Conformidad Demanda energética

Finding the ideal schooling structure to best serve (all) children, in terms of smooth passage and continuous learning development, has drawn on-going interest in transition matters (Eccles et al., 1993; Galton, Morrison, & Pell, 2000; Soares, Soares, & Pumerantz, 1973; Ward, 2000; Weiss & Baker-Smith, 2010). One early investigation looked into the optimum transition age and effects on attainment (success) by following over 3,000 Scottish students

for five years to their second year of high school “when they have clearly left behind the stage of transition” (Nisbet & Entwistle, 1969, p.22). Principals contributed opinions and students,

who must have had a reasonable level of literacy, completed psychological test batteries, and personal essays. Although a long-term view of the transition process was adopted, short-term supports of orientation and meeting future staff members were found to benefit more vulnerable students. At that time, family background and involvement, student attitudes, and readiness emerged as both positive influences and potential risk factors, and those findings were supported elsewhere (Dutch & McCall, 1974).

With self-concept being a flourishing area of interest at the time (Coopersmith, 1959), the

impact of structure upon students’ social and psychological development was taken up by

Blyth, Simmons and Bush (1978). Their comparison of K-8 and K-6 students from Minnesota contrasted to other findings (Soares et al., 1973), showing internal transitions supported student self-concept. A mixed bag of effects revealed K-6 to Year Seven transition was more risky for girls although it benefitted all students’ academic focus; thus, environmental context emerged as a critical mediator of risk and maturity in transition (Blyth et al., 1978). Self-esteem and relational factors attracted on-going attention (Wigfield, Eccles, MacIver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991; Wigfield, Lutz, & Wagner, 2005).

Other factors of interest included risk appraisal and adaptation to high school, as in Pumfrey

from professional educational services were designated “maladjusted” (n = 26) and “normally adjusted” (n = 19) according to the Bristol Social Adjustment Guides and matched by

attainment, intelligence, and personality measures. Comparison of pre- and post-transition measurements indicated adjustment more likely for brighter students, while initial high maladjustment and extroversion were found to be deleterious to student-teacher relationships and social adjustment. Bearing in mind the limitations of the non-random and small sample size, maladaptive status in high school was found sensitive to teacher and time effects, with spontaneous improvement not uncommon. With teacher effects brought to light, questions about the power of pedagogy and practice were followed up by others (Ward et al., 1982), and

Pumfrey and Ward’s (1976) results challenged educational services of the day.

Ward and colleagues (1982) critically-framed study reflected the emergent emphasis upon teacher practice; their goal at outset to identify effective pedagogical responses to benefit

students’ transition success within a United States schooling district. The ecologically- orientated methodology reflected a more inclusive attitude with data collected before, during and after the transition period. The comprehensive dataset included student attitude surveys, classroom observations of 24 students and their teachers, interviews with students, teachers

and parents, and teachers’ reflective comments. Students’ initial transition experience was

measured by independent raters according to four success criteria: report grade (nine weeks into secondary); student engagement (class participation, completion of work, correctness of oral participation); classroom behaviour; and peer relationships. The influence of teacher

pedagogy was evident with students’ primary school learning management skills impacting their later adaptation to different learning expectations (group work, individual research skills). Additionally, teacher accessibility and classroom management skills affected

students’ adaptation.

Teachers assessed students’ peer relations and classroom behaviour using six categories: success/multitask; social; dependent; phantom (attends, non-contributory); isolate (non- engaged, compliant); and alienate (confrontational, off-task) (Ward et al., 1982). Although consistency was evident in students’ class behaviours over time, extra teacher accessibility

and support of “dependent” students did “… have a greater impact on their success than

teacher time spent with alienated students” (p. 27); evidence of growing disparity between student cohorts. The “alienated” appeared to emerge as collateral casualties of transition

(Bauman, 2007; Slee 2009) and one was left to wonder what practices might have ameliorated their “unsuccessful” trajectory of poor grades and unacceptable behaviour.

Students’ notions of successful adaptation were not gathered but parents’ views revealed concerns for their children’s grades, emotional well-being, and peer relations across transition while worries about authority relations featured post-transition (Ward et al., 1982). Also, time management, attitude, motivation, and extra-curricular involvement were raised as concerns. With parent-teacher connections impacting positively on student performance, the researchers urged further investigation and prioritisation of academic matters in transition, especially continuity and meeting needs of students deemed responsive to remediation. Conclusions not

unlike those of Youngman (1978) who suggested “disenchanted” students or those exhibiting

“inferior performance” might hold promise if identified early enough.

Power and Cotterell (1981) noted the propensity of research to approach primary-secondary transition as a problem concentrating more upon negative effects for students, with little

cognisance of context. Thus, seeking to move from a sole focus on “transition trauma”,

environment and person effects were considered. Students from 13 Brisbane primary schools (n=1662) were followed to four high schools completing pre- and post-transition inventories measuring satisfaction, involvement, expectations, ability, personality, and achievement data.

Teachers contributed via interview but unlike Ward and others’ (1982), parent data was not

collected.

Most concerns of the 1100 successfully tracked students dissipated once in secondary school

and although “coping with the demands of high school proved to be a challenge, initially” and settling in was “a significant achievement” (Power & Cotterell, 1981, p.10), once over the

initial hurdle, students drew upon their own resources to fit in and just ‘got on with it’. Peers and classmates provided support and most negative predictions about school, schoolwork, other students, and teachers were found spurious. For example, older students were neither bullies nor unfriendly and teachers were kind not nasty.

Primary teachers felt comfortable with their preparation of students but worried those less able might strike difficulties with secondary schoolwork and expectations (Power & Cotterell, 1981). In contrast, secondary teachers saw barriers in structural terms – timetables, resources,

systemic learning requirements, societal demands, and prescriptive ideas of success all of which, they thought, impacted their ability to meet students’ needs. The researchers suggested

that such a pattern of externalisation “militates against the development of teaching strategies which are tailored to the needs of students in transition” (p. 36). Years later, Zeedyk and

colleagues’ (2003) warned of repercussions about similar findings which they suggested

carried “the risk of creating a degree of helplessness for individual pupils” (p. 67) if

appropriate pedagogical responses were not forthcoming. Power and Cotterell (1981) also found cross- curriculum knowledge and continuity wanting, while concerns were expressed for students experiencing conformity, learning, confidence, and relationship challenges; points resonating with later findings (Galton et al., 1999).

Taking a strength view, the “rationality and adaptability of children in periods of change”

(Power & Cotterell, 1981, p. 37), was underscored. With the added recommendation that parents take a greater part in transition planning matters, conclusions demonstrated synchronicity with many ideals of community and inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Thus, transition was presented as a time of opportunity contingent upon appropriate responses, including curriculum and pedagogical connections between sectors, supportive organisational systems, and structures extending through transition to meet

students’ needs:

Designing primary and secondary environments capable of optimising the intellectual growth, adjustment and satisfaction of other pupils is, however, a more complex task. What seems critical in the end is the extent to which the school provides appropriate support structures and the teachers involved are sensitive to the needs of individuals. (Power & Cotterell, 1981, p.30)

Power and Cotterell’s (1981) more positive appraisal of transition process and participation represented a growing shift away from problem-packaging adolescents and negative terminology more apparent in early portrayals of transition experiences (See Nisbet & Entwistle, 1969; Pumfrey & Ward, 1976). For this movement, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) contribution to the changing discourse must be considered significant. For instance, he proposed the apparent increase in behavioural problems and academic failure of young people moving toward secondary school was linked to the trend of building school islands, separated

from family and community. Moreover, internal silos within schools (by age, subject, etc)

compounded the loss of children’s connections and amplified the experience of increasing alienation. These propositions were a positive step for the discussion of transition (Wehlage & Rutter, 1985) and opened the way for alternative questions. Subsequent studies (e.g. Bishop et al., 2003; Galton et al., 2003) demonstrated responsiveness to ecological theory and openness to investigating positive outcomes (Evangelou et al., 2008; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990).

Following Power and Cotterell’s (1981) lead and wishing to explore more positive aspects of

transition in the current study, the following section considers successful transition; specifically, how it has been operationalised within research and generally what it looked like in results.