheme was viewed as a good and one that improves the learning of year 8 pupils. It
also provides student to student contact, something which is currently missing.
ICT not seen to be as much of an issue as Secondary C has ‘excellent technicians’.
School: Secondary F and Primary G
Teacher is yet to begin her project work and so postponed our planned interviews. I have
emailed her some questions to seek out some initial information and am awaiting a
response.
TRANSECT SECOND INTERVIEWS
I have set out below they key findings of my second set of interviews with pupils and
teachers from TRANSECT schools:
School: Secondary A – Responses from pupil interviews July
There had been no further contact with primary schools. Broadly, then, the issues remained
the same as before. This does however suggest that more contact needs to be made since
regular interaction was seen as vital by the primary school pupils.
School: Secondary A – Responses from Year 9 pupil interviews October
Broadly, the year 9 pupils I interviewed felt that the approach was third best out of: i) face
to face; ii) a mixed skype and face to face approach and iii) Skype alone. The biggest benefit
17
they felt was that it served to introduce/acclimatise new Year 7s to the types of equipment
they would be dealing with.
They also suggested, however, that they had spoken socially to new year 7s that they had
engaged with virtually as part of TRANSECT, suggesting that this approach may have positive
benefits beyond that of science transition: for example, the use of older pupils as buddies
can both help year 7 pupils settle and help reduce instances of bullying (Evangelou et al.,
2008). In addition, Hattie (2008) argues that a key success factor is whether a newly
transitioned child makes a new friend in the first month of their transition. He notes that it
is the duty of schools to attend to pupil friendships and to develop procedures so that
newcomers are welcomed. This might include mentoring by older pupils (Howe, 2011).
School: Secondary A – Responses from Year 7 pupil interviews October
Year 7s were more positive especially those from Primary B, who did not have an extensive
range of ICT equipment and who typically had to imagine the results of experiments.
Comments included that it helped to introduce pupils to a range of equipment that they
might use and alleviate any anxieties that they might have had about secondary science
It did emerge from these interviews however that the scheme might also be improved if the
projects served as ‘bridging’ materials so that a continuous series of content is used by year
6 and year 7 pupils. Pupils mentioned that they simply started again, so this content and any
learning from it was essentially lost.
School: School A – Responses
Overall the scheme was seen to be one that augmented existing procedures rather than
could serve to be a replacement for them. For example, staff already move between
schools.
Benefits: that it enabled both year 6 pupils and year7/8 pupils to ‘think like scientists’ - to
problem solve and think reflectively.
Weaknesses: School A started with seven classes and this in retrospect seen to be too many
and diluted the scheme. Moving forward, this will be pared back
Whilst staff though Skype worked some suggested that the scheme might be augmented by
after each session, getting a few pupils from each school to meet and evaluate results
together and develop the ideas more.
Use of ‘bridging’ materials was thought to be a good idea to help promote continuation of
learning during transition.
School: Secondary B and Primaries C & D
The secondary teacher felt that a Skype interview with pupils would be problematic and so
we had a phone interview instead. Main points to note were:
18
Secondary B had not got the project to work: this because their primary partners had not
been able to find appropriate windows of opportunity. Given this and the other ICT issues
that other schools encountered, one suggested way to improve the project might be to
undertake asynchronous filming.
Secondary B already has excellent transition processes in place. As such, it was felt that,
whilst a good idea, this approach would (had it worked) only have served to augment
existing mechanisms.
School: Secondary C and Primary F
Teacher has moved roles. She asked me to provide her with a questionnaire to give to
pupils. I did this but am still awaiting a response.
Chris Brown
9 October 2012
References
Evangelou, M., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., and Siraj-Blatchford, I.
(2008) What makes a successful transition from primary to secondary school, (Nottingham,
Department for Children Schools and Families).
Hattie, J. (2008) Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement, (New York City, Routledge).
Howe, A. (2011) Managing primary-secondary transfer: lessons learned?, in Howe, A. and
Richards, V (eds) Bridging the transition from primary to secondary school, (Abingdon,
Routledge).
19
Appendix C Illustrative data
PRIMARY ANALYSIS
Strongly
agree
Q1 (n=99)
a) We learn interesting things in
science lessons.
b) I look forward to my science
lessons.
c) Science lessons are exciting.
d) I would like to do more science
at school.
e) I like Science better than most
other subjects at school.
f) Science is boring
Q9 (n=99)
a) I am looking forward to going to
secondary school.
b) I am looking forward to making
new friends at secondary school.
c) I am looking forward learning
science in a science laboratory.
d) I think science lessons will be
more interesting at secondary
school.
e) I think I will do more practical
work in science at secondary
school.
Agree
Neither
agree or
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
9
47
34
5
4
5
7
21
22
42
45
23
18
8
7
7
17
23
32
19
7
9
7
11
14
37
37
24
34
18
Neither
agree or
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree
43
35
11
5
5
45
38
12
2
2
46
31
15
3
4
59
35
5
0
1
41
35
21
0
2
20
Appendix D Dissemination information
Open Seminar, Department of Education, University of Sussex
Date: Monday 15th October 2012
Host: The Centre for Inquiry & Research in Cognition, Learning & Teaching in Sussex
(CIRCLETS)
Speakers: Andy Chandler-Grevatt, Duncan Mackrill, Ally Daubney, Judy Sebba & Jo
Tregenza, Department of Education, University of Sussex
Title: Exploring transitions in English schooling: Complexities and challenges of practitioner
research
Seminar Promo:
Seminar Series Promo - 15oct2012 [DOC 141.50KB]
Seminar Recording: https://connectpro.sussex.ac.uk/p80404185/
Seminar Presentation: CIRCLETS Members - Primary to secondary transition: 3 research
projects [PPT 1.48MB]
Association of Science Education (ASE) Conference 2013, University of Reading
The TRANSECT Project: Using technology to support transition - T017
Thursday 3rd January 2013 09:30 - 10:30
Location : hbs, G04 Speakers: Dr Andy Chandler-Grevatt - University of Sussex
http://www.ase.org.uk/conferences/annualconference/browse/?type=talk%2Fdiscussion&&p=2
21