Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 167–172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /ch i ldyouth

Rock Up: An initiative supporting students' wellbeing in their transition tosecondary school

Brenda Carmen a,1, Louise Waycott a,1, Ken Smith b,⁎a MacKillop Family Services, 118 Commercial Road, Footscray, Victoria, 3011, Australiab Australian Catholic University, Faculty of Education, 115 Victoria Parade, Melbourne, Victoria, 3065, Australia

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9953 3257; fax:E-mail addresses: brenda.carmen@mackillop.org.au

louise.waycott@mackillop.org.au (L. Waycott), ken.smit1 Tel.: +61 3 9680 8444; fax: +61 3 9396 1814.

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Aldoi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.030

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 26 March 2010Received in revised form 31 August 2010Accepted 31 August 2010Available online 7 September 2010

Keywords:Primary to secondary school transitionParticipatory action researchStudent at riskWellbeingCommunity agencyPilot study

This paper reports the background and findings of the community-based pilot program ‘Rock Up’ to school.The Rock Up program was directed at a niche section of young students in Grades 5, 6, and 7 to respond toidentified risk factors associated with disengagement from formal education. The Rock Up approach was toenergise these students' connection to learning as they approach the difficult stage of transition from primaryschool to secondary school. Ultimately, Rock Up aims to assist those students in their development ofwellbeing, within and outside of the school environment. The operational measures of wellbeing covered;academic, social, emotional, behavioural, and school absence. Thirteen students, who had been identified bytheir respective teachers, were invited to participate in individual and/or group activities that focused on theirwellbeing and developing their readiness for secondary school. Written and verbal feedbacks from students,teachers, parents, and the program facilitator, were in the main very positive. Analysis of the data of the firstround of the program using a three-wave questionnaire and a participatory action research approachindicated the need to proceed to a new round using more refined processes. When fully developed, Rock Up isintended to be the vanguard for collaborative practice between the education and community sectorsthroughout Victoria and to be an example of an efficient and effective model of transition for this age-group.

+61 3 9953 3495.(B. Carmen),h@acu.edu.au (K. Smith).

l rights reserved.

© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The Rock Up community-based initiative represents an interfacebetween the educational and community sectors. Additionally, as thecommunity agency has an outreach program it was able to facilitatestudents' development, not only in the school setting, but also outsideof the school setting such as the participant's home or the communityoutreach centre. The Rock Up program is a good example of howcommunity agencies can provide valuable and cost effectivemodels ofpractice that support and complement the work of educators.

Most primary and secondary schools develop their own transitionprograms based on a whole school approach. However, the emphasisof these school-based programs is often on administrative andorganisational procedures rather than personal, social, and emotionalissues (Jindal-Snape & Miller, 2008). In contrast, the Rock Up tran-sition project targeted the social–emotional and educational needsof identified students as an early intervention approach to addressthe possible future risk of disengagement from school. The five keyfactors used to identify ‘risk’ were academic, social, emotional, be-havioural, and school absence. These factors have been found to be

significant in the wellbeing of a student and the degree to which astudent is functioning in the school community (Bornstein, Davidson,Keyes, & Moore, 2003; Fraillon, 2005; Lohaus, Elben, Ball, & Klien-Hessing, 2004). The approach of this community-based initiative wasto energise these particular students in their connection to learningduring the key formative stage of transition from primary to sec-ondary school.

The Rock Up initiative employed approaches that facilitatedsustained connection to learning through strategically targeted inter-ventions. These interventions included individual and group activitiestailored to meet specific needs and were developed in the field using aparticipatory action research methodology (Noffke & Somekh, 2009;McIntyre, 2008).

2. The Rock Up program

2.1. Background

Within the Melbourne's Western Region there are no communityagencies or services which focus specifically on supporting thetransition from primary to secondary school. The middle years (5, 6,7, and 8) approach has resulted in some secondary schools tryingto marry the two very different educational settings with varyinglevels of success. Some strategies have included reducing the numbersof teachers year 7 and 8 students have, having specific classrooms,

168 B. Carmen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 167–172

outdoor areas, and home groups just for middle years students, andsome schools having separate middle years campuses.

Transition to secondary school is difficult for many young people.Previous research has reported that up to 16% of Year 6 studentshave difficulty in their transition to secondary school, particularlystudents who have identified learning, social, emotional, and be-havioural issues (Evangelou et al., 2008; McGee, Ward, Gibbons, &Harlow, 2003). Intensive support and intervention could preventfurther disengagement for those who are experiencing barriers totheir education and enable a smooth and successful transition.

Findings from projects such as the School Focused Youth ServicesTransition Support Program (School Focused Youth Services, 2002),and the Effective Preschool, Primary and Secondary Education 3–14project (Evangelou et al., 2008) have stressed the need for intensivetransition programs.

Rock Up provides an intensive transition support program asidentified in the above reports. During the initial stages of developingthe Rock Up program it became clear that collaborating withmembersof the existingMelbourne/Moonee Valley StudentWellbeing Networkand Transition Network would provide a strong community platformfrom which to begin meeting the needs of young people in part ofthe Western Region. Both of these networks included representativesfrom schools and community agencies.

Additionally, the internal Rock Up steering committee believedthat containing the project to a small geographic location, especiallyone in which community links have already been established hadmany benefits. It would allow the program to be more effective inits service provision by ensuring maximum service delivery to thecommunity. It would also ensure the processes, learnings, and out-comes could be well documented and shared with the educationsector. With a component of a wider-community involvement addedto the existing transition program it was acknowledged that Rock Uphad the capacity to be even more creative in response to communityneeds.

In the past there have been school cluster groups working inpartnership to develop projects specific to their students but withoutany coordinated community agency involvement. In order to workcollaboratively with schools through the previously mentionednetworks, the Rock Up Education Support Worker (ESW) attendedregular network meetings to establish links and form workingrelationships. It was acknowledged during these meetings that therewas a gap in the current services provided for schools (Governmentand Catholic), in particular, a lack of community-wide referral pathsfor education support for students. Rock Up was developed in order tooffer additional educational support with a broader community focus.

2.2. Aims

The overriding aim of the Rock Up project was not only to facilitatetransition to secondary school but also to enhance the wellbeing ofthe program participants. It is readily acknowledged that transitioncan have a significant impact on the wellbeing of young people(Dickinson, Coggan, & Bennett, 2003). Not all transition is positive andseamless. The construct ‘wellbeing’ has been extensively researchedfor over 40 years and thus has given rise to a number of definitions.While ‘wellbeing’ can be can be defined essentially from two per-spectives, namely clinical and psychological, this project adopted thepsychological definition: “wellbeing as the prevalence of positiveattributes” (Fraillon, 2005, p. 16).

Specific aims were identified for the following:

Individuals– To support targeted students' wellbeing/transition to sec-

ondary school;– Set individual learning goals in response to each individual's

needs or identified risk areas;

– Support students' wellbeing by assisting in the developmentof skills and strengths to assist transition to secondary school;and

– Advocate on behalf of and with the students and theirfamilies.

Groups

– Develop and facilitate a 6 week groupwork program respond-ing to identified needs specific to the school and participatingstudents;

– Support students' wellbeing by assisting in the developmentof skills and strengths to assist transition to secondary schoolparticularly: confidence, resilience, emotional intelligence,problem solving, organisation and build leadership poten-tial; and

– Explore and identify existing best practice activities andprograms to use as resources.

Schools and agency networks

– Apply elements of community development by respondingto the needs identified by schools and networks in thetargeted geographic area;

– Pilot a model of practice for collaborative partnerships in thearea of transition and student well being; and

– To strengthen the interface between schools/communityagencies/Department of Education and Early ChildhoodDevelopment and the Catholic Education Office.

MFS western education service

– Monitor, review and evaluate 3 models of practice to informfuture service development and strategic planning (Group/Individual/Combination of Group and Individual); and

– Use philanthropic funding innovatively in response to anidentified community needs.

The welfare sector

– Apply a participatory action research approach (plan, act,observe, and reflect) so the project could be modified inresponse to ongoing observations and feedback; and

– Document the project in order to share the observationsand learnings with the welfare sector and provide a model ofpractice other agencies could adapt and apply.

2.3. Description

The Rock Up program comprised of three models — an Individualmodel, a Group model, and a combination of a Group and Individualmodels.

2.3.1. Individual modelThe Individual Rock Up model worked with the student, their

family and school to identify areas of need and address risk factorsassociated with disengagement. In consultation with the student,goals for an Individual Education Plan (IEP) were established and thesupport, resources and steps required to achieve identified goals.Regular education sessions or tutoring sessions were put in place toaddress any gaps in learning when required. The Rock Up ESW alsoprovided advocacy and referral to services for the student and theirfamily.

2.3.2. Group modelIn reviewing referrals to Rock Up, two primary school settings had

referred a number of students with similar needs from the same agecohort. It was felt by the referring schools that these students couldbenefit from additional support during their transition to secondaryschool. As these students were approaching transition to secondaryschool Rock Up acknowledged that providing an education ‘groupwork’ program which focuses on building positive skills with these

169B. Carmen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 167–172

students could not only support them now but also provide earlyintervention for possible disengagement during transition years.

The Rock Up ESW met with each of the students individually atleast twice before the group sessions to identify in greater detailspecific needs and to help establish rapport. The Rock Up ESW alsomeet for a discussion once with the family and once with educationstaff (teachers and Student Welfare Coordinator) to outline theprogram content and structure. This anecdotal information wasconsidered part of the pre-assessment and compared with postevaluation data and comments to gauge effectiveness of theprogram. Initially it provided the information required to structurethe session content and activities to the individuals. The model alsoincluded a post-group individual session as a follow up. Existingprograms which address the identified needs were investigatedincluding cognitive behavioural therapy models such as Resource-ful Adolescent Program (RAP) and the Exploring Together Program.The Rock Up program supported students to make connectionsbetween

a) What the students were learning in the Rock Up group;b) How the school's whole school approaches to student wellbeing,

in this case, the foundations of Program Achieve — You Can Do It(YCDI) which includes organisation, persistence, getting along,confidence, and resilience; and

c) What the school values.

These connections hoped to increase the sustainability of whatwas learned in the program rather than create a ‘once off’ experiencelost after the group finished.

2.3.3. Combination group and individual modelFour students who participated in the Rock Up group program

were offered ongoing individual service for 2 more terms (as de-scribed above).

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The Rock Up program was directed at a section of young studentsin year levels 5, 6, and 7 to respond to identified risk factors associatedwith disengagement from formal education. Thirteen students,Grades 5/6, n=3 male, n=1 female; Grades 6/7, n=3 male, n=6female, who had been identified by their respective teachers, par-ticipated in individual and/or group activities that focused on theirwellbeing and developing their readiness for secondary school.

3.2. Procedure

Network schools were invited to make referrals for the programand were required to make initial contact regarding the programwithstudents and their families. Referrals received were reviewed viaMacKillop Family Services, Western Education Service Intake proce-dure. Prior to the commencement of the program the Rock Up ESWhad initial interviews with the participating students, teachers andparents to explain the program in greater detail, gain permission forparticipation and identify strengths, interests and areas of need.

3.2.1. Group sessionsThe group session ran over 6 weeks for 2 h each week. The

program sessions were developed, facilitated and reviewed by 2MacKillop Family Services — Western Education Service employees(one female and one male). Each session followed a basic group workstructure which included an: Introduction, Warm Up/Energy Release

game, Focus Activity, Thematic Activities, Bringing it Together/MakingConnections and Closure.

Themes covered included:

- Increasing confidence and self esteem by recognising andacknowledging personal strengths;

- Setting goals to build on strengths and increase personalresources;

- Increasing emotional literacy and building resilience;- Introducing cognitive behaviour therapy concepts such as therelationship between thoughts, feelings and behaviours; and

- Using team work and social skills including communication andproblem solving skills.

3.2.2. Individual sessionsThese sessions occurred weekly, usually for 1 h. The sessions were

structured to meet individual needs and respond to goals identifiedwith the students after consultation with their school and familyand documented on an Individual Education Plan (IEP). This meansactivities ranged from academic lessons in the form of tutoring(usually literacy and numeracy) or homework help, to social skills oremotional intelligence coaching. Goals were reviewed at the begin-ning of each term and a plan developed for the next term of service.

3.3. Evaluation

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected (via question-naires, written and verbal feedback) from all participants, includingteachers, parents/caregivers, and the facilitator of the individual andgroup programs.

Feedback from participants, teachers, and parent/caregiver wasalso provided during the program and through end of program inter-views at a one month follow-up.

Facilitator feedback was provided after each session and at the endof the program. A content analysis of the qualitative responses wasundertaken.

A three-wave (pre-, during-, post-program) questionnaire wascompleted by participants' classroom teacher, assessing school absence,academic, social, emotional, and behavioural characteristics (refer toAppendix 1 for details). A Two-Way ANOVA was utilised to analyse thethree-wave questionnaires. All quantitative data analyses were com-pleted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, 2008).

4. Findings

4.1. Participant feedback

Student feedback about their involvement in the program,particularly the Rock Up Ready group was very positive. Studentsreported that they were more confident, more resilient and no longerscared about Year 7. Additionally, following involvement in theprogram, they felt they could be more positive and were more con-fident to speak up and participate in activities.

Students commented that they had learnt the following socialskills:

• Not to be excessively nervous• To utilise ‘Shake Down’ (progressive muscle relaxation activity)• To be more resilient• To ‘bounce back’ from difficult circumstances• To be more confident• To have a positive self-esteem• To understand their own and other's feelings• Not to be excessively shy

170 B. Carmen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 167–172

At the end of the Rock Up program all participants in the groupmodel said that they would recommend the program to otherstudents with reasons including:

• It's fun• They teach you things about confidence, resilience and other thingsof that sort

• Because it's a great way to gain confidence• Because it is fun and it has lots of things to learn and play and make

Students in the group model reported that some of the activitieswere boring and that there was too much talking.

Five of the six students receiving individual support would havecontinued education sessions if the opportunity had been availableand found the support useful, especially the opportunity to receivehome work help.

4.2. Parents/caregivers feedback

The education support worker was in regular contact with parentsand ongoing feedback was provided. Parents often expressed theirappreciation of the additional assistance received from the program.Many of the parents, especially those from non-English speakingbackgrounds, were grateful for the support provided at schoolmeetings and having regular contact with a worker whom theycould clarify their understanding of the secondary education system,which they found very different from primary school.

Some of the formal feedback included:

Table 1Three-wave descriptive statistics for Rock Up Wellbeing Constructs: Academic, Social,Emotional, Behavioural, and School Absence.

Construct N Mean⁎ SD Min Max

AcademicPre- 11 11.27 4.43 5.00 18.00During- 11 14.82 2.93 10.00 20.00Post- 11 11.54 3.80 4.00 17.00

SocialPre- 12 11.83 4.73 4.00 20.00During- 12 14.08 3.96 7.00 20.00Post- 12 11.75 3.39 6.00 17.00

EmotionalPre- 12 10.58 3.12 4.00 15.00During- 12 13.75 2.57 10.00 18.00Post- 12 11.08 3.12 6.00 16.00

BehaviouralPre- 12 12.42 4.89 4.00 20.00During- 12 15.70 3.49 8.00 20.00Post- 12 13.00 2.86 8.00 17.00

School AbsencePre- 8 10.19 7.45 0.00 18.00During- 8 5.22 5.65 10.00 20.00Post- 8 4.50 5.63 4.00 17.00

Note: the first four constructs are comprised of 4 items, thus set range is from 4 to 20.The construct School Absence has no set range.⁎All pre-during means are significantly different (pb0.05).

• I feel very lucky to have had the assistance of this program with mychild in the transition of primary to secondary.

• I am not sure I could have helped my child in the same way as thisprogram has.

• The program is so good at themoment. It is flexible in that it is easilyadaptive to individual needs and their specific issues.

• Perhaps the only suggestion is that if an individual needs access tothe program for a slightly extended period of time that a concessioncould be made based on each case.

• It helped (child) greatly. (child) really got a lot out of the group timeas well as the one on one time.

• (Child) openly spoke about the sessions and the things hewas doingand working through, so it really allowed him to communincate hisfeelings and concerns.

4.3. Teacher feedback

• ‘(Student) has benefited from Rock Up he seems happier’.• ‘(Student) hopes the program will continue in the next year. It hasbeen one of her favourite activities this year. She has benefited agreat deal. (Student) has participated in activities she would nothave had the confidence to do before Rock Up’.

• ‘Organisation skills have been improving. (Student) has beenfollowing a structure provided in Rock Up sessions and hasimproved in task completion. (Student) sets himself mini goals toget tasks completed throughout the day/session. (Student) has alsoimproved in all social areas and made some connections outside ofschool also. This has been positive’.

• In relationship/interaction with school staff ‘Big improvements’.• ‘(Student) has shown improvement in working to personalcapacity’.

• Emotionally ‘Student has shown some signs of development sincethe first half of the year’.

4.4. Facilitator feedback

The flexibility of working in an outreach capacity allowed the RockUp facilitator to meet with individuals and their families in venuesand at times that suited them.

The facilitator spent time in schools which allowed them tobecome part of the school landscape so students, parents and teachersreadily approached the worker.

The Rock Up Ready Group programwas flexible and activities wereable to be selected each week and modified according to the needs ofthe group members. The facilitator was also able to incorporatestudents' personal interests into the program. One example was astudent's juggling ability being used as a basis for exploring feelings(making balls to explore how we juggle different feelings every day).

4.5. Questionnaire summary

Using Friedman's Two-Way ANOVA (Green & Salkind, 2008),the Rock Up Questionnaire's 25 items and total composite scores foreach of the five wellbeing constructs (academic, social, emotional,behavioural, and school absence) indicated significant and positivechanges over the 3 periods of administration (pre-, during-, and post-program). In particular, there were significant (pb0.05) and positivedifferences between pre-program and during-program waves. How-ever, these changes were not sustained at the end of the program(post-program). The summary of the results for the 5 wellbeing con-structs are presented in Table 1.

5. Discussion

Themajority of feedback reported by students, parents and schoolswas positive, with schools indicating that they would like to accessthe service again in the following year as they felt it was of benefit totheir students and responded to an important need. A number of thestudents and parents would have liked for the service to continue for alonger period had it been possible. There were improved results in all

171B. Carmen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 167–172

areas over all notably there were significant peaks during the programespecially improvement regarding school absenteeism. In particular,there were significant (pb0.05) and positive differences between pre-program and during-program waves.

A number of factors may have influenced results in the program'sdata. In the first instance the first two data collection points (pre andduring) were completed by the primary school class room teachers whohad known of the students in most cases for many years and wherereporting from one point to another. The third was usually a differentperson, most times the Year 7 co-coordinator, who had known thestudent for a significantly shorter amount of time and taught them forone or two specific subjects. Secondly, transition to secondary schoolis acknowledged as a critical time for young people and thereforemeasuring an absence in the first stage of the project is difficult.

A number of other issues were raised with the data collection toolin relation to discrepancies between the extremely positive qualita-tive feedback from schools regarding individuals but only slightimprovements indicated in the quantitative data.

There was difficulty noted for teachers completing the forms duringthe beginning and end of the termwhichwere already very busy times.

It is also important to note that there was a considerable rangebetween the minimum and maximum ratings in the data. With sucha limited sample size, analysing individual patterns and reviews ofprogress in the goal areas set in Individual Learning Plans, providedgreater detail than the collective group data for the Education SupportWorker. Qualitative feedback is also able to account for an individual'sspecific circumstances and specific contributing factors and significantsmall events (i.e. a student playing with other students at lunch time 2or 3 times is significant for that individual and teacher but not enough towarrant a teacher improving their rating in ‘Ability to work/play withothers from low (1) to a higher score). Another specific example was 2students whose teacher's reported on pre assessment forms that therewere daily yard incidents during social interaction (120 yard incidentsreported for one student and 60 for another). At the end of servicecollection point these were reported at 2 yard incidents and 0 yardincidents for both those students for the previous 3 months.

Finally due to the small sample size, while there is promising data,there is insufficient evidence at this point to clearly distinguishbetween the effectiveness of the three practice approaches andfurther exploration is required.

6. Conclusion and future directions

Findings from the pilot phase were considered sufficiently positiveto encourage the commencement of a second program, taking intoconsideration a number of improvements identified in the initialprogram. Feedback from students, parents, teachers, and the programfacilitator found the program to be positive and enhanced the studentparticipants in their transition to high school.

Based on the feedback received it is suggested a second programbe undertaken to:

• further evaluate the Rock Up program using a larger number ofparticipants;

• review and compare the three models (Group, Individual, andGroup/Individual);

• streamline the referral process;• develop more extensive and in-depth feedback procedures andtimelines in order improve on both qualitative and quantitativeevidence;

• continue to build relationships with network schools, CatholicEducation Office and Department of Education and Early ChildhoodDevelopment through network meetings; and

• continue to use a participatory action research by responding toongoing feedback and observations and to continually revise themodel in order to respond to specific needs.

Acknowledgements

The RockUp to school programwas funded by the Families inDistressFoundation. The research would not have been possible without thesupport and co-operation of the MacKillop Family Services ManagementGroupandBernieO'Regan,Manager, Family andCommunityServices.Weare particularly grateful to theMelbourne/Moonee Valley School FocusedYouth Service, Melbourne Moonee Valley Student Wellbeing Network,MelbourneMoonee Valley TransitionNetwork, and the teachers, parents,and students for their contribution.

Appendix A. Rock Up questionnaire

Date:Student's name:School:Current year level:Information provider Name:

Please provide the following information based on the last 3 months

AttendanceNumber of days absent: __________ Late arrivals: __________

AcademicCurrent VELS Level Maths: Number _____ Structure: _____

English: Reading _____ Writing: _____Speaking/Listening: _____

Participation in Class

(Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Ability to work independently (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Organisational skills (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Works to personal capacity (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High)

Further explanation/comment if necessary:

SocialNumber of yard incidents: __________

Ability to work/play with others

(Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Positive role modelling to peers (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Ability to solve problems/conflict positively (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Healthy relationship/interaction with school staff (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High)

Further explanation/comment if necessary:

Emotional

Self Confidence

(Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Level of Resilience (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Willingness to try new things/have a go (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Emotional Awareness (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High)

Further explanation/comment if necessary:

BehaviouralTime out from class: __________Suspensions: (internal) __________ (external) _________

Ability to self-manage behaviour

(Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Ability to comply with rules or instructions (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 (High) Selects appropriate responses to anger/frustration/fear

(Low)

1 2 3 4 5 (High)

Acknowledges responsibility for ownbehaviour

(Low)

1 2 3 4 5 (High)

Further explanation/comment if necessary:

Additional comments:

References

Bornstein, M., Davidson, L., Keyes, C., & Moore, K. (Eds.). (2003). Well-being: Positivedevelopment across the life course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dickinson, P., Coggan, C., & Bennett, S. (2003). Travellers: A school-based earlyintervention programme helping young people manage and process change,

172 B. Carmen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 167–172

loss and transition. Pilot phase findings. Australian and New Zealand Journal ofPsychiatry, 37, 299−306.

Fraillon, J. (2005). Measuring student well-being in the context of Australian schooling:Discussion paper. Carlton South, Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.

Green, S., & Salkind, S. (2008). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing andunderstanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Evangelou, M., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., & Siraj-Blatchford, I.(2008). What makes a successful transition from primary to secondary school?London: Department for Children, Schools, and Families.

Jindal-Snape, D., & Miller, D. (2008). A challenge of living? Understanding the psycho–social processes of the child during primary–secondary transition throughresilience and self-esteem theories. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 217−236.

Lohaus, A., Elben, C., Ball, J., & Klien-Hessing, J. (2004). School transition fromelementary to secondary school: Changes in psychological adjustment. EducationalPsychology, 24, 161−173.

Noffke, S., & Somekh, B. (Eds.). (2009). The sage handbook of educational action research.London: SAGE.

McGee, C., Ward, R., Gibbons, J., & Harlow, A. (2003). Transition to secondary school: Aliterature review. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.

McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.School Focused Youth Service (2002). Transition support program. Retrieved from.

http://www.sfys.infoxchange.net.au/resources/public/items/2002/7/00033-upload-00001.doc.

SPSS for Windows (2008). (Version 17) [Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS.