Improving progression and continuity from primary to secondary science: Pupils' reactions to bridging work

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 29 October 2014, At: 17:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Improving progression and continuityfrom primary to secondary science:Pupils' reactions to bridging workMartin Braund a & Vicky Hames aa University of York , UKPublished online: 15 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Martin Braund & Vicky Hames (2005) Improving progression and continuity fromprimary to secondary science: Pupils' reactions to bridging work, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 27:7, 781-801, DOI: 10.1080/09500690500038405

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038405

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500690500038405

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038405

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Science EducationVol 27, No. 7, 3 June 2005, pp. 781–801

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/05/070781–21© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group LtdDOI 10.1080/09500690500038405

RESEARCH REPORT

Improving progression and continuity from primary to secondary science: Pupils’ reactions to bridging work

Martin Braund* and Vicky HamesUniversity of York, UKTaylor and Francis LtdTSED103823.sgm10.1080/09500690500038405International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Original Article2005Taylor & Francis Group Ltd27000000002005MartinBraundDepartment of Educational StudiesUniversity of YorkHeslingtonYorkYO10 5DDUK01904 43346501904 [email protected]

This article reports research from a project set up to implement ‘bridging work’ in science inEngland. Group interviews of 59 pupils in Year 6 (at the end of primary school) and 48 pupils inYear 7 (at beginning of secondary school) were carried out after pupils had completed bridgingwork. Twenty-six of this sample were the same pupils. Semi-structured interviews were carried outin groups to ascertain: their aspirations and fears concerning secondary science, their reactions tobridging work and their memories of investigations. Year 6 pupils were positive about studyingscience at secondary school and remained so after transfer. Pupils’ reactions to bridging at bothages were very positive. Findings challenge recent critiques of bridging. The lack of progression inpupils’ communication about the variables and findings from investigations suggest that theplanned progression of work was not recognized by some teachers. Bridging work alone may notguarantee improved progression and continuity in science, but as part of a carefully planned andstructured programme of collaboration it has merit.

Introduction

Progression and continuity are cornerstones of the curriculum. The NationalCurriculum, introduced in England and Wales in 1989, was intended to provide thelandscape for continuity and progression with its clearly structured set of core andfoundation subjects, each containing recognizable elements (originally known as‘Attainment Targets’) for each age-phase of schooling (known as ‘Key Stages’). Oneof the most significant changes in the curriculum since 1989, as far as science educa-tion is concerned, has been the rapid development of science in the primary school.The implications of such a development for continuity and progression throughoutage 5–16 schooling in science, and particularly at the primary–secondary interface,

*Corresponding author. Department of Educational Studies, University of York, Heslington, YorkY010 5DD, UK. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4

782 M. Braund and V. Hames

were recognized in a very influential government policy statement in the run up tothe introduction of the National Curriculum:

The development of science in primary schools imposes an added responsibility on theschools to which the pupils transfer: they have to ensure, if the goal of making sciencefrom 5 to 16 a continuum is to be realised, that pupils’ early start is neither ignored norundervalued but rather reinforced and exploited in their subsequent work. Suitablearrangements for ensuring continuity and progression are therefore essential.(Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office, 1985: 11, para 32)

Twenty years later, and after 15 years of a National Curriculum in England, has thisgoal been achieved? The answer, for many pupils transferring from primary tosecondary science, is probably no. The evidence is that many pupils (as many astwo-fifths) fail to make the progress in early secondary school (Key Stage Three, age11–14) that their performance at the end of primary school predicted they should(Galton et al., 1999). Furthermore, Hargreaves and Galton (2002) report thatconcentration levels in lessons decline following transfer to a greater extent inscience than in English and mathematics. Studies re-testing pupils in secondaryschool, using the same questions put to them previously in the primary school, showthat pupils attain lower scores (Bunyan, 1998; Nicholls & Gardner, 1999). Twokinds of explanations might be offered for this decline and for the fact that it isworse in science; one from a sociological standpoint and one from a pedagogical onethat compares and takes into account different curricula and teaching either side oftransfer.

The social impacts of primary–secondary transfer are well known to teachers. Anew, larger and more challenging environment, new friendship groupings, moreteachers and new rules all make demands on incoming pupils. The experience ofmany teachers in England, however, seems to be that, with good pastoral care andefficient management of the transfer process, the social impact of these changes canquickly be ameliorated so that pupils settle into their new environment. Surveysconfirm that this is where most effort on transitions and transfers has been made inthe past 10 years (Galton et al., 1999; Schagen & Kerr, 1999). The ‘shock of thenew’ for pupils after transfer, in terms of changes in pedagogy and curriculum, may,however, have a much more significant and longer-term impact on pupils’ learningin science and on their attitudes to the subject. The literature on primary–secondarytransfer suggests four factors that are of particular importance in relation to post-transfer regression and early decline in pupils’ attitudes to school science:

1. Pupils may repeat work done at primary school, often without sufficient increasein challenge, sometimes in the same context and using identical procedures(Galton et al., 1999; House of Commons Education Committee, 1995; Second-ary Science Curriculum Review, 1987).

2. Teaching environments, teaching styles and teachers’ language are often verydifferent in secondary schools compared with primary schools. They represent achange in learning culture to which pupils have difficulty adjusting (Hargreaves& Galton, 2002; Pointon, 2000).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Pupils’ Reactions to Bridging Work 783

3. Teachers in secondary schools often fail to make use of, or refer to, pupils’previous science learning experiences. Information supplied by primary schoolson their pupils’ previous attainments is rarely used effectively to plan curriculumexperiences in the secondary school (Doyle & Hetherington, 1998; Nicholls &Gardner, 1999; Schagen & Kerr, 1999; Braund et al., 2003c).

4. Teachers in secondary schools distrust the assessed levels of performance gainedby pupils in national tests in science, taken by all pupils in England and Wales,at the end of primary school. Teachers in secondary schools often claim thatthese levels have been artificially inflated by intensive revision for these tests(Bunyan, 1998; Schagen & Kerr, 1999). This may be used by secondary teach-ers as justification for ‘starting from scratch’ when planning new learning (Nott& Wellington, 1999).

These factors are not unique to England. Studies elsewhere have identified similarproblems; for example, in the United States (Anderson et al., 2000), Australia(Scharf & Schibeci, 1990) and Finland (Pietarinen, 2000).

Substantial studies of primary–secondary transfer have been carried out inEngland by Maurice Galton and his team, based at the University of Cambridge.Galton et al. (1999) identify five areas in which schools in England have taken actionto improve continuity and progression from primary to secondary education:

1. Bureaucratic—for example, meetings between staff from primary and secondaryschools.

2. Social and personal—for example, induction days, open evenings and the use ofpupils and parents as guides for new entrants to the secondary school.

3. Curriculum—for example, joint projects and training days for teachers, lessonstaught by secondary teachers in primary schools.

4. Pedagogic—for example, teacher exchanges, joint programmes to developspecific pedagogic approaches (such as the application of ‘thinking skills’).

5. Managing learning—for example, extended induction programmes in thesecondary school that focus on: aspects of learning skills, metacognition andpupils’ self-assessment and that recognize how learning in secondary schoolprogresses from that in primary school.

A survey of 215 secondary schools in England, carried out by Galton’s team in 1999,revealed that schools invested most effort in the bureaucratic and social or personalareas of action, but that few schools took actions concerned with establishing curric-ulum or pedagogic bridges to improve continuity and progression in teaching andlearning (Galton et al., 1999: 23–24). The findings resulted in a call by Galton’steam for more effort to be made on curricular and pedagogical aspects of transfer.According to a more recent survey by the Cambridge team, this call seems to havebeen heeded and there has indeed been a sea change in schools’ practice. Whereas in1999 less than 10% of schools appeared to be involved in projects attempting totackle differences in curriculum and pedagogy, by 2002 this proportion had risen toalmost 50% (Galton et al., 2003a).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


Various strategies are used by schools to address curricular and pedagogicaldiscontinuities including co-observations of teaching, improving teachers’ knowledgeof content taught each side of transfer, shared assessment of pupils’ work and jointlyplanned teaching. It is in this last area that much recent attention and effort has beenfocused. A common approach is to plan work that pupils start at the end of primaryschool and continue and complete when they arrive in secondary school. Schemes inthis area are variously described as transition units (Qualifications and CurriculumAuthority, 2002), link projects (Davies & McMahon, 2004) and bridging units(Braund, 2002). The approach has been common in English and mathematics whereunits of work have been made available to schools in England by the Qualificationsand Curriculum Authority (2002). In science no such units are available nationallyand so it has been left to groups of schools, often working in conjunction with localeducation authorities (LEAs) and/or in collaboration with higher education institu-tions, to devise such work.

Recently, there have been a number of criticisms of bridging work (Galton et al.,2003a, 2003b). Although mostly derived from studies of pupils’ and teachers’ viewsduring the teaching of a mathematics bridging unit, Galton has also applied hiscritique to the use of bridging work in science (Galton, 2002). Galton’s mainconcerns can be summarized as follows:

1. The breakdown of what has been known in the United Kingdom as school‘pyramids’, where well-defined groups of primary schools transfer pupils to justone secondary school, means that not all pupils entering secondary schoolscience classes will have covered the primary part of the bridging unit.

2. Primary teachers and their pupils are not very enthusiastic about the use of thesematerials after the stresses of national tests carried out in the last term ofprimary school and the revision period that preceded them.

3. Primary teachers may be unwilling or lack time to mark work at the depth thatwould be helpful in allowing secondary teachers to develop and progress the topic.

4. Some pupils claim that they rarely see the work that has been transferred or thatprimary work is only referred to at a superficial level and then the secondaryteacher returns to business as usual.

5. Pupils entering secondary school expect and look forward to be doing newthings. They want to leave their primary experience behind.

The study

A common criticism of projects on transfers and transitions is that few of them havebeen evaluated in any depth even though substantial sums of (public) money havebeen spent on them (Galton et al., 1999; Hall et al., 2001; Office for Standards inEducation [OFSTED], 2002; Peacock, 1999). The research reported in this articlecomes from an evaluation of a bridging project known as the Science TransitionAstraZeneca York (STAY) project. The project was funded by the Astra ZenecaScience Teaching Trust (AZSTT) and initiated by science educators working at a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


university in collaboration with teachers and education staff in a small urban LEA inthe North of England. The research was carried out in schools in this LEA (LEA A)and subsequently in one cluster of schools in a large rural LEA in a neighbouringregion (LEA B).

The STAY project bridging units

A project team was established at the university involving science educators, aconsultant working in LEA A and 13 teachers from local primary and secondaryschools. A national strategy has been established in England (The Key Stage 3Strategy) to improve the quality of teaching across the 11–14 age range (Departmentfor Education and Skills, 2002). As part of this strategy consultants have beenappointed in English, mathematics and science in LEAs to work with teachers inschools and to carry out in-service training. The consultant working on the projectfrom LEA A was one such person and primary–secondary transfer was one of theLEA’s key targets for development in its schools.

The aim was to produce a bridging unit (called Fizzy Drinks) representing about 6hours of teaching in Year 6 (Y6) (the final year in primary school) and 4 hours ofteaching in Year 7 (Y7) (the first year in secondary school). Teaching time waslimited for two main reasons. First, previous experiences elsewhere (Scharf &Schibeci, 1990) show that lengthy bridging projects in science can have a negativeimpact on pupils’ attitudes at transfer. Second, Y6 teachers have a packed timetableof activities they wish to pursue following national tests (Galton et al., 2003b).

The work contained in the bridging unit was designed to focus on the scientificenquiry (Sc1) area of the National Curriculum in England (Department for Educa-tion and Employment, 1999) and particularly on the considering and evaluatingevidence strand. This decision was taken for two main reasons:

1. It proved difficult to agree on a concept area that all primary and secondaryschools could teach at the end of Y6 and in Y7. Scientific enquiry was seen bythe team as central to science learning and as an element present on either sideof transfer, whatever topic is taught.

2. The strand of scientific enquiry (Sc1) called considering and evaluating evidence inthe National Curriculum for England and Wales (Department for Educationand Employment, 1999) was given an increased emphasis in the versionpublished in 1999, and it was seen as an area in which teachers would appreciateactivities to use with pupils and support for and advice on their teaching.

At this point it may be useful to identify some key design features of the bridgingunit and to discuss some of the reasons why these were considered to be important,as they are relevant to, and help to interpret, the findings discussed later.

1. Investigations in the unit were framed in industrial and commercial contextsthat were judged likely to appeal to pupils of this age (tasting and investigatingfizzy drinks). The team’s previous experience with context-based approaches inscience education (e.g. Salters’ Science; Campbell et al., 1990) and a recent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


analysis of research on the use of such contexts (Bennett, 2003) indicated thatthey are motivating and have a positive impact on pupils’ attitudes to science.

2. Teaching in Y6 and Y7 was carefully designed to promote continuity inapproach. For example, lessons were planned around a three-part structure(starter activity, main activity, and concluding phase), common teaching strate-gies were encouraged in each phase (e.g. the use of a poster to help pupils planinvestigations; the use of concept cartoons [Keough & Naylor, 1999] to promptgroup discussions) and letters from fictitious companies were used to promptdiscussion about variables investigated.

3. The practical work was designed to progress from Y6 to Y7 in terms of context andprocedural and conceptual demand. For example, in the Fizzy Drinks investigationin Y6 pupils were invited, through a letter from a drinks company, to explore whyfizzy drinks taste better when they are cold. Pupils investigated the rate or quantityof gas evolved at different temperatures. In Y7 pupils were invited, again througha letter, to find out why some colours of cans might lead to drinks having ‘less fizz’.Because the investigated variable at Y7 was categoric (colour of can) rather thancontinuous (temperature), as it had been at Y6, the team advised secondary teach-ers in published guidance and in training to ensure that their Y7 pupils investigatedheating rates for different colours of cans rather than temperature differences forjust one colour of can. This was done to allow for sufficient progression in taskdemand, in terms of the variables investigated in Y6 and Y7, and so that pupilscould more realistically state relationships and comment on reliability of experi-mental findings in line with this planned progression from Y6 to Y7.

4. Previous studies have shown that pupils expect to use more sophisticated equip-ment when they arrive in secondary school (Jarman, 1993). The investigation inY7 was therefore designed to allow pupils to use a wider range of different appa-ratus than is commonly available in primary schools.

The Fizzy Drinks unit was provided for all 49 primary schools in LEA A to use withtheir Y6 classes. Forty-four schools took up this offer and taught the six lessonssuggested in the unit in the final 6 weeks of the school year. At the start of thesecondary school year, nine of the 11 secondary schools in LEA A continued thesuggested 4 hours’ worth of bridging work. The Fizzy Drinks unit was also taught insix primary schools feeding a secondary school in LEA B, and the work was contin-ued and completed by this secondary school. Each school teaching the Fizzy Drinksunit sent at least one teacher to a half-day training event.

Method

The research was designed to study pupils’ aspirations and fears concerning transferin science, their perceptions of bridging work before and after the transfer to second-ary school and their memories of investigations that formed the focus of bridgingwork. The study is part of an extensive evaluation of bridging work that includes asurvey of teachers’ views on transition issues (Braund et al., 2003a), a comparison ofperformance of pupils engaged in bridging with a control group (Braund, 2003) and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


a telephone survey of teachers’ views on teaching the bridging unit (Braund et al.,2003b).

The chosen method was to carry out a series of semi-structured interviews withpupils in groups in a representative sample of schools that had taught the FizzyDrinks lessons. Interviews of groups of pupils was chosen over other methods, suchas questionnaires or focus groups, in view of the variety and complexity of informa-tion required and the age of the pupils. Pupils in groups were given name badges sothat the interviewer could ask each pupil to contribute or to say whether they agreedor disagreed with what another pupil had said. Thirty pupils in six primary schools(pupils in their final year in primary school—Y6) and 34 pupils in five secondaryschools (pupils at the start of their first year in secondary school—Y7) were inter-viewed immediately after the teaching of bridging work in schools in LEA A. It wasnot possible to ensure that secondary pupils were the same ones who had been inter-viewed in Y6 but the samples were matched in terms of numbers, ability and gender.The schools were chosen to represent the range of types of schools in the LEA.Interviews were also carried out with groups of pupils in the primary schools and inthe secondary school to which they transferred that taught the Fizzy Drinks unit inLEA B. In this case 29 pupils were interviewed in the primary school, and it waspossible to interview 26 of these same pupils again after bridging work had beencompleted in the secondary school—providing a longitudinal sample. Matched andlongitudinal samples are clearly identified in the discussion of results that follows.

Pupils were interviewed in mixed-gender groups of four to six. Each group wasselected by the teacher to reflect the ability range in the class. Although the sample isa small proportion of the total number of pupils that were taught bridging work, theselection of schools, the gender balance and the range of ability of the pupilsprovided by teachers ensured that the sample was representative of the age cohort ofpupils that were taught the work. Data on pupils’ levels of performance in nationaltests in science, carried out just before the teaching of the bridging unit, were alsocollected. Interviews were carried out by members of the project team using a semi-structured schedule to maximize consistency across interviews. Pupils’ responseswere recorded and later transcribed. The software package NVivo was then used tocarry out an analysis. Each fragment of text representing pupils’ speech was ascribedto a category of response (called a ‘node’ in NVivo). A set of 30 interview scriptswere coded independently by the authors and coding was compared. Agreement washigh at 92%, but when discrepancies arose the map of ‘nodes’ was re-inspected toincrease validity and inclusivity. One advantage of using this software over conven-tional coding is that correlations between features (e.g. pupils’ ability and the scien-tific content or ‘quality’ of their utterances) can be more easily identified and newsamples can be added and analysed within an existing coding structure.

Findings

Pupils’ likes and concerns

Pupils in both year groups were asked if they liked science and if anything might (inY6) or now does (in Y7) worry or concern them about studying it. Nearly all pupils

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


in Y6 (51/59) said that they liked science and were positive about studying it insecondary school. No pupils made consistently negative comments throughout theinterview. Even the most negative had at least one or two positive things to say.Almost one-third of coded responses (22/69) for both sets of pupils referred to prac-tical work as one of the reasons for liking science, while the most commonly speci-fied dislike (11/69) was for having to engage in extensive amounts of written work.These findings are consistent with other studies (Jarman, 1993; Morrison, 2000;Nicholls & Gardner, 1999; Suffolk County Council: Education Department, 2002)and confirm findings from our earlier research used to inform the design of thesebridging units (Braund & Driver, 2005). An examination of responses from thelongitudinal sample (of 26 pupils interviewed in Y6 and again in Y7) showed thatpupils making positive comments in Y6 (22) remained positive in Y7.

Concerns about studying science were expressed more frequently by Y6 pupilsthan by Y7 pupils. Two main areas of concern were apparent:, worries about satis-factory completion of practical work and safety. Some typical comments were:

I’m worried that the teachers are going to yell at you if you don’t do it (the experiment)in time. (Amy, Y6)

If it gets too complicated and you don’t understand anything and you are like mixingchemicals and you like get told off because you are supposed to use this one (chemical)because you’ve lost your instruction card (for the experiment). (Lewis, Y6)

For some pupils concern about completion of work did not feature as strongly by thetime they were interviewed in Y7. In the longitudinal sample, one-half of the pupilsexpressing concerns about completion of work in Y6 did not do so in Y7. Concernsabout safety, however, were just as prevalent in Y7 as they had been in Y6, possiblya product of pupils having to work in a new situation with unfamiliar apparatus andprocedures. The following comment was typical.

If you do something wrong and it has some really bad reaction and someone has anasthma attack and it’s your fault. If you were walking and you knocked one of the gastaps on and you didn’t know and when Mrs S turns off the lights at night and itexplodes. (Daniel, Y7)

Pupils’ reactions to bridging work

After completing bridging work in Y6, pupils were asked what they felt about carry-ing on with this work in Y7. After completing the bridging unit in Y7, pupils wereagain asked to express their feelings about bridging work and to reflect on how usefulit had been to them at the start of their secondary school science course. The mostfrequently coded responses to these questions are summarized in Table 1.

There was an overwhelmingly positive reaction to bridging work. Over 88% ofcoded responses in both age groups were positive. Y7 pupils often gave more thanone reason why they believed bridging work to be beneficial (mean of 1.8 codedresponses per pupil in Y7 compared with a mean of 1.0 per pupil in Y6). The stron-gest themes evident in Y6 and Y7 were:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


● that bridging work gives a sense of comfort and familiarity at the start of thesecondary course;

● that bridging work improves confidence in Y7 as a result of experience of practicaltechnique or previous knowledge gained in the work done at primary school; and

● that the work was not merely a repetition in Y7 of primary experience, but wascomplementary and covered new ground.

A sense of familiarity, for some, included specific reference to the comfort that afamiliarity with teaching style or approach might bring:

I thought it was useful because you are doing something you are familiar with eventhough there were two teachers. It made the Y7 teacher like the Y6 teacher and ithelped me. They were using similar words. (Megan, Y7)

Having already established knowledge about the topic and procedures of practicalwork provided reassurance for many entering Y7:

I think it’s OK learning because if you like do the acids and alkaline [a new topic insecondary school] you wouldn’t really learn that in primary school. You’d think ‘oh noI’m not good at this’, but the cola—you actually know something about it so you cantalk to your teacher a bit more about it when you have finished it … (Katy, Y7)

… but it helped because I understood it more through doing it with my old teacher. Iknew not to do the same mistakes … like measuring stuff and that. (Hannah, Y7)

It was possible using the NVivo software to check to see whether those whoexpressed worries or concerns about doing science in Y7 were also likely to be thoseexpressing opinions about the familiarity or comfort of doing bridging work. Thisanalysis was carried out on the longitudinal sample of pupils interviewed in both Y6and Y7 in LEA B. It turned out that the converse was true. Of the 14 Y6 pupils whoexpressed any worries about Y7 science, only two also expressed a sense of comfortor familiarity in bridging work when they were interviewed again in secondaryschool. Conversely, of the 19 pupils in Y7 who talked about the values of familiarityand confidence that bridging work might bring, 12 of these were pupils who also stillhad worries about doing secondary science—often of an academic nature. There isno obvious explanation for this result.

Table 1. Pupils’ perceptions of bridging work: frequency of coded responses in Y6 and Y7

Categories of response Y6 (n = 59) Y7 (n = 48)

Number of all coded responses 58 86All positive responses 51 77

Familiarity 11 12Confidence 7 6Helps settle in 0 8Complementary/new ground 11 14

All negative responses 7 9Nothing new 5 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


It was also possible to test for correlation between pupils’ ability, as measured bytheir levels (1–5) in national tests taken just before doing bridging work in Y6, andexpression of ideas of confidence and comfort. The most able pupils (at level 5 innational tests) did provide more responses in this area but they were generally morearticulate and tended to provide more responses anyway. Negative responses,however, also came from these most able pupils. It seems that, overall, confidence inscience in this study has no obvious links with the sense of comfort that bridgingwork might help establish or with pupils’ ability, although the numbers are too smallto be able to generalize safely from this.

A common critique of bridging work is that pupils may see Y7 work as mere repe-tition of topics and procedures already covered and that this runs against what theyare looking forward to in secondary science (Galton, 2002). Although commentsabout repetition were not among the most frequent coded, pupils in both years madespecific and positive references to it:

I feel that it’s better doing it more than once because you will find out different stuff.Not the same stuff you found out this time … different stuff, what the coke was madefrom or something. (Briony, Y6)

Yes [it was not the same as in primary school) because we were learning about differentthings in science by using fizzy drinks. (Alex, Y7)

It was … a different project (in secondary school). It was (about) temperature atprimary and we are doing (about) colour here. (Hannah, Y7)

Pupils’ communication about experimental procedure and findings

Interviews provided several opportunities for pupils to recall details of investigationscarried out in the Fizzy Drinks unit. In Y6 pupils were encouraged to talk aboutwhat they did, their new findings and knowledge about drinks, and to comment onhow reliable they thought their findings were. The last of these was specificallyincluded as it was a prime focus of the teaching materials and was highlighted in theteachers’ guide and in associated training. The same questions were used with Y7pupils but, additionally, these pupils were asked whether they could rememberanything about investigations carried out in Y6. Three super-ordinate categories(called ‘trees’ in NVivo) were used to group pupils’ responses from a number ofparts of the interview to facilitate analysis.

1. Pupils’ recall of specific experimental procedures and methods.2. Pupils’ recall of the outcomes of investigations, particularly in terms of the rela-

tionships between investigated variables.3. Pupils’ reflections and comments on the reliability of their findings.

Recall of procedure and methods. Table 2 sets out the coded responses by pupils’ abil-ity. It should be noted that data on national test levels were not available for allpupils interviewed and so pupil numbers are not the same as quoted elsewhere.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


More able pupils (at levels 4 and 5 in national tests) make up a large proportion(90%) of the sample and they were the pupils most likely to give (multiple)responses. The most noticeable difference between responses from Y6 and Y7 pupilswas that the latter were much more likely to comment on the objectives of theinvestigation.

We were seeing how it [the drink] tasted and how heat affected the taste of the drinks.(Ashleigh, Y7, test level 4)

We did it [the investigation] to see which colour can affects the temperature of thedrink. (Daniel, Y7, test level 4)

We were trying to find out what colour can keeps the cola coolest. (Amy, Y7, test level 5)

The prevalence of responses about objectives made by Y7 pupils may reflect theemphasis placed on this aspect of lesson planning during inservice training thatscience teachers in nearly all secondary schools in England have received in the past2 years as part of the science element of the national Key Stage 3 Strategy aimed atraising the standards of teaching for pupils ages 11–14 (Department for Educationand Skills, 2002).

Some pupils provided details of the investigation and in particular referred to aspecific technique called a ‘planning poster’ that schools were encouraged to use tohelp pupils identify and select variables in planning an investigation. The commentsare interesting as they support the use of this technique, also praised by schoolinspectors (OFSTED, 2004), from the pupils’ perspective.

We had a sheet like, on a big special board [a large laminated planning poster] … wefilled that in as a class and he [the teacher] let us blitz ideas down onto the board andthen he showed us where we were going off track and where we were on track and weeventually altogether made it. (Alastair J, Y7, test level 4)

My teacher used them [the planning posters]. I found it really helpful because we all stuckour ideas on it and then we chose together which one was the best. (Katy, Y7, test level 5)

A notable feature of pupils’ responses in Y7 was the amount of detail that they couldremember about investigations carried out weeks before the interview. This is anexample of a pupil’s response providing this level of detail.

Table 2. Frequency of coded responses for recall of procedure and methods by test level

Y6 (n = 55) Y7 (n = 47)

Pupils’ national test level 3 (n = 6) 4 (n = 23) 5 (n = 26) 3 (n = 2) 4 (n = 22) 5 (n = 21)Categories of recall

Objectives 0 3 1 1 11 10

Method 1 10 11 0 12 15

Organization 1 2 9 0 2 2

Planning 1 6 8 1 12 16

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


We did a silver and a black can. We were trying to test which can reflected the heatmost. So we got a silver can and a black can and they each had no liquid in it to make ifa fair test and we had a light. The light was to heat up the cans. We had to see which cankept the coldest because we had a letter from the company saying that they needed tofind out if that made any effect, the colour of the can. I mean the effect on the coldnessof the drink. (Oliver, Y7, SAT level 5)

Recall of investigation outcomes: describing relationships between variables. Responsescoded under this category were allocated to one of four performance levels so thatthey could be compared with national test levels and related to previous research.These performance levels have been derived from extensive studies examining theability of pupils to describe relationships in large scale surveys of pupils’ perfor-mance at ages 11, 13 and 15 carried out in the UK by the Assessment of Perfor-mance Unit (APU) in Science (Archenhold et al., 1988; Russell et al., 1988;Schofield et al., 1989) and subsequently further developed in a study of profiles andprogression in scientific exploration, also by the APU (Archenhold et al., 1991;Austin et al., 1991). These performance categories, along with illustrative responsesfrom pupils in this study are presented in Table 3. Table 4 shows how these catego-ries are related to national test levels for each year group.

There was evidence in the Y6 sample of a link between pupils’ ability to describerelationships and their general level of ability in science as measured in nationaltests. Over 40% (12/26 pupils) at level 5 in national tests articulated a generalizedrelationship (performance level 4). In the whole sample in Y6, 33% responded atthis level. This is an impressive result as it matches exactly the proportion of pupilswho were at this level in a much larger sample surveyed in 1989 by the APU(Austin et al., 1991). This is even more impressive when we realize that pupilssurveyed by the APU were responding directly to questions about observed tasks

Table 3. Performance level categories for describing relationships between variables in the Fizzy Drinks investigations

Level Criteria for level Typical response

4 Variables are related and a generalized statement of a relationship is provided

The colder the coke, the higher the froth and the warmer the coke, the lower the froth

3 A statement relating variables investigated with or without direction is provided

That the cold cans gave out less bubbles

2 A comparison is made between results for different values of a variable or a statement ordering results is provided

We found that the warm one came up with the highest one, and the room temperature came sort of in the middle, and the cold one did not have that many

1 A single result is stated. There is no obvious attempt to order results or relate variables

That it takes really quick for the froth on the warm one to go down

Note: The highest level of performance is level 4.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


under test conditions rather than talking informally from memories of an investiga-tion carried out some time before. The Y7 sample showed less evidence of thispattern and the numbers giving the highest level of response (level 4) were lower(24%). Tests carried out on the longitudinal sample confirmed this apparent lackof progression. Few of the pupils at lower levels in describing relationships (perfor-mance levels 1, 2 and 3) progressed to a higher level in Y7—and some (6/26) actu-ally regressed. Results here may, however, be linked to the nature of theinvestigations that pupils probably carried out in Y7. It was more difficult for Y7pupils to describe a generalized pattern about their Fizzy Drinks investigation if thisonly involved comparative tests of the temperature rise in cans of different coloursrather than the heating rates for each colour of can as the teachers’ guide andtraining had suggested. From pupils’ responses it was clear that many pupilscarried out the former type of investigation thus limiting their opportunities todescribe a generalized relationship between the colours of cans and heating rates.Nevertheless, Table 4 shows that over one-half of pupils who scored levels 4 and 5in national tests (14/22 and 12/21, respectively) gave either a level 4 or level 3response in describing relationships. This shows a high quality is evident in pupils’ability to reflect on the outcomes or findings of scientific investigations in terms ofa relationship between investigated variables, something that many older pupilsfind problematic (OFSTED, 2004).

Pupils’ reflections and comments on the reliability of experimental findings. One interviewquestion asked pupils to comment on their findings in terms of the trustworthiness(reliability) of their results. This is another area of weakness that has been recog-nized in pupils’ performance in investigations (OFSTED, 2004). Interestingly,virtually all pupils in this study, irrespective of their levels of ability, were able to sayat least one thing about their findings even if it was only that they had to repeat aparticular test. The most commonly coded categories of response are presented inTable 5, again presented by year group and by national test level.

Table 4. Performance levels for ascribing relationships for each age group by test level

Performance level for ascribing relationships Y6 (n = 55) Y7 (n = 47)

Pupils’ levels in national tests

Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

4 0 6 12 0 7 43 1 3 4 2 7 82 0 3 2 0 1 21 2 2 1 0 3 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


In the Y6 sample, higher-ability pupils tended to talk more about reliability. Outof a total of 74 coded responses about reliability, 46 of these came from the 26 pupilswho scored level 5 in their SAT tests. The results in Table 5 again show littleevidence of progression from Y6 to Y7 in this aspect.

To test this further, responses to the question about reliability were compared forthe longitudinal sample. Over two-thirds of pupils interviewed at both agesdiscussed reliability. However, there was much less discussion of reliability in the Y7interviews, and there appears to be no real evidence of progression in that the Y7pupils were less likely to mention it. Most of the pupils who discussed reliability inboth Y6 and Y7 talked about entirely different aspects in Y6 and Y7. The followingpair of responses from the same pupil illustrates this:

The same person did the stopwatch all the time. The same person poured it and I waswriting down the results. (Katy, Y6)

We could trust our results because there was four of us in our group so we could do adifferent thing without making it go wrong. Because like one person was writing downthe results, one person was using the stopwatch and one person was doing each colourcan so we could easily trust our results. (Katy, Y7)

These features may again be a result of the way in which pupils carried out their Y7investigation without the intended progression in terms of the nature of the variablesinvestigated (two continuous variables at Y6—temperature against volume or rate ofgas evolved—compared with one categoric and one continuous variable at Y7—colour of can against temperature difference). A surprising feature of Y7 responseswere the detailed recollections of Y6 work, completed over 3 months previously,including critiques of experimental method:

Table 5. Pupils’ reflections on the reliability of findings from Fizzy Drinks investigations

Y6 (n = 55) Y7 (n = 47)

Pupils’ levels in national tests 3 (n = 6)

4 (n = 23)

5 (n = 26)

3 (n = 2)

4 (n = 22)

5 (n = 21)

Categories of pupils’ responses

Pattern identified 0 1 2 1 0 2

Critique of method 0 5 10 0 2 8

Similar results ‘ensure’ reliability 1 2 7 0 0 5

Specific source of unreliability 0 3 5 0 1 5

Examples of experimental error 0 1 4 0 0 4

Justified repeated tests 0 3 0 0 0 1

Unjustified repeated tests 1 6 9 0 0 2

Total of all responses (including rarer ones not shown here)

4 24 46 1 10 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


I remember doing the experiment in primary school and looked at our results and wehad quite a cold one [can of cola] and one that was not far apart [in temperature], andthen we realised it was unreliable because when we were doing it, the table who haddone it, had a window open and that made it colder. (Megan, Y7)

Discussion

The findings of this study show that most pupils were generally positive about schoolscience, the move to secondary school and the capacity of bridging work to helpsmooth transfer and help them settle into new routines. Previous studies confirmpupils’ positive attitudes to school science on both sides of transfer (Keys et al.,1995) and that science is a subject pupils rank highly and look forward to (Galton,2002; Jarman, 1993). There are worrying signs in more recent studies, however, of adecline in pupils’ attitudes to science in the primary school (Pell & Jarvis, 2001).Surveys by Galton et al. have also shown that attitudes in Y7 decline betweenNovember of Y7 (when pupils were interviewed in this study) and the end of theschool year (following July) particularly in science (Galton et al., 1999, 2003a). Thepositive responses noted in this study therefore may be short-lived. Galton et al.warn that pupils’ success, as judged by performance in end-of-year tests, does notmean that these pupils necessarily enjoy a subject. It was evident in research carriedout at the start of the STAY project (Braund & Driver, 2005) that some pupils werealready focusing on the need to demonstrate early success in science so as to preparefor external examinations later in school life, even after only a few weeks in Y7. Ifattitudes to school science start to slip so early in Y7, partly as a result of anxiety tosucceed, this could add to the general trend seen in later years in secondary schoolsand a factor contributing to decline in the numbers of pupils wishing to take sciencesas optional subjects after the end of compulsory schooling (Osborne & Collins,2001).

Expectations and aspirations for practical experience, fuelled by the oftendramatic and theatrical experiences of induction days, dominate pupils’ commentsabout what they look forward to most in secondary science. In one of the largestsurveys of pupils ever conducted on either side of transfer, 62% of around 2000pupils in Northern Ireland referred to one specific experience that they most lookedforward to—using a Bunsen burner (Jarman, 1993). Jarman refers to this as a ‘rite ofpassage’ into secondary schooling. Findings in this study confirm this dominance ofpractical experience in Y6 pupils’ aspirations for further study—although with fewermentions of specific equipment. A more recent phenomenon to take account of isthat the level of expectation about practical work may be increasing as the amount ofpractical work in Y6 science declines. Research in the STAY project (Braund &Driver, 2005), a survey carried out for the National Union of Teachers (Galton &Macbeath, 2002) and another by the Association for Science Education (1999) allsuggest a decline in the amount of time being spent on science teaching, and inparticular on practical work, in Y6. This is attributed largely to the introduction intoprimary schools in England and Wales of national teaching strategies in literacy and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


numeracy, and on pressures exerted by high-stakes national testing at the end of theprimary school and consequent publication and comparison of schools’ results forc-ing teachers to spend more time on revision (Galton & Macbeath, 2002).

There is evidence that pupils at entry to secondary school particularly value thechance to work with increasing amounts of personal control and independence intheir learning environment (Nicholls & Gardner, 1999; Ruddock, 1996). This isespecially important in the change from primary to secondary school routines inpractical science as, previously, pupils have carried out practical work (if at all) inrelatively large groups, often sharing limited amounts of apparatus. This restricts thenumber of pupils who have opportunities to devise, plan and take part in investiga-tions. This might explain why, in this study, pupils’ worries about secondary schoolscience were often about practical procedures, although the frame of questioning ininterviews may have induced proportionally more comments about practical work aspupils guessed that this was something interviewers were interested in.

Pupils in this study did not demonstrate the sorts of negativity about bridging workpredicted by Galton and others (Galton, 2002; Galton et al., 2003a, 2003b). Thefrequency of positive comments (88%), particularly from Y7 pupils, is much higherthan in a recent study of a transition project in England reported by Davies andMcMahon (2004). In their study only 30% of Y7 pupils interviewed commented thatthe ‘linking work’ was enjoyable. Twenty-five per cent of pupils in their study thoughtof Y7 work as repetition. The equivalent figure for comments about repetition in theSTAY study was much lower, at only 8%. This suggests that the contexts and natureof bridging work planned and taught in the STAY project have been successful inmotivating pupils, and have been seen by them as valid and stimulating experiencesin Y7 and not as mere repetition of primary work. The few pupils who did expresssome negativity or hesitancy about doing more work on Fizzy Drinks in Y7 had atleast some of their fears dispelled by their experiences of Y7 work.

When I came here I thought it was going to be boring and I’m not going to enjoy this …and I did enjoy it … (Y7 pupil)

Repetition is frequently documented as one of the most important sources of frus-tration and lack of motivation for pupils in secondary schools and a key factorunderpinning declining attitudes to science (Cerini et al., 2003; Jarman, 1993,1995, 1997; Osborne & Collins, 2001; Ruddock, 1996). Teachers, includingmany Heads of Science Departments, seem to accept repetition as an unavoidablepart of the early years of secondary school. Surveys of secondary teachers’ viewson transitions show that more than one-half of teachers subscribe to the ‘blankslate approach’ and repeat work even when pupils claim they have covered topicsbefore (Nott & Wellington, 1999; Schagen & Kerr, 1999; Secondary ScienceCurriculum Review, 1987). Recent studies in LEAs where effort has been spenton improving liaison between primary and secondary phases and joint planning oftransition projects has been encouraged show that the number of teachers likely torepeat primary work is substantially reduced (Suffolk County Council: EducationDepartment, 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


A key argument in primary–secondary transition concerns the extent to which thecurriculum should recognize and provide for continuity. On the one hand is theargument that continuity of content, teaching style, approach and organization ofthe curriculum and learning environment should be recognizable to pupils so thatthe resultant social and pedagogical differences are minimized. The counter argu-ment is that pupils at transfer require and value a degree of discontinuity as part oftheir ‘rite of passage’ as they move from the child-centred world of learning in theprimary school to the more sophisticated and grown-up world of the secondaryschool. From this standpoint discontinuity in the learning experience provides pupilswith an external marker of their new and more adult status (Galton et al., 2003b).The ORACLE study carried out in the late 1970s showed that 20 years ago it wascommon for secondary schools, wishing to improve continuity, to try to make the Y7learning experience similar to that of Y6. Learning in Y7 could, for example, containmore group and individual work, provide more feedback to pupils and integratedifferent curricular elements to make it more like the experience in the primaryschool (Galton & Willcocks, 1983). The replication of the ORACLE study 20 yearslater showed that, if schools intended to follow this route, this was no longer neces-sary. As a result of initiatives introduced in primary and secondary schools and themove to high stakes testing, teaching in Y6 has moved closer to that of Y7(Hargreaves & Galton, 2002).

Whichever side of the continuity argument one veers towards, and we see meritsin both, one crucial issue remains—the amount of cognitive challenge and subse-quent gain provided by the curriculum pupils meet after transfer. Studies in the UKand US have pointed to the lack of cognitive growth and development that oftenoccurs after transfer (Galton, 2002; Simmons & Blyth, 1987). The demotivatingeffects that unchallenging repetition represents for pupils has already beendiscussed. Getting the balance in continuity/discontinuity right and providing suffi-cient yet recognizable (to pupils) progression in design of whatever is provided eitherside of transfer is not easy, but it is, we believe, fundamental.

Implications

The findings in this study suggest that the teaching of bridging work has beensuccessful in motivating and interesting pupils at both sides of transfer. Bridgingwork did not represent, for pupils, the sort of repetition noted in other projects andpredicted by others. Surveys of teachers’ opinions in the STAY project show that(particularly in the primary school) they were generally positive to the bridging workand could see that pupils’ skills in practical science had improved as a result ofteaching it (Braund et al., 2003b).

As a solution to the problems of progression and continuity in science at theprimary–secondary transfer, any one strategy on its own, including the use of bridg-ing work, is probably not enough, a point picked up by school inspectors in a recentevaluation of the Key Stage 3 Strategy in schools in England (OFSTED, 2004). Inone of the few transfer initiatives that has been extensively evaluated, bridging work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


in science was most successful in schools where teachers visited each others’ schools(Suffolk County Council: Education Department, 2002), a view supported in arecent review of the science transfer projects funded by AZSTT (Bishop & Denley,2003). Bishop and Denley’s view is that pedagogical change in, and harmonizationof, primary and secondary teachers’ practices are most likely where teachers collabo-rate and reflect jointly on experiences of teaching and learning. Certainly this sharingprocess reduces the likelihood that primary science is blindly repeated without theincrease in cognitive or procedural demand that is so important in maintainingpupils’ interest and motivation in science.

The lack of progression in pupils’ abilities to state relationships and comment onreliability of experimental findings seen in this study suggest that the planned progres-sion of investigative work and the key emphases placed upon pupils commenting onevidence and reliability were missed by some secondary teachers. In an analysis ofteachers’ views of bridging (Braund, 2003), secondary teachers were found to be moresceptical about the use of bridging units than their primary colleagues. Many of theirpupils, however, were more positive than their teachers thought they would be andpositive comments from some of these pupils have featured in this article. It may bethat bridging work requires a more substantial effort in persuading secondary teachersto adopt it and when training them to use it most effectively.

The experience of past initiatives in transfer and transition is that change inschools’ practices is short-lived (Hall et al., 2001). We are aware that headteachersof many of the schools involved in this study are already concerned about the impactof bridging work on the balance of the curriculum and other activities they wishpupils to be involved in at the end of Y6. This is of particular concern where schoolsare involved in teaching bridging units in all three core subjects (English, mathemat-ics and science). A more flexible approach than teaching blocks of work on eitherside of transfer might appeal, and this is the subject of our current work. Our idea isto identify science tasks, taught in the last 2 years of primary school (Y5 and Y6) andsimilar tasks taught in Y7 and Y8, to show primary and secondary teachers howprocedures and knowledge gained by primary pupils can be recognized, built-on anddeveloped. In this way teachers are encouraged to make explicit links both forwardsand backwards, as suggested by Jarman (1997), so that pupils can more readilyappreciate what they have done before and will do in the future, and to recognizethis as progression rather than repetition. Jarman sees secondary teachers as eitherresumptionists, most likely to repeat work because they doubt pupils’ understandingor levels of competence, or as recognitionists, more likely to value collaborative effortswith primary colleagues (Jarman, 1997). The aim, then, is to increase the number ofrecognitionists and reduce the numbers of resumptionists.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the AstraZeneca ScienceTeaching Trust in providing funds to support the project to develop and evaluatethe teaching of bridging units in science.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


References

Anderson, L.W., Jacobs, J., Schramm, S., & Splittberger, F. (2000). School transitions: beginningof the end or a new beginning? International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 325–339.

Archenhold, F., Bell, J., Donnelly, J., Johnson, J., & Welford, G. (1988). Science at age 15: A reviewof APU survey findings 1980–1984. London: HMSO.

Archenhold, F., Asustin, R., Bell, J., Black, P., Braund, M., Daniels, S., Holding, B., Russell, A.,& Strang, J. (1991) Assessment matters: No. 5 — Profiles and progression in science exploration.London: Schools Examinations and Assessment Council.

Association for Science Education. (1999). Science and the literacy hour: Executive summary.Hatfield: Association for Science Education.

Austin, R., Holding, B., Bell, J., & Daniels, S. (1991). Assessment matters: No 7 — Patterns andrelationships in school Science. London: Schools Examinations and Assessment Council.

Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science: A guide to recent research and its applications.London: Continuum.

Bishop, K., & Denley, P. (2003). Primary–secondary transfer: innovative projects to ease transi-tion, Education in Science, 202, 8–10.

Braund, M. (2002). STAYing the course: smoothing the transfer from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3.Education in Science, 197, 28–29.

Braund, M. (2003). STAY project research briefing No.1. Bridging work in science and progression inperformance on scientific enquiry tasks. York: Department of Educational Studies, University ofYork.

Braund, M., & Driver, M. (2005). Pupils’ perceptions of practical science in primary and second-ary school: implications for improving progression and continuity of learning, EducationalResearch, 47 (1), 77–91.

Braund, M., Crompton, Z., & Driver, M. (2003a). STAY project research briefing No. 3. What doteachers think about KS2/3 transition issues in science? York: Department of Educational Studies,University of York.

Braund, M., Crompton, Z., & Driver, M. (2003b). ‘STAY’ project research briefing No.2. First reporton the evaluation of bridging work in science in York schools. York: Department of EducationalStudies, University of York.

Braund, M., Crompton, Z., Driver, M., & Parvin, J. (2003c). Bridging the Key Stage gap inscience, School Science Review, 85(310), 117–123.

Bunyan, P. (1998). Comparing pupil performance in Key Stages 2 and 3 science SATs, SchoolScience Review, 79(289), 85–87.

Campbell, B., Lazonby, J., Millar, R., & Smith, S. (1990) Science, the Salters’ approach: Books 1–4.Oxford: Heinemann.

Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2003) Student review of the science curriculum: Major findings.London: Planet Science/Institute of Education/Science Museum.

Davies, D., & McMahon, K. (2004). A smooth trajectory: developing continuity and progressionbetween primary and secondary science education through a jointly-planned projectilesproject, International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 1009–1021.

Department For Education And Employment/qualifications and Curriculum Authority (1999).Science: The national curriculum for England. London: The Department for Education andEmployment and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Department For Education and Skills. (2002). Key Stage 3 national strategy: Framework for teachingscience: Years 7, 8 and 9. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office. (1985). Science 5–16: A statement of policy.London: Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office: HMSO.

Doyle, L., & Hetherington, N. (1998). Learning progression across the primary/secondarydivide. All-in Success (Journal of the Centre for The Study of Comprehensive Schools CSCS),9(2), 9–12.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


Galton, M. (2002). Continuity and progression in science teaching at Key Stages 2 and 3.Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 250–265.

Galton, M., & Macbeath, J. (2002) A life in teaching? The impact of change on primary teachers’working lives. Cambridge: Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.

Galton, M., & Willcocks, J. (Eds.) (1983). Moving from the primary school. London: Routledge andKegan Paul.

Galton, M., Gray, J., & Ruddock, J. (1999). The impact of school transitions and transfers on pupilprogress and attainment. Research report RR 131. London: Department for Education andEmployment.

Galton, M., Gray, G., & Ruddock, J. (2003a). Transfer and transitions in the middle years of school-ing, 7–14: Continuities and discontinuities in learning. Nottingham: Department for Educationand Skills.

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., & Pell, T. (2003b). Progress in the middle years of schooling: conti-nuities and discontinuities at transfer, Education 3-13, June, 9–18.

Hall, I., Lin, M., Smith, P., & Todd, L. (2001) Beacon council research — Round 3 theme report.Transition in education: Transition between Key Stages in schools. Newcastle: Department ofEducation, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Hargreaves, L., & Galton, M. (2002). Transfer from the primary classroom: 20 years on. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

House of Commons Education Committee (1995). Fourth report: Science and technology in schools.London: HMSO.

Jarman, R. (1993). Real experiments with Bunsen burners: Pupils’ perceptions of the similaritiesand differences between primary science and secondary science. School Science Review,74(268), 19–29.

Jarman, R. (1995). Science is a green-field site: A study of primary science/secondary sciencecontinuity in Northern Ireland, Educational Research, 37(2), 141–157.

Jarman, R. (1997). Fine in theory: A study of primary–secondary continuity in science, prior andsubsequent to the introduction of the Northern Ireland Curriculum. Educational Research,39(3), 291–310.

Keough, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evalua-tion, International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431–446.

Keys, W., Harris, S., & Fernandes, C. (1995). Attitudes to school of top primary and first-year second-ary pupils. Slough: NFER.

Morrison, I. (2000). School’s great—apart from the lessons: Sustaining the excitement of learningpost transfer. Improving Schools, 3(1), 46–49.

Nicholls, G., & Gardner, J. (1999). Pupils in transition: Moving between Key Stages. London: Routledge.Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1999). The state we’re in: Issues in Key Stage 3 and 4 science. School

Science Review, 81(294), 13–18.Office for Standards in Education. (2004). The Key Stage 3 Strategy: Evaluation of the third year.

London: Office for Standards in Education.Office for Standards in Education (2002) Changing schools: an evaluation of effectiveness of

transfer arrangements at age 11. Available online at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/public/docs02/changingschoolsreport.pdf (accessed 6 February 2004).

Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: Afocus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467.

Peacock, G. (1999). Continuity and progression between key stages in science. Paper presented to theBERA Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, 2–5 September.

Pell, T., & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of agesfrom five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 847–862.

Pietarinen, J. (2000). Transfer to and study at secondary school in Finnish school culture:Developing schools on the basis of pupils’ experiences. International Journal of EducationalResearch, 33, 383–400.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4


Pointon, P. (2000). Students’ views of environments for learning from primary to secondaryschool, International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 375–382.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2002). Transition units (English and Mathematics).London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Ruddock, J. (1996). Going to the big school: the turbulence of transition. In J. Ruddock, R.Chaplain, & G. Wallace (Eds.) School improvement: What can pupils tell us? London: DavidFulton.

Russell, T., Black, P., Harlen, W., Johnson, S., & Palacio, D. (1988). Science at age 11: A review ofAPU survey findings 1980–1984. London: HMSO.

Schagen, S., & Kerr, D. (1999). Bridging the gap?: The national curriculum and progression fromprimary to secondary school. Slough: NFER.

Scharf, P.F., & Schibeci, R.A. (1990). The influence of a ‘transition science’ unit on student atti-tudes, Research in Science and Technological Education, 8, 79–88.

Schofield, B., Bell, J., Black, P., Johnson, J., Murphy, P., Qualter, A., & Russell, T. (1989). Scienceat age 13: A review of APU survey findings 1980–1984. London: HMSO.

Secondary Science Curriculum Review. (1987). Better science: Building primary–secondary links.London: Heinemann.

Simmons, G., & Blyth, D.A. (1987) Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change and schoolcontext. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Suffolk County Council: Education Department. (2002). Transfer review 2001 annex C—Summaryof the findings for science. Suffolk County Council.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

7:11

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Improving progression and continuity from primary to secondary science: Pupils' reactions to bridging work