Scottish Government

Assessment of Achievement Programme: Report of the Sixth AAP Survey of Science (2003)

6. Teachers' reports on science in the schools

6.1 The teachers' questionnaires

Teacher questionnaire enquiries were incorporated into the survey at P5, P7 and S2 (the questionnaires are reproduced in Appendix F). These were designed to gather information from teachers about the provision and resourcing of science in the schools, and to invite their views about the quality of different aspects of science experience in classrooms. One questionnaire was designed to be completed by primary school head teachers and secondary science principal teachers, and another was designed to be completed by P5 and P7 class teachers, and S2 science teachers. Those schools that participated in both the written and the practical assessments were invited to cooperate in the questionnaire enquires.

In the senior teachers' questionnaire, the primary head teachers were asked in what year their current P7 science programme was introduced, while the secondary principal teachers were asked the same question with reference to their S2 course/programme. In both cases respondents were asked what were the bases for the course/programme - commercial textbooks/resource packs, 5-14 guidelines from various sources, teacher materials from own school/department or some other school and, for S2 only, Standard Grade arrangements - and whether it was currently under revision. Respondents were then asked to indicate on what basis the school reported pupil progress to parents: 5-14 levels, marks in end of unit tests, marks in end of year tests or exams, comment banks, effort marks/grades, teachers' comments, or 'other'. There followed an invitation to rate the quality of various aspects of subject resourcing and related issues, and then to evaluate their pupils' learning motivation (P7 or S2 as appropriate), teachers' expectations of pupils and teacher morale.

The class teacher questionnaire was more extensive. It began with a set of demographic questions (gender, length of service, subjects of degree, etc). There followed an enquiry into the nature of science lessons: respondents were asked how frequently their pupils engaged in various different activities when studying science (the same activities that pupils were similarly invited to rate for frequency), and how much use they themselves made of various kinds of resource materials in the lessons concerned. The final set of enquiries asked respondents to rate each strand in each science outcome in terms of:

a. how well prepared they felt to teach that strand with their pupils

b. how well resourced they were to teach the strand with those pupils

c. the extent to which they had covered the strand in their programme that session.

6.2 Responses of primary head teachers and secondary principal teachers

6.2.1 The respondents

The senior teachers' questionnaire was completed by the head teachers of 84 primary schools and by 82 principal teachers in 34 secondary schools (with between one and three principal teachers per school). Around a fifth of the principal teachers were in biology departments, another fifth in chemistry departments, and another fifth in physics departments. Just over 10% more were in science departments, and the rest were in combined subjects departments (science/chemistry, science/biology, science/physics). Four principal teachers were not based in science departments: one was in a geography department, another in a history department, a third in a modern studies department, and the fourth in a social subjects department

6.2.2 Courses/programmes

When asked when their current science programme (P7 or S2, as appropriate) was introduced or revised, fully 90% of the primary head teachers gave a date of 1998 or later, with 80% in total giving dates between 2000 and 2003. This compares with 30% of the S2 principal teachers for 1998 or later, and just 17% for 2000 or later. Almost 20% of the S2 principal teachers did not respond to this question. Programmes were currently under revision in 70% of the primary schools. Among the secondary principal teachers, 46% also agreed that their programmes were under revision at the present time - not all teachers in the same school gave the same response, so that not all subject programmes were under revision simultaneously.

According to the senior teachers, there were some marked and expected differences between the primary school science programmes and the S2 programmes in terms of their bases, as Table 6.1 confirms.

Table 6.1 Bases of courses/programmes

(% Primary Head Teachers and Secondary Principal Teachers indicating each)

The most frequently mentioned bases among the principal teachers were the department's own materials (almost 90%), the national 5-14 guidelines (over 80%) and commercial textbooks or resource packs (over 65%). Among the primary head teachers the national 5-14 guidelines were also very frequently mentioned (74%) but so also were the local authority's 5-14 guidelines (67%). Just under a quarter of the primary head teachers mentioned that another authority's guidelines were used. Around half the primary head teachers also mentioned commercial textbooks and resource packs, and the school's own materials. Other bases mentioned by 15% of the primary head teachers and just 4% of the secondary principal teachers included BBC Science, Per Common Entrance (ISEB), Video - Ch4 Stage 2 Science, C4 video 'Scientific Eye', Renfrewshire Materials, Glasgow University Science Course, JEI worksheets Kilwinning, and Science in Process ("substantially modified").

As Table 6.2 shows, a high proportion (around 80%) of the senior teachers in each group noted that teachers' own comments featured in school reporting to parents on pupil progress, with 5-14 levels following fairly closely behind, particularly at S2 (just over 50% of the primary head teachers checked this option compared with just over 70% of the secondary principal teachers). Comment banks were mentioned by just over 40% of the teachers in each group, and a similar proportion of principal teachers also noted 'marks or grades for effort' (a lower 20% of the primary head teachers checked this).

Table 6.2 Bases for reporting pupil progress to parents

(% teachers indicating each)

A fifth of the secondary principal teachers also indicated '% marks in end-of-unit tests', whereas only one single primary head teacher did so. Clearly, the pupils were not wrong in their perceptions of the frequency with which they were assessed by different means in their schools - in their responses to the pupil questionnaire there was clear evidence that the S2 pupils were assessed more frequently with levels, grades and test scores than were their primary school peers, and faced more short tests than their younger counterparts did (see Table 5.6 in Chapter 5).

6.2.3 Quality of resourcing and other issues

Using a four-point rating scale ('very good', 'generally good', 'fair' and 'unsatisfactory'), the senior teachers were invited to rate the quality of each of the following with respect to their P7 or S2 pupils: the availability of learning support, the availability of teaching/learning resources, the availability of computers for teachers and for pupils, internet access for teachers and for pupils, departmental accommodation, pupils' class attendance and behaviour, and parental support.

As Table 6.3 shows, among the primary head teachers the most positive ratings were given to computer and internet access for teachers and for pupils, and for pupil attendance at, and behaviour in, subject classes. The 'very good' proportions varied between 31% (internet access for pupils) and 46% (pupil behaviour in classes). The secondary principal teachers were much less positive in their responses to these same issues: differences in the rating patterns of primary head teachers and S2 principal teachers reached statistical significance in the case of the availability of computers for teachers and for pupils, internet access for pupils, and pupil behaviour in classes. Parental support for their children's learning was also significantly more highly rated by the primary head teachers than by the S2 principal teachers, even though the proportions giving the highest rating ('very good') were relatively low in each case, at 17% and 8% respectively.

The most poorly rated aspects were computer availability and internet access for pupils at S2, with around one-third of the S2 principal teachers claiming both to be 'unsatisfactory'.

Table 6.3 Quality ratings for various issues

(% giving each rating among 84 primary head teachers and 82 secondary principal teachers)

6.2.4 Pupil motivation, teachers' expectations and teacher morale

The final enquiry in this questionnaire invited the respondents to evaluate the motivation of their pupils to learn in science, the expectations their teachers had of pupils to achieve in science, and the morale of teachers in their school or department. The results are shown in Table 6.4.

For teacher expectations of pupil achievement in science, there was no significant difference in the rating distributions of the two groups: over 40% of the respondents in each case evaluated this as 'very high'. But there were statistically significant differences between the groups in their evaluations of pupil motivation to learn (with 40% of the primary head teachers rating this as 'very high' compared with just 12% of the S2 principal teachers) and teacher morale (again almost 40% of the primary head teachers rating this 'very high' compared with 16% of the S2 principal teachers).

Table 6.4 Evaluations of pupil motivation, teacher expectations and morale*

(% giving each rating among 84 primary head teachers and 82 secondary principal teachers)

6.2.5 Volunteered comments

Volunteered comments from the primary head teachers are the following:

Children are less interested in science than in other curricular areas. This has been addressed by visiting workshops and specialists coming into school. Motivation, interest and attainment are improving.

Many PS colleagues feel inadequate as to their ability to teach science at Levels D & E. Some members have expressed their view of preferring 'specialists' to teach science effectively at Levels D and beyond.

We are just fully resourcing our programmes this year so not all resources have been available for delivering lessons.

The resources available can vary with each topic, some are better resourced than others. In November, we had staff tutors from NL Council working with pupils, this was very successful.

Practical experiments are the only way to reinforce principles. Schools, including ours, need to maximise their ability to allow individual and/or groups of pupils to experiment and investigate. Funding for this should be made available if science is to properly achieve core subject status. (Completed by Head of Science).

We have difficulties in delivering science because of the multi-composite classes. E.g. P4-P7. This makes it hard to differentiate all lessons and some P7 concepts are too difficult for a P4 so a rolling programme can be difficult to deliver.

As this is the first year of a new policy and programme a number of issues resulted. Need to build up certain resources. Teachers becoming familiar with new topics. Adoption of new methods takes time (investigations) However, there is a general enthusiasm that what we've got will be "good" once we've had time to interpret it further.

We have been developing Science this session as part of our improvement plan; the investigative process and the confidence and moral of teachers is much improved as a result. The next programme will not be fully in place until session 03-04.

Teaching classes of 30+ pupils is very difficult in terms of resources, practicalities, assessment of skills, knowledge and understanding. Teacher-pupil ratio in secondary is much more realistic. Also, in secondary schools there are specific rooms for science. In primary we have to use one room for all curricular areas.

Morale of teachers depends on timing - It's a bit low at the end of the session (especially one in the winter). After a rest they will bounce back!

I, the Head Teacher, teach Science at the P6/P7 stage as we are a small school and I have a teaching commitment. The Science program is established in this school as it was the area first developed when I became Head Teacher of this school and was revised in accordance with the revised guidelines. We need to build up more science resources, e.g. model hearts which we normally borrow from the secondary school. The money given to schools for Science resources was used by this authority to purchase equipped science trolleys, because of the timescale involved in distributing this money. However, this duplicates much of the material we have in school; e.g. we now have 4 sets of geological rock samples. Science is organised on a 2 yrs. rolling programme.

Our school is closing its doors for the last time next Friday and staff morale is very low at the moment. However, this is unusual as it is usually very high.

Teachers find the curriculum overcrowded and the workload difficult to cope with.

Morale: …refers to lack of confidence, particularly at P4-P7 stage.

…more training required or specialist Science/Technology Development Officer from whom teachers and pupils would learn.

A newly purchased programme of study will be introduced in 2003. This will give better support to teachers and raise attainment in science.

Secondary principal teachers offered the following comments:

I have just taken over the responsibility for S1/S2 and Physics (acting). I would say that my responses to Q17-19 are on overall picture of the department. In some classes with some individuals the motivation is high to learn in science - in others it is not. Morale is fair - we are undergoing many changes with McCrone. I think this will improve when new structures are finally in place. We have now implemented a new S1/S2 course which is in line with 5-14 guidelines (revised document) and this is being experienced for the first time by our current S2 (2003-2004).

Even after numerous redrafts, the 5-14 guidelines contain 'artificial' groupings of knowledge and spurious progressions that prove unworkable in practice. Assessing to match the levels is a nightmare.

5-14 guidelines very difficult to put into practice - including planning of a progressive course, assessing & reporting. Furthermore many 'F' learning objectors 'encroach' on SG & therefore progression is difficult to maintain in S3/S4.

The question of morale is badly timed in view of present changes - comment is influenced by these changes rather than subject or dept.

For 3 years we have operated on 88% staffing in our school (= 1. Ex. Fund spent on core staffing 2. no time left for development work other than H-Still courses).This has & continues to delay any effective development of authority 5+/14 Arrangements - led course. Time may become available next year if staffing improves.

The implementation of 5 to 14 has been unsatisfactory. The guidelines are unclear and ambiguous. The solution to a satisfactory 5-14 course in secondary science departments is simple - produce and give to all schools national tests of the correct levels cf. the full documentation we all received for Higher Still and there no problems occurred.

Lack of investment in resources and technology limit the quality of science courses in schools. Lack of direction and published national tests have restricted progress in the developing and updating of science in S1/S2 in line with 5-14 along with reliable assessment of pupil attainment.

Social inclusion has, I feel, meant that classes where a majority of pupils are well-behaved and hard-working are having lessons disrupted by a minority of pupils. Also, teaching mixed-ability sets in science makes effective differentiation difficult: the most able are not challenged and the least able are not catered for properly. This has an impact on 17 & 18 above.

"How Good is Your Department" says there should be 1. a dedicated area for teachers to work - uninterrupted by others - and where sensitive materials (records, certain resources) should be kept 2. adequate storage 3. easy access to equipment - to get a TV I've to book it, find it, rewind the video to the correct bit, cart the trolley along the corridor. All of the above is absent. The level of resourcing is very poor. I had better working conditions 30 years ago.

Note 15 above - difficult to tick one box alone. Most pupils & parents are positive, well adjusted, motivated. Problem - some pupils continue to attend mainstream where needs are not met. ICT - excellent potential in History.

Our S1 pupils follow an "Integrated" Science approach - S2 are set in groups of 3 sections with 1 top group & two mixed ability group. & taught the separate sciences by the specialist teacher.

'Spotlight Science' has now been modified so that we have developed 'own' course. Topics in S1 taught by one teacher but in S2 pupils cycle BIOL, CHEM, PHYS for the topics. (3 teachers.)

Poor reading ability of pupils has made it difficult to use resource-based systems previously used. Wide discrepancy in pupils' experiences in science - more coordinated approach needed by feeder primary schools.

Taking account of previous learning in science through primary courses - an enormous task. Science content pushed right down through the primary years (as 5-14 set out) resulting in pupils/teachers dealing with challenging topics - without developing appropriate process experience. Lots of facts but very little emphasis on 'being scientific'. This has a huge knock on effect for all pupils S2 to beyond.

Previous course did not meet 5-14 guidelines, a new one which does has been purchased. IT resources are very poor.

PPP programme has been removed notions of consultative management which were being fostered until recent times, resulting in a dislocation in relationships between management and staff, and lack of a sense of ownership and identity.

6.3 Responses of P5 and P7 class teachers and S2 subject teachers

6.3.1 The respondents

The class/subject teachers' questionnaire was responded to by a total of 211 teachers: 51 P5 teachers (in 51 primary schools), 44 P7 teachers (in 43 primary schools) and 116 S2 subject teachers (from 38 secondary schools, 75% of these submitting between one and three questionnaire returns). Among the primary teachers, around 95% were female, while among those S2 teachers who provided this and other demographic information, just over half were female (25 teachers from four independent schools declined to offer personal demographic information).

Among the S2 subject teachers, around 40% in each case had a degree qualification in biology (or some more specialist form of biological science), chemistry or physics, as first or second degree subject. Not unexpectedly, there was a strong gender difference here, with significantly higher proportions of female than male teachers having a biological science or chemistry qualification (56% of the female teachers versus 26% of the male teachers for biological science, and 52% versus 33% for chemistry) with the reverse holding for physics (27% versus 56%).

6.3.2 Current teaching situations

At all stages the number of years' teaching experience varied widely, from one year to 35 years or more, with an even spread across the distribution and averages in the range 17-19 years. A similar picture emerged for years in current post: again the range was one year to 30 years or more, averaging at around 10 years; the only stage difference to note here is a high proportion of teachers in the P5 group with just one year in current post (18%). The majority of the S2 teachers were teaching their own subject specialisms or teaching integrated science.

Class sizes at all three stages were similar, averaging around 17 pupils. Class contact hours, on the other hand, varied with stage: among the teachers who responded to this question, the proportions claiming to spend one hour or more a week on science with any single class increased from around 60% at P5 through to just under 50% at P7 to around 90% at S2 (over a third of the S2 teachers claimed to spend 3 hours or more with any one class). Teaching preparation time at S2 was also greater than at the primary stages: 70% of the S2 subject teachers indicated that they spent more than an hour on preparation each week, compared with around 40% of their primary colleagues.

Table 6.5 presents the results of the enquiry into the frequency with which teachers met with colleagues to discuss subject teaching issues, and reveals a significant difference in this respect between the primary teachers on the one hand (the two primary groups responded similarly) and the S2 teachers on the other.

In particular, over 60% of the primary teachers claimed that they met with colleagues to discuss science subject teaching 'hardly ever' or at most once or twice a year. This compares with just 20% of the S2 subject teachers, 36% of whom claimed to meet for such discussions at least weekly if not more frequently.

Opportunities for professional development were also greater among the S2 subject teachers than among their primary colleagues, and greater at P7 than at P5: over 80% of the S2 teachers had received at least one day of formal professional development during the previous two years, compared with 60% of the P7 teachers and 50% of the P5 teachers.

Table 6.5 Meetings with other teachers to talk about subject issues

(% respondents giving each rating among 94 P5 and P7 teachers and 91 S2 teachers)

The expected difference in perceptions about pupil motivation to learn emerged again here (see Table 6.6), with the S2 subject teachers giving significantly less positive ratings to this aspect than their primary colleagues (among whom there was no difference of opinion between the P5 and P7 class teachers).

Table 6.6 How well motivated are your pupils to learn?

(% respondents giving each rating among 94 P5 and P7 teachers and 91 S2 teachers)

While 35% of the primary teachers thought their P5/P7 pupils 'very well motivated' to learn, just 16% of the secondary subject teachers felt the same way about their S2 pupils; indeed, roughly a quarter of the S2 teachers considered their pupils 'not at all motivated' to learn.

6.3.3 Learning activities in the classroom

The teachers were asked to rate 18 different learning activities, in terms of how often they estimated that their pupils were engaged in each. Figure 6.1 illustrates the pattern of difference between the P5/P7 teachers and the S2 teachers (full data are given in Table G.1 in Appendix G), a pattern of difference mirroring closely that produced by the pupils in their own questionnaire responses to this same enquiry (see section 5.3 in Chapter 5).

According to the majority of the teachers in both sectors (90% at S2 and over 70% at P5/P7), pupils at all three stages are taught as a class in most lessons, and at S2 spend time in most lessons writing in their jotters or files. Pupils also worked in pairs in most lessons in the majority, around 60%, of the S2 classes. In the S2 classes the evidence is that pupils more often used tools and instruments in investigations than did their younger peers, and they also used maps, drawings and diagrams more frequently. Use of computers in class was relatively rare in both sectors, but particularly at S2: around a third of the S2 teachers claimed that their pupils 'rarely' used computers in small group work and almost 60% reported the same for pupils working alone on a computer. Lessons were rarely carried out in the school grounds or outside the school, according to the teachers' responses.

Figure 6.1 Frequency of learning activities in lessons

(% teachers indicating each frequency among 94 P5/P7 teachers and 112 S2 teachers)

6.3.4 Learning resources used in class

The teachers were asked how much use they made of 5-14 guidelines and various support materials in their lessons. The results are shown in Table 6.7, where we see that among the S2 subject teachers the most frequently used resource was the department's own materials, 70% of the teachers reporting use of these 'in most lessons'. This compares with just under a third of the primary teachers reporting similarly frequent use of their own school's materials, although another 40% used them every week. Just over half the teachers in both groups used the national 5-14 guidelines in most lessons, and 45-55% also used their own local authority guidelines this often. Commercial textbooks and/or resource packs were used 'in most lessons' by over a third of the primary teachers and around half the S2 teachers. Around a quarter of the teachers in both groups used materials they had developed themselves in most lessons with another 30% using them at least in most weeks.

Table 6.7 Resource use in science lessons

(% teachers indicating use of each resource: 94 P5/P7 teachers and 112 S2 science teachers)

Materials produced by a teachers' group or association, and materials produced by another schools, were the least used resources in both sectors. Materials produce by another local authority were not much used in the secondary schools either, but over 20% of the primary school teachers reported using these in most lessons and another 20% in most weeks.

6.3.5 Preparedness to teach science

In a final enquiry the teachers were asked to indicate their level of preparedness to teach each of the three Knowledge and understanding outcomes and Investigation skills, and how prepared they felt for Developing informed attitudes. They were also asked how well resourced they were to teach each aspect of work with their pupils, and to what extent they had covered it in their programme in the current session. The results strand by strand are given in Appendix H.

Table 6.8 provides the results for preparedness to teach, average over all strands in each outcome, while Figure 6.2 illustrates the pattern. It should be noted that different groups of S2 teachers responded to the different Knowledge and understanding outcomes, choices depending obviously on subject taught. But among the P5 and P7 teachers also, just about half declined to respond to the questions relating to these content-based outcomes. These lower numbers of respondents for the Knowledge and understanding outcomes should be borne in mind when the results are reviewed.

In general, as Figure 6.2 shows, at least half the S2 teachers felt themselves 'very well prepared' to teach all outcomes, with the highest proportion (75%) feeling this way with respect to investigation skills in science, followed by Knowledge and understanding - Energy and forces among the physics teachers (almost 75%). The primary teachers were much less confident on all counts; the highest proportion of teachers considering themselves to be very well prepared emerged for Developing informed attitudes, at just over 40%.

Table 6.8 Preparedness for teaching science

(% teachers giving each response, averaged over strands)

Figure 6.2 Preparedness for teaching science

(% teachers giving each response, averaged over strands)

6.3.6 Resourcing for teaching science

When asked how well resourced they were for teaching the various science outcomes, and for developing informed attitudes in their pupils, the P5 and P7 teachers were again less positive in their opinions than the S2 teachers, as Table 6.9 shows.

Among the primary class teachers, 30% or fewer considered that they were 'very well resourced' for teaching science, with little variation across outcomes. For Knowledge and understanding - Energy and forces, and for skills in science, the differences in opinion about resourcing between the primary teachers and their secondary counterparts reach statistical significance.

Table 6.9 Resourcing for teaching science

(% teachers giving each response, averaged over strands)

6.3.7 Coverage of outcomes in the current session

The teachers' responses to the question "To what extent have you covered this aspect of the work in your programme this session" were highly correlated with their responses about resourcing, as was the case among the teachers who responded to the same questions in the 2002 Social Subjects survey. Again, we see marked differences in the response patterns of the two groups for Knowledge and understanding - Energy and forces and for investigation skills (see Table 6.10). Almost half the S2 teachers who responded to the question for 'energy and forces' thought they had covered the various strands 'very well' compared with around a quarter of the primary teachers, with a similar difference for investigation skills.

Table 6.10 Extent of coverage of outcomes during the current session

(% teachers giving each response averaged over strands)

Interestingly, while the proportions of teachers considering they had covered Knowledge and understanding - Earth and space and Developing informed attitudes 'very well' were similar in both groups, higher proportions of the S2 teachers than the primary teachers answered 'not very well' and 'not at all well'.

6.4 Summary

Teacher questionnaire enquiries were incorporated into the survey at P5, P7 and S2, to gather information from teachers about the provision and resourcing of science in the schools, and to invite their views about the quality of different aspects of science experience in classrooms. Questionnaires were completed by 84 primary head teachers, 82 principal teachers in 34 secondary schools, 51 P5 teachers, 44 P7 teachers and 116 S2 subject teachers.

The majority of the primary head teachers reported that their current science programmes had been introduced or revised in 1998 or later, with most giving dates between 2000 and 2003. This compares under a third of the S2 principal teachers for 1998 or later, and fewer than a fifth for 2000 or later. Programmes were currently under revision in almost three-quarters of the primary schools; and just under half the principal teachers also agreed that their programmes were under revision at the present time.

The most frequently mentioned bases for science programmes among the principal teachers were the department's own materials, the national 5-14 guidelines, and commercial textbooks or resource packs. Three-quarters of the primary head teachers also mentioned the national 5-14 guidelines, and two-thirds mentioned the local authority's 5-14 guidelines. Just under a quarter of the primary head teachers mentioned that another authority's guidelines were used. Around half the primary head teachers also mentioned commercial textbooks and resource packs, and the school's own materials.

A high proportion of the senior teachers in each group noted that teachers' own comments featured in school reporting to parents on pupil progress, with 5-14 levels following fairly closely behind, particularly at S2. Comment banks were mentioned equally by both groups, but a higher proportion of principal teachers than primary head teachers mentioned 'marks or grades for effort'. A fifth of the secondary principal teachers also indicated '% marks in end-of-unit tests', whereas only one single primary head teacher did so.

Among the primary head teachers the most positive ratings for resource quality were given to computer and internet access for teachers and for pupils, and high ratings were also given for pupil attendance at, and behaviour in, subject classes. The secondary principal teachers were markedly less positive in their responses to these same issues. Parental support for their children's learning was also significantly more highly rated by the primary head teachers than by the S2 principal teachers. The most poorly rated aspects were computer availability and internet access for pupils at S2, with around one-third of the S2 principal teachers claiming both to be 'unsatisfactory'.

For teacher expectations of pupil achievement in science, there was no significant difference in the rating distributions for the two groups: over two-fifths of the respondents in each case evaluated this as 'very high'. But there were marked differences between the groups in their evaluations of pupil motivation to learn and teacher morale, the primary head teachers rating these much more highly than the secondary principal teachers.

There was a strong gender difference in the S2 science teachers' subject qualifications, with significantly higher proportions of female than male teachers having a biological science or chemistry qualification with the reverse holding for physics. At all stages the number of years' teaching experience varied widely, from one year to 35 years or more, and there was a similar wide variation in years in current post. Class sizes at all three stages were similar, at an average of around 17 pupils, but class contact hours increased with stage. Teaching preparation time at S2 was also greater than at the primary stages.

Over 60% of the primary teachers claimed that they met with colleagues to discuss science subject teaching 'hardly ever' or at most once or twice a year. This compares with a fifth of the S2 subject teachers, one-third of whom claimed to meet for such discussions at least weekly if not more frequently. Opportunities for professional development were also greater among the S2 subject teachers than among their primary colleagues, and greater at P7 than at P5.

Like their principal teachers, the S2 subject teachers gave significantly less positive ratings to their pupils' motivation to learn than their primary colleagues.

According to the majority of the teachers in both sectors, pupils at all three stages were being taught as a class in most lessons, and at S2 pupils spent most lessons writing in their jotters or files. Pupils also worked in pairs in most lessons in the majority of the S2 classes. The evidence is that S2 pupils more often used tools and instruments in investigations than did their younger peers, and they also used maps, drawings and diagrams more frequently. Use of computers in class was relatively rare in both sectors, but particularly at S2.

Among the S2 subject teachers the most frequently used resource was the department's own materials. Just over half the teachers in both groups used the national 5-14 guidelines in most lessons, and around half used their own local authority guidelines this often. Commercial textbooks and/or resource packs were also used very frequently by substantial proportions of teachers in both groups. Around a quarter of the teachers in both groups regularly used materials they had developed themselves. Materials produced by a teachers' group or association, and materials produced by another schools, were the least used resources in both sectors. Materials produced by another local authority were not much used in the secondary schools either.

At least half the S2 teachers felt themselves 'very well prepared' to teach all the science outcomes, with the highest proportion - three-quarters - feeling this way with respect to investigation skills in science, followed by Knowledge and understanding - Energy and forces among the physics teachers. The primary teachers were much less confident, the highest proportion - at two-fifths - considering themselves very well prepared emerging for Developing informed attitudes.

When asked how well resourced they were for teaching the various science outcomes, and for developing informed attitudes in their pupils, the P5 and P7 teachers were again less positive in their opinions than the S2 teachers. For Knowledge and understanding - Energy and forces, and for skills in science, differences in opinion between the two groups were notable.

As to the degree to which the teachers felt they had covered the outcomes in that session, there were again marked differences in the response patterns of the two groups for Knowledge and understanding - Energy and forces and for investigation skills. Almost half the S2 teachers who responded to the questions for 'energy and forces' thought they had covered the various strands 'very well' compared with around a quarter of the primary teachers, with a similar difference for investigation skills.

While the proportions of teachers considering they had covered Knowledge and understanding - Earth and space and Developing informed attitudes 'very well' were similar in both groups, higher proportions of the S2 teachers than the primary teachers answered 'not very well' and 'not at all well'.