CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
4.1 Transition project
Evidence from the Transition project indicates that follow-up pupils from the primary school project were significantly advantaged on the Forces pre-implementation test. This suggested the primary project had a continuing effect into the early stages of the secondary school. Pupils in the follow-up group appeared to have retained knowledge and understanding from this section of the primary school curriculum more effectively that those who were not involved in the original ScotSPRinG project. Follow-up pupils also did better on the first specific standardised science test than those pupils who were non follow-up. These standardised tests were on different topics in different schools. It must be remembered that many schools in the West of Scotland refused to implement the specific collaborative learning topic in science as planned by the researchers. This led to them implementing the collaborative learning techniques within their planned science curriculum topics and necessitated the design of a number of different tests that were subsequently standardised to allow for between topic comparisons to be made. See footnote 7 for an explanation regarding how scores from different tests are 'standardised' to allow comparisons to be made. There was some evidence that the primary school project had enduring effects on relationships in science work groups. Follow-up pupils reported forming stronger relationships to member of their science work group. Non-follow-up pupils tended to form more general relationships within their science classes. On other measures there were few consistent differences between the follow-up and non follow-up pupils just after transition. In summary the group who had experienced group work in primary showed enduring gains in attainment and greater orientation to the group work 2 years later after entry to secondary school.
4.2 Collaborative learning/Groupwork project
Regarding Collaborative learning/Groupwork the evidence was less clear that the project had a positive impact on learning. Follow-up pupils did not appear to be advantaged over non follow-up pupils as a result of their involvement in the primary school project. In actual fact on the pre-post implementation specific science tests, both the pupils in the follow-up and non follow-up experimental groups experienced increased scores, but generally experimental non-follow-up pupils' scores increased somewhat more than the follow-up pupils. There is evidence that the secondary project resulted in a gain in science attainment. However, the non-follow-ups seem to advance significantly more than the follow-ups. The situation is further confused in that the pupils from the control groups gained as much on the pre-post implementation test scores as the experimental pupils. In summary there is little evidence of any enduring impact of the primary school project on new curricular material when the pupils come through into the world of secondary school. It seems that transition eliminates these. The implications here for any transfer of other forms of learning are considerable. Nor is there any consistent evidence for the effectiveness of the secondary Collaborative Learning/ Groupwork project, in sharp contrast with the primary project.
There appeared to be considerable differences in how the project was implemented in the experimental schools, so these overall results might be somewhat misleading. Nonetheless, there was little evidence that quality of implementation was correlated with outcomes in attainment.
There did appear to be some positive social effects of using collaborative learning/group work techniques in the classroom. On sociometric measures 12 after transition, the non-follow-up pupils reported significantly higher percentages of pupils that they liked to work with in class and liked to spend time with at break. This indicated greater orientation to the class as a whole. Follow-up pupils tended to focus upon group relations rather than relations with the whole class. They reported higher percentages of the science work group that they liked to work with in science, liked to spend time with at break, and liked to see out of school. It should also be noted that the experimental non-follow up pupils, by the end of the secondary school project, had also tended to shift in the same direction, resulting in more firm relationships being established with their science work group, and less general relationships being maintained with the class as a whole. This might be construed as an indirect indicator that something was working - however these changes did not relate to the work environment, only to the environment outside work ( i.e. those children that they liked to spend time with at break time and out of school).
There was some evidence that transition for pupils from rural and urban primary schools might not have the same impact upon previous learning and attainment. Those follow-up pupils from rural locations tended to do better after transition on the attainment tests than those from urban locations. In primary, rural pupils tended to have higher attainment scores and this was sustained in secondary on different measures. This is in contrast to the expectation that rural pupils will have greater difficulty adapting to secondary school.
Generally, anecdotal evidence of the secondary project does not correlate well with the test results. The impressions of the teachers concerned were that in some cases significant progress was made, and indeed in some cases this was also the expectation of the researchers. However, these expectations were not supported by attainment data. Test results indicate that a collaborative learning / group work project that works well in primary schools may not prove to be possible to satisfactorily replicate in secondary schools. In addition no clear evidence emerges as to the nature of interventions / projects that may prove successful in secondary school settings and therefore it is difficult to give clear suggestions for directions for future research.
4.3 Policy and practice implications
The implications for policy and practice are straightforward.
- Primary collaborative learning / group work projects have an enduring impact on science achievement and can be recommended as a project of choice.
- Secondary collaborative learning / group work projects have no consistent impact on science achievement and cannot be recommended as an intervention on this evidence.
It might be that the project was not sufficiently powerful to produce effects. However, a more intensive project would struggle with issues of expansion and sustainability. Alternatively, it might be that a different kind of project working within the same timetabling, staffing and organisational constraints as the collaborative learning project may have worked in secondary schools, but it is difficult to see how such a project might be structured.