A smooth trajectory: Developing continuity and progression between primary and secondary science education through a jointly-planned projectiles project

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 25 JUNE 2004, VOL. 26, NO. 8, 1009–1021

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online ©2004 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/1468181032000158372

A smooth trajectory: developing continuity and progression between primary and secondary science education through a jointly-planned projectiles project

Dan Davies; e-mail: [email protected]; and Kendra McMahon, BathSpa University College, Newton St Loe, Bath BA2 9BN, UK

Taylor and Francis Ltdtsed100723.sgm10.1080/1468181032000158372International Journal of Science Education0000-0000 (print)/0000-0000 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis Ltd0000002004DanDaviesBath Spa University CollegeNewton Park, Newton St. LoeBathBathBA2 9BN01225 87567501225 [email protected] article reports on findings from a two-year project—‘Improving Science Together’—undertaken in 20primary and four secondary schools in and around Bristol, UK. The project was funded by the pharmaceuticalcompany AstraZeneca PLC as part of their national Science Teaching Trust initiative, and had as one of its aimsthe development of cross-phase liaison between secondary school science departments and their feeder primaryschools. Our findings suggest that, as a result of joint planning and implementation of a bridging unit, there hadbeen an increase in the secondary school teachers’ understanding of both the range of the science curriculumcovered in primary schools and pupils’ levels of attainment in the procedures of scientific enquiry. There wasalso evidence that transfer assessment information was informing planning and that pupils were experiencinggreater continuity in their science education.

Introduction

The lack of continuity and progression between primary and secondary educationin the United Kingdom has been an issue for several decades. The ObservationalResearch and Classroom Learning Evaluation (ORACLE) project (1975–1980) andits replication study (1996) found low levels of expectation by secondary teachers ofpupils’ enquiry skills and correspondingly high percentages of whole-class teachingin Year 7 (first year secondary) (Galton et al. 1999). Despite the introduction of anational curriculum with a continuous programme of study from ages 5–16 (Depart-ment of Education and Science/Welsh Office 1989), the impact on continuity andprogression across transfer has been minimal, owing partly to a lack of commonunderstanding between primary and secondary teachers about aims and practice inscience education (House of Commons Education Committee 1995). One effect ofthe implementation of a national curriculum has been an ‘upward drift’ in the levelof science coverage at primary level (Peacock 1999), which has further exacerbatedthe perceived ‘dip’ in achievement over the first few years of secondary schoolscience (Office for Standards in Education [OFSTED] 1998).

The ‘Improving Science Together’ (IST) project (2000–2002), upon which thisarticle is based, sought to address some of the issues surrounding cross-phase conti-nuity and progression in science through the collaborative planning and implemen-tation of ‘link projects’ to bridge the primary–secondary transfer. The IST project,funded by the AstraZeneca Science Teaching trust and implemented in partnershipbetween the schools, local authority advisory staff and the primary science team at

1010 D. DAVIES AND K. MCMAHON

Bath Spa University College, had as its main focus the development of continuityand progression in pupils’ procedural skills of scientific enquiry through targetedformative assessment. In this respect it represents an example of what Schagen andKerr (1999) refer to as a ‘curriculum-focused’ model of cross-phase liaison, asdistinct from a more commonly successful ‘transfer-focused’ approach addressingpastoral and bureaucratic concerns. Galton et al. (1999) identify several dimensionsof transfer, including curriculum, pedagogic and management-of-learning ‘bridges’to be crossed successfully by pupils. The IST project sought to address all three ofthese, by constructing a continuous curriculum experience in science across transferand engaging primary and secondary teachers in dialogue concerning teaching stylesand expectations of learners.

There is some evidence that the ‘pedagogic bridge’ in science has alreadybegun to be crossed in the English education system, although not with entirelypositive consequences. Paradoxically, the effect of national testing in science at theend of primary schooling since 1996 has been to emphasize ‘transmission’ peda-gogy in the final year of primary school for revision purposes, leading to ‘remark-able similarity in the way in which science teaching is organized in the primary andlower secondary classroom’ (Galton 2002: 251). Galton concludes that if sciencein the Year 6 classroom tends to have little to do with enquiry approaches, this iseven more the case after transfer, when teachers tend to ask fewer open-endedquestions and those requiring higher-order answers, showing more concern withroutine directions in the management of short-term laboratory work. The effects ofdifferent science learning environments (Elliott 2000) in primary and secondaryschools arising from their different origins and purposes (Gorwood 1991) havebeen noted by Schagen and Kerr (1999)—the more formal and specializedenvironments in secondary schools tending to elicit higher expectations yet lessindependence in pupils’ learning. In an international comparative study of sciencelearning environments, Fisher et al. found that ‘the development of studentenquiry skills is associated with more equity, competition, risk involvement,congruence and less modelling’ (1999: 93), factors largely absent from Galton’sobservations (see earlier).

Progression in pupils learning in science can be seen as comprising conceptual,procedural and contextual dimensions (Parkinson 2002), to which the authorswould add an attitudinal dimension (Harlen 2000). Leach et al. (1997) havereviewed international studies of progression in scientific learning and classifiedthem into two types: cross-age studies enabling ‘features of students’ reasoning inparticular science domains to be identified and gross changes with age to bedescribed’, and rarer longitudinal studies focused upon individual trajectories inlearning. The study described here, although not longitudinal in any true sense, wasfocused upon the latter—seeking to track how individual pupils’ learning canprogress (or avoid regression) over the primary–secondary transfer period. It wasprimarily concerned with the procedural dimension, regarding which Hollins andWhitby (1998) have mapped out progression across the primary years, based uponthe scheme outlined in the national curriculum for England (Department for Educa-tion and Employment [DfEE]/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority [QCA]1999), although Sorsby (1995) noted considerable disagreement between primaryteachers and curriculum planners in this regard. Many attempts to describe proce-dural progression in science exist (for example, Millar et al. 1996) including thefollowing from DfEE circular 4/98:

A SMOOTH TRAJECTORY 1011

progression from unstructured exploration to more systematic investigation of a question …from using simple drawings, diagrams and charts to represent and communicate scientificinformation to using more conventional diagrams … from describing events and phenomenato explaining events and phenomena. (DfEE 1998: 67)

Several studies have noted apparent regression following transfer (for example, Jonesand Jones 1993), sometimes attributed to the low expectations of secondary teachers(for example, Weston et al. 1992), leading to repetition. From initial discussionsbetween primary and secondary teachers during the IST project, some mismatchesemerged in their understanding of progression, particularly in procedural aspects.Comments such as ‘do children really use Newton meters in primary school?’ and‘so can they do line graphs then?’ on the part of secondary teachers echoed Gunnel’s(1999) findings concerning the surprise expressed at primary attainment. A majorityof primary participants felt that the understanding their secondary colleagues had ofthe primary science curriculum was ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’, while comments fromsecondary teachers revealed continuing mistrust concerning primary science cover-age and consistency, as noted by Peacock (1999).

Underpinning and of equal importance to procedural progression in terms ofpupils’ perceptions of the transfer process (Galton et al. 1999, Schagen and Kerr1999) is progression in scientific attitudes. Effects of discontinuity and increasingformalization of science education in Galton’s (2002) study include dips in scienceattitude and pupil motivation, as evidenced by off-task behaviour. A specialsubcommittee of the Council for Science and Technology (1999) has accumulatedevidence to suggest that in science this decline in interest begins as early as Year 5(ages 9–10). Despite the eager anticipation of ‘proper science’ in secondary schoolnoted by Summerfield (1996), pupil attitudes towards science after the first half-term compared unfavourably with other curriculum subjects in Schagen and Kerr’s(1999) study.

A further major area of concern for the IST project was the transfer and use ofassessment information concerning children’s scientific skills and attitudes, sincestudies (for example, Brown et al. 1996) have revealed low levels of usage of suchinformation by secondary teachers. At the beginning of the IST project, 60% ofprimary participants perceived the use made by secondary science teachers of trans-fer information to be weak, a point agreed by the four participating secondaryschools. The most common information transferred was a single numerical indicatorof attainment level. Only one-half of the primary schools had been asked to providespecific information on pupils’ procedural understanding in scientific enquiry, butin many cases this was received too late to inform curriculum planning or pupilgrouping. This reflected findings by Peacock (1999), who notes that records ofchildren’s attainment at transfer to secondary schools are not considered useful bysecondary teachers.

The ‘Projectiles Link Project’

The ‘link projects’ referred to earlier as part of the IST project were planned jointlyby participating primary and secondary teachers, with support from Bristol andSouth Gloucestershire science advisers and primary science tutors from Bath SpaUniversity College. Often referred to as ‘bridging’ (Braund 2002) or ‘transition’units (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority [QCA] 2002), such projectshave become an increasingly popular solution to the problems of continuity and


progression across transfer points; that described in the following was a specificresponse to the national and specific local issues outlined earlier. Some participat-ing schools had already experienced the ‘Bubbles’ project (Cheshire County Coun-cil 1997), one of few published examples of bridging units in science, althoughseveral Local Education Authorities have produced materials, some in associationwith higher education (Braund 2002, Stephenson 1999), and the UK governmenthas been promoting this approach (DfES 2002, QCA 1998, School Curriculumand Assessment Authority [SCAA] 1996). Criticisms of bridging units include theperception by primary teachers that they represent an inroad of ‘sterile’ secondarypractice into the final half-term of Year 6 normally dedicated to ‘fun’ or ‘creative’activities, together with a reluctance to assess the work in a way that could beuseful to secondary colleagues (Galton 2002). The IST project sought to avoidthese pitfalls by ensuring that both primary and secondary teachers gained owner-ship through joint planning of a motivating experience for children that wouldtranscend ‘normal’ curriculum content, and which would incorporate formativeassessment as a central feature. A starting point was the discussion of existingtransfer information and how it could be made more meaningful and accessible forYear 7 teachers in the planning of pupils’ early secondary school scientific experi-ences.

It was intended that the link projects should be set within a context thatenabled pupils to make links between classroom science and science in the widerworld. Because of the location of most project schools in north Bristol and supportfrom the aircraft manufacturer British Aeronautical Engineering (BAE) Systems,the units were set within the general theme of ‘travelling through air and liquids’.This focus facilitated the involvement of BAE Systems’ engineers to support theprojects in schools and provided opportunities for pupils to collect and analysequantitative data (time, displacement, velocity), which was agreed to be a prereq-uisite for progression in the recording and interpreting aspects of scientific enquiry.A feature of the planning process was a series of visits by primary and secondaryteachers to each others’ schools to observe science lessons. This was undertakenboth before and during the implementation of the link project in order to promotegreater mutual understanding of each other’s practice, to enhance continuity andprogression in planning and to enable secondary teachers to adjust the content ofthe Year 7 component in response to their observations of the primary phase ‘inaction’.

Each secondary science department worked with a cluster of feeder primaries todevelop their link project, each of which followed a common structure (see table 1).It was important that the projects could be interpreted flexibly by the schoolsinvolved, but that there was sufficient commonality so that Year 7 teachers couldeasily interpret information from many different feeder schools. Main activities andoptional additional activities were devised for schools to adopt and adapt. The‘projectiles’ link project, one of four developed under the earlier heading, wasplanned collaboratively by colleagues from Filton High School and four feederprimaries. It was piloted in 2001, then revised and extended to run with 13 primariesand three secondary schools in 2002. An important focus of the project was to modela ‘real-life situation’ in order to make it more accessible to investigation in the class-room. Pupils were to investigate how projectiles move through the air, consideringthe forces involved. The project was designed to form part of an introduction toscience at the beginning of Year 7, either as a follow-on from investigative work done


in Year 6 or as a stand-alone investigation for pupils from non-project schools. InYear 6 the assessment focus for teachers was ‘planning and obtaining evidence’; inYear 7 it shifted to the higher-order skills of ‘interpreting and evaluating data’ in anattempt to build in progression through increased expectations. Having a clear focusfor assessment in each phase made the process more manageable for teachers.Pupils’ work from the Year 6 elements, together with self-assessment and teacherassessment of their attainment in scientific enquiry, were passed from primary tosecondary teachers before the end of the school year. This information was latercombined with Year 7 assessment in order to obtain a fuller picture of each pupil’sattainment; this was important in encouraging secondary teachers to use and valueassessment carried out by their primary colleagues.

The starting point for ‘projectiles’ in Year 6 was an exploration and observationof how different balls move through the air and to consider the factors affecting thedistance they travel. This situation was then modelled by rolling a marble over asloping board, the marble being ‘launched’ at pre-determined angles and velocitiesusing a grooved ramp. In Year 6 pupils were to investigate the effect of changing theangle of launch, while in Year 7 they were to investigate launch speed. The under-standings they gained from the main activity using the model were then to beapplied in another real-life context, using ‘stomp rockets’ (toys propelled bycompressing air in a foot pump). Additional activities were planned for bothage groups, including the calculation of launch angles and velocities to ‘hit’ pre-specified targets in Year 7.

Table 1. The Projectiles Link Project.

Title (approximate timing) Description of lesson Assessment focus

Year 6 starter activity (30 min)

Throwing a collection of balls and observing

Annotated drawing of the pathway of the balls

Year 6 main activity(a, 30 min; b, 90 min)

Investigating how changing the angle at which a ball is rolled onto a slope affects the distance it travels along the board

Identifying and controlling variables, accurate measuring, presenting results

Year 6 additional activity 1

Investigate changing different variables As above


Measure different variable—height ofpath of ‘ball’

As above


Stomp Rockets—applying what we have learned about launch angles

Applying understanding

Year 7 starter activity Look at a picture of a cannon ball being fired. Draw the pathway you think it will take

Annotated drawing

Year 7 main activity Investigate the effect of changing the ‘speed of throw’ modelled by how highup the shoot the ball starts

Drawing and interpreting line graphs

Making generalizationsYear 7 additional activity

‘Sitting ducks’: using data to predictangle and height needed to shoot a‘duck’ at a certain distance

Making predictions from graphs and testing them


Research methodology

Qualitative data were gathered by project researchers to address the followingresearch questions:

1. How do primary and secondary teachers’ perceptions of the use of transferinformation change through the development and implementation of aprimary–-secondary science link project?

2. How do pupils’ perceptions of transfer during the implementation of aprimary–secondary science link project compare with those from previousstudies?

3. What evidence is there of continuity and progression in science teachingand learning across transfer during the implementation of a primary–secondary science link project?

The research design was essentially evaluative (Greene 1994), taking a ‘democratic’approach (Hopkins and Bollington 1989) in which the perspectives of differentparticipants are elicited, as implied by questions 1 and 2. Accordingly, data gatheredto address the first question consisted of questionnaires to project teachers at thebeginning and end of the project (n = 26), records of focus group discussions duringthe course of the project (n = 4), and semi-structured interviews with project teach-ers (n = 8). The questionnaires to primary and secondary teachers were similar informat, although the questions were directed to their age phases. The initialquestionnaires asked both primary and secondary teachers about the transfer infor-mation passed on in science, their perceptions of how the information was used andhow the existing arrangements could be improved. They were asked to rate theirown knowledge and understanding of the science curriculum for their non-specialistphase and express their perception of corresponding levels of understanding inteachers from the other phase. In the final questionnaires participants were invitedto comment on any changes in reciprocal understanding of science curriculum andteaching approaches, and suggest what had led to these changes. The interviewsprobed the aforementioned issues in more depth and invited examples of howassessment information transferred during the link projects had informed Year 7planning and teaching.

To provide data to inform research question 2, pupils’ responses to the linkprojects in Year 6 were commented on by their class teachers in general terms in thequestionnaires. Pupils’ perceptions of transfer over the project period were exploredby informal interviews during their Year 7 science lessons (n = 15). They were askedto comment on any differences between science in the primary and secondaryschool, and their perceptions of the purpose of the link projects. They were alsoinvited to comment on their own progress in scientific enquiry over the transferperiod.

Evidence against research question 3 was sought through observations oflessons in the primary and secondary phases of link projects. These included infor-mal observations of Year 6 ‘projectiles’ lessons in the primary schools during Mayand June of 2001 and 2002 (n = 9) and more formal observations of secondary linkproject lessons during September of Year 7 (n = 5). Observers used a set of promptsto focus on aspects of the secondary science learning environments; for example,layout and grouping of children, the language used by teachers when discussingscientific enquiry, evidence of the teacher referring to previous learning in primary


schools, the degree of support given or autonomy expected, and what use the teachermade of any informal assessment strategies, such as questioning. Observers alsonoted approaches pupils were taking to their scientific enquiries and any evidence ofprogression from Year 6; for example, developing an explanation rather than adescription. Observational data were recorded in notes, then discussed and analysedto draw out common themes.

Additionally, children in two Year 7 classes were asked to write evaluativecomments about the project in response to set questions (n = 23). The notedresponses and written comments were analysed by grouping them under themes andreporting on those that carried a ‘weight’ of data. Samples of Year 6 and Year 7projectiles work were selected from children in two classes at one secondary schoolto represent a balance of gender, range of attainment and different feeder primaries(n = 12). This work consisted of writing, diagrams and graphs from both theirprimary and secondary project phases. It was analysed by drawing up a checklist ofdesirable features (e.g. control of variables, repeated measures) and recording whereeach sample met this set of criteria. Additional data to inform all three questionswere available in the form of written reports from headteachers of participatingprimary schools, an inspection of Filton High School by OFSTED and the report ofan external evaluator of the IST project.

Findings

The findings are now presented under the themes suggested by the research ques-tions, although other factors emerging from the data are included where relevant.

Primary and secondary teachers’ perceptions of how transfer information was used over the project

Responses to questionnaires by teachers representing 19 of the 20 project primaryschools (one had withdrawn) indicated an increase in their confidence that second-ary teachers valued the science learning that had taken place in primary school.Sixteen teachers (approximately 84%) perceived raised expectations of what pupilsat the end of their primary schools could achieve in scientific enquiry, with thefollowing comment typical:

[Secondary science teachers] have a better understanding of Year 6 ability—higher thanexpected by Year 7 previously.

Twelve teachers (approximately 63%) also believed that secondary teachers werebetter informed about primary school practice as a result of the project:

They have been made aware of when children are taught different skills and knowledge andare more familiar with how science is taught in Key Stage 2.

Sixteen teachers (approximately 84%) were hopeful that the secondary teacherswould make better use of the information about children’s achievements gainedthrough the link project to inform their teaching, although with only two exceptionsthis was couched in tentative language:

I think Key Stage 3 teachers realise the amount of science being done at Key Stage 2 andthat they should be building on that and not starting from scratch.


The overall tone of the primary teachers’ comments taken collectively suggest thatthey perceived primary science teaching to be more valued by the secondary teachersthan it had been at the start of the project. Two teachers more explicitly expressedtheir view that their judgements about pupils’ achievement in science were trustedto a greater extent than previously:

[The assessment information] should help [secondary teachers] to gain a quicker insight intoa child’s ability and so inform their future planning in science.

I am sure that they are now more aware of how ‘sophisticated’ we are in the teaching ofscience and that our levelling skills are accurate.

Seven (37%) of the primary teachers commented that, in their view, having second-ary colleagues make visits to watch primary science lessons had been an importantmeans of changing their ideas. Three (16%) referred to the value of group discussion;

Group discussion between different phases particularly has led some secondary schools toadapt their Year 7 practice and curriculum.

However, two primary teachers (11%) wrote that they had become more aware ofweaknesses in secondary school practice as a result of the project:

It reinforced my suspicions that expectations at Key Stage 3 are too low and science isswitching a high percentage of children off.

Responses by all but one of the seven secondary teachers indicated that they feltbetter informed about the content of the science curriculum at upper primary levelthan previously, with four rating it as fair and three as good. As well as a greaterawareness of the curriculum, the comments of four teachers also showed that theyfelt more aware of the approaches to teaching science at primary school and severalmade positive comments. All made some reference to the need to take more accountof previous learning, with two of the teachers explicitly commenting that achieve-ment in Year 6 was higher than they had previously thought;

It has shown me that they do have a good knowledge of science before they get to KeyStage 3.

I’ve realised how good their skills are.

A majority of secondary teachers completing questionnaires, and all of those inter-viewed, felt that they were making much better use of transfer information to informtheir teaching when pupils joined the school—for example, in grouping pupils byreported attainment in scientific enquiry—while acknowledging that they could stillmake many improvements to this. Four described their use of transfer informationas ‘good’, and two as ‘fair’. This compares favourably with the situation at the startof the project when all of the responses from both primary and secondary teacherswere that the use of transfer information was ‘poor’.

Several secondary teachers in focus groups stressed the value of the opportunityto talk to primary colleagues about their work as having been important in changingtheir ideas, and the majority commented on the usefulness of visiting primary class-rooms and hoped that there would be more opportunity for this in the future.

Pupils’ perceptions of transfer during the implementation of a primary–secondary science link project

There was evidence from teacher and pupil questionnaire and interview data thatthe link project had a reassuring effect on the Year 6 children prior to their transition


and that they found it engaging and interesting. Teachers working with this agegroup made comments such as:

Mostly they had a very positive attitude and they liked the idea of continuing next term.

… the children are more confident in their ability to achieve in Key Stage 3 science.

In 13 pupils’ written or spoken comments after transfer (approximately 35%), therewas a perception that Year 7 elements of the projectiles project had built upon, takenfurther or reinforced the Year 6 elements, for example:

It’s like taking it on a step—before we did angles, now we’re doing speed … I think it’s goingto be harder.

Eleven pupils (approximately 30%) commented that in their opinion the project wasenjoyable and a good introduction to science at secondary school. Some felt that ithad reduced their anxiety because of the familiarity with the equipment: ‘It did help,because we knew what to do’, whereas for others there was the benefit of reinforce-ment: ‘It will help it to stay in your brain’. There was a general perception of second-ary science as more interesting, more practical or harder than primary, although thiscould be accounted for by pupils’ expectations of a change to a more science-specificenvironment with specialist equipment, a factor noted by Summerfield (1996).

However, reasonably prevalent was a perception that the project was a repetitionof Year 6 work (nine comments, approximately 25%), and that the secondaryelement was less challenging than the primary:

We already knew what was going to happen—we’d done it before.

Five pupils (approximately 13%) could not see the point of the project or found itboring, and two (approximately 5%) commented that they would rather forget whatthey had done in primary school:

We’d rather be doing better stuff like chemicals.

Evidence of continuity and progression in science teaching and learning across transfer

Evidence supporting the effectiveness of the project in improving cross-phase conti-nuity included the observation in Year 7 classrooms that teachers made many refer-ences to the part of the project done in Year 6, asking children who had participatedto explain the project to others. Both primary and secondary teachers made use ofopen-ended, ‘person-centred’ questions (Harlen 2000) and there was similar use ofthe language of enquiry, including the importance of fair testing and controllingvariables. Secondary teachers emphasized predictions, variables and accuratemeasurement, continuing the approach taken in Year 6, while also making explicitthe need for a ‘model’ of the projectile situation to test ‘theories’ about projectileflight. This built upon and extended the explanations primary teachers had given forusing the sloped board to simulate flight trajectories. Some Year 7 teachers allowedtime for exploration before systematic enquiry, a characteristic of effective primarypractice (Johnston 1996). They had high expectations of independent collaborativegroup work, making assumptions about the ways of working with which childrenhad become familiar in their primary schools. However, despite these expectations,Year 7 groups of pupils were generally less collaborative than in Year 6. This wasnot surprising, given the early stage of children’s secondary school career when


observed. They were often working with children from different feeder primaryschools rather than with familiar peers in a familiar context.

There was, however, further evidence in observation data of a lack of progres-sion between the primary and secondary phases of the project. For example, theYear 7 activity—changing speed rather than angle of launch—turned out to beneither conceptually nor procedurally more difficult than the enquiry undertaken inprimary schools. This resulted from an early planning decision and was partlycompensated for by an additional activity in the secondary phase requiring pupils touse their data to predict trajectories to ‘hit’ specific targets (see table 1). Fewer plan-ning decisions were expected of pupils in Year 7 than in Year 6, although this canbe explained by the different emphases in the primary and secondary elements of theproject. Year 7 activities were more directed by the teacher and structured using aworksheet. Again, this can be accounted for by assuming that teachers wished tomove pupils through the data collection phase quickly in order to focus on interpre-tation and evaluation. In response to the formative assessment information passedfrom primary schools some higher-attaining pupils were challenged to structuretheir own account of the investigation, rather than complete the worksheet.

Encouragingly, there was evidence of progression between primary and second-ary samples in the work of six of the 12 pupils selected (50%). There was more useof line graphs in samples from Year 7 (four pupils, 30%) than Year 6 (0 pupils), andmore attempts at explanation rather than description of results in the secondarysamples (nine pupils, 75%) than the primary (one pupil, 10%), for example:

I can say that the faster a ball is thrown the further it travels. (Pupil in Year 7)

This emphasis upon explanation, together with evaluation of the investigation(which also showed greater frequency in Year 7) was the focus of the secondaryelement of the project, so in one sense this apparent progression is unsurprising. Itdoes, however, show the benefit of joint planning, as did the elements of continuitybetween the phases—use of sensible range and interval of readings, repeat measuresand bar charts.

Conversely, there was no evidence of progression in six of the 12 samples(50%), despite the focus upon explanation and evaluation in Year 7; indeed, threeappeared to show evidence of regression following the six-week break betweenschools. Fewer children made predictions in Year 7 (three pupils, 25%) than Year6 (seven pupils, 60%); however, this was not a focus of the secondary phase of theproject. Some of the apparent progression (e.g. the use of repeat measurements inYear 7) were directed by teachers through the use of a worksheet that included ablank results table.

Discussion

Despite government endorsement (DfES 2002, QCA 1998, SCAA 1996) the use ofjointly planned projects to smooth the transfer between primary and secondaryeducation is relatively uncommon. The Council for Science and Technology (1999)study found that only 10% of 215 schools surveyed were making use of thisapproach in any curriculum area. The evaluation findings from the projectilesproject suggest that strategies such as this can be of use in providing pupils with acontinuous and progressive experience in their development of the procedural skillsof scientific enquiry. A potential criticism of this approach is that pupils who transfer


from different feeder schools where the project work has not been undertaken willlose out (Galton et al. 1999) yet the evidence from classroom observations in theIST project indicates that secondary teachers were making effective use of peertutoring to bring non-project pupils ‘up to speed’, with the possible added benefit ofembedding the ideas more firmly in the explaining pupils’ minds. In the ORACLEreplication study (Hargreaves and Galton 1999), most teachers in the transferschools began their lessons without any discussion with pupils about the work theyhad done in their previous school. The nature of the projectiles link project madethis a necessity, while also avoiding the situation in which exciting demonstrationlessons at Year 6 induction days set up false pupil expectations of secondary science.One of the project secondary schools actually chose to replace their normal Julyinduction day activities with the second phase of the link project rather than waituntil September.

Pupils’ perceptions and expectations are clearly vital to the success of such aproject; while some clearly felt that the continuity and progression were helpful,others reacted against the perceived repetition. For the first group, Galton et al.(1999) suggest that such pupils may feel comfortable in repeating work they knowbecause they think they will do well in it, while being unaware that a static compe-tence is not enough. It was, however, predominantly higher attaining pupils thatexpressed such positive attitudes in our study. For the more negative group, thesense of wanting to ‘move on’ into a new phase of their life, ‘leaving the past behind’(noted by Gorwood 1991), is a factor that needs to be taken into account when plan-ning projects that deliberately try to foster a sense of continuity. Transfer involves a‘status passage’ (Measor and Woods 1984) involving a change from childhood toadolescence. Pupils expect, therefore, to experience a degree of discontinuity as aresult of the move to secondary school. Perhaps the strategy adopted by one schoolof having the bridging unit as an induction day activity would address this, whilehaving the added benefit of giving secondary teachers more time use the assessmentto inform their planning.

The project appears to have had an impact upon secondary teachers’ percep-tions of primary science practice, with several citing the process of joint planning andthe visits to primary classrooms to observe the first phase of link project implemen-tation as significant. In an international study, Vogt (2002: 1) notes that ‘withinschool improvement strategies, teachers’ teamwork is seen as crucial … in formssuch as joint planning’. This would suggest that implementing a published bridgingunit is unlikely in itself to influence attitudes and practice; rather, the process ofcollaboration provides the context for developing greater continuity in pedagogybetween the phases. This supports findings from the Council for Science andTechnology (1999) study, which found that effective teaching is likely to be moreinfluential on pupils’ attitudes and interests than curriculum materials or novelinstructional techniques designed to affect them. The IST project overall focusedstrongly on effective strategies for teaching the procedural skills of scientific enquiry,drawing upon the work of the Association for Science Education and Kings CollegeLondon Science Investigations in Schools (AKSIS) project (Goldsworthy et al.2000, 2001), the effects of which could be observed in common approaches to ques-tioning and use of the language of enquiry.

Another strong focus of the IST project was the effective use of formative assess-ment information. The comments of teachers and observations of Year 7 lessonspoint towards some improvement in this aspect as a result of the material passed on


as part of the link project. Since secondary teachers knew about the context andfocus of the work, they were in a better position to interpret the judgements of Year6 teachers, which were more qualitative than a single level number and arrivedconsiderably earlier than in previous years. They had also developed personalrelationships with many of the primary teachers that led them to value their judge-ments and trust their understanding of scientific enquiry. SCAA (1997) have maderecommendations as to how secondary teachers should make best use of assessmentinformation at transfer, yet hitherto there has been little incentive for subject teach-ers to draw up teaching programmes that take account of the information passed onby the feeder schools (Galton et al. 1999: 26). Although developed within a country-specific schools system and science curriculum, approaches such as those developedthrough the IST link projects could make a contribution to addressing these issuesinternationally.

References

BRAUND, M. (2002). STAYing the course: smoothing the transfer from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage3. Education in Science, 197, 28–29.

BROWN, J.M., TAGGART, B., MCCALLAM, B. and GIPPS, C. (1996). The impact of Key Stage 2tests, Education 3–13, 24(3), 3–7.

COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (1999). School Science: Fit for the Future? Preliminaryreport of the Council for Science and Technology Education Sub-Group (London:CSTE).

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (1997). Bridging the Gap, KS2/3 Liaison—Bubbles (Winsford:Cheshire County Council).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE) (1998). Circular 4/98, Teaching: HighStatus, High Standards (London: DfEE).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE)/Qualifications and CurriculumAuthority (QCA) (1999). Science in the National Curriculum (London: DfEE/QCA).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS (DfES) (2002). Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Frame-work for Teaching Science: Years 7, 8 and 9 (London: DfES).

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (DES)/Welsh Office (WO) (1989). Science in theNational Curriculum (London: DES/WO).

ELLIOTT, P. (2000). The visual environment in which secondary science is taught. School ScienceReview, 82(299), 73–80.

FISHER, D.L. and WALDRIP, B.G. (1999). Cultural factors of science classroom learning environ-ments, teacher–student interactions and student outcomes. Research in Science & Techno-logical Education, 17(1), 83–96.

GALTON, M. (2002). Continuity and progression in science teaching at Key Stages 2 and 3.Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 249–265.

GALTON, M., GRAY, J. and RUDDUCK, J. (1999). The Impact of School Transitions and Transfers onPupil Progress and Attainment, research report RR131 (Nottingham: DfEE).

GOLDSWORTHY, A., WATSON, R. and WOOD ROBINSON, V. (2000). Science Investigations: Develop-ing Understanding (Hatfield: ASE).

GOLDSWORTHY, A., WATSON, R. and WOOD ROBINSON, V. (2001). Investigations: Targeted Learn-ing (Hatfield: ASE).

GORWOOD, B. (1991). Primary–secondary transfer after the national curriculum. School Organisa-tion, 11, 3–4.

GREENE, J. (1994). Qualitative programme evaluation: practice and promise. In N. Denzin and Y.Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (London: Sage).

GUNNELL, B. (1999). Meeting the children. Education in Science, 181, 10–11.HARGREAVES, L. and GALTON, M. (eds.) (1999). Moving from the Primary Classroom: 20 Years On

(London: Routledge).HARLEN, W. (2000). The Teaching of Science in Primary Schoools, 3rd edn. (London: David Fulton).


HOLLINS, M. and WHITBY, V. (1998). Progression in Primary Science: A Guide to the Nature andPractice of Science in Key Stages 1 and 2 (London: David Fulton).

HOPKINS, D. and BOLLINGTON, R. (1989). Growing up with qualitative research, Evaluation andResearch in Education, 3(2), 61–80.

HOUSE OF COMMONS EDUCATION COMMITTEE (1995). Fourth Report: Science and Technology inSchools (London: HMSO).

JOHNSTON, J. (1996). Early Explorations in Science (Buckingham: Open University Press).JONES, L. and JONES, L.P. (1993). Keeping up the momentum: improving continuity. Education

3-13, 21(3), 46–50.LEACH, J., DRIVER, R., MILLAR, R. and SCOTT, P. (1997). A study of progression in learning

about ‘the nature of science’: issues of conceptualisation and methodology. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 19(2), 147–166.

MEASOR, L. and WOODS, P. (1984). Changing Schools: Pupil Perspectives on Transfer to a Compre-hensive (Buckingham: Open University Press).

MILLAR, R., GOTT, R., LUBBEN, F. and DUGGAN, S. (1996). Children’s performance of investiga-tive tasks in science: a framework for considering progression. BERA Dialogues—1996, 11,82–108.

OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION (OFSTED) (1998). Science: A Review of Inspection Find-ings 1997/8 (London: HMSO).

PARKINSON, J. (2002). Reflective Teaching of Science 11–18 (London: Continuum).PEACOCK, G. (1999). Continuity and progression between Key Stages in science, paper presented

at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussexat Brighton, 2–5 September [http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001314.htm].

QUALIFICATIONS AND CURRICULUM AUTHORITY (QCA) (1998). Building Bridges—Pupil Transferfrom Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 (London: QCA).

QUALIFICATIONS AND CURRICULUM AUTHORITY (QCA) (2002). Transition Units (English andMathematics) (London: QCA) [http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/keystage3/publications/?template=down&pub_id=1850].

SCHAGEN, S. and KERR, D. (1999). Bridging the Gap? The National Curriculum and Progression fromPrimary to Secondary School (Slough: NFER).

SCHOOL CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SCAA) (1996). Promoting Continuitybetween KS2 and KS3 (Middlesex: SCAA).

SCHOOL CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SCAA) (1997). Making Effective Use of KeyStage 2 Assessments (Middlesex: SCAA).

SORSBY, B.D. (1995) Progression in science—can primary teachers and curriculum developersagree? School Science Review, 77(279), 110–118.

STEPHENSON, P. (1999). Developing Experience in Science During Cross Phase Transfer (Leicester:SCI Centre).

SUMMERFIELD, J. (1996). Resourcing practical science: some issues for primary school sciencecoordinators. Primary Science Review, 44, 21–23.

VOGT, F. (2002). Teacher teamwork—supportive cultures and coercive policies?, paper presentedat the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University ofExeter, 12–14 September [http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002159.htm].

WESTON, P., BARRETT, E. and JAMISON, J. (1992). The Quest for Coherence: Managing the WholeCurriculum 5–16 (Slough: NFER).

Documents

A smooth trajectory: Developing continuity and progression between primary and secondary science education through a jointly-planned projectiles project