The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Assessment of Achievement Programme
Report of the First AAP Survey of Social Subjects Enquiry Skills (2002)

6. Teachers' reports on Social Subjects

6.1 The teachers' questionnaires

Teacher questionnaire enquiries were incorporated into the survey at P7 and S2. These were designed to gather information from teachers about the provision and resourcing of social subjects in the schools, and to invite their views about the quality of different aspects of social subjects experience in classrooms, and also to give pupils the opportunity to offer their observations about their social subjects learning. One questionnaire was designed to be completed by primary school head teachers and by S2 principal teachers, another was designed to be completed by P7 class teachers and S2 social subjects teachers (both questionnaires are reproduced in Appendix H). Those schools that participated only in the pencil and paper assessments at these stages, and not also in the practical assessments, were invited to cooperate in the questionnaire enquires.

In the senior teachers' questionnaire, primary head teachers were asked in what year their current P7 environmental studies programme was introduced, while S2 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 pupils' learning motivation, 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 environmental studies and social subjects lessons: respondents were asked how frequently their pupils engaged in different activities (18 in total) when studying social subjects topics in P7 environmental studies lessons or in S2 social subjects lessons (ie. geography, history, modern studies, social subjects), and how much use they themselves made of various kinds of resource materials (eight listed) in the lessons concerned. The final set of enquiries asked respondents to rate, for each topic in each social subjects outcome ( People in the past, People and place, People in society), for each enquiry skills strand and for each attitudinal strand:

2. how well prepared they felt to teach that aspect of the work with P7 (or S2, as appropriate) pupils
4. how well resourced they were to teach the aspect with those pupils
6. the extent to which they had covered the aspect in the P7 (or S2) programme that session.

Before reviewing the findings that emerged in these questionnaire enquiries, it should be noted that the questionnaires were sent to schools very late in the summer term, which partly explains the disappointingly low return rates - 36% returns at P7 (49 schools) and under 30% at S2 (35 schools). Both factors could have introduced biases of various kinds into the survey findings.

In fact, the resulting questionnaire samples at P7 and S2 both reflect the general composition of the main survey sample, in terms of school size, free school meals entitlement and regional location. By design, though, the schools in the full survey sample at each stage had not been selected to represent their populations in every respect. The sampling strategy adopted for the survey was intended to produce representative samples of pupils at each stage, not representative samples of schools (see Appendix B). The schools were merely the vehicles for accessing pupils. In the event, the secondary schools whose teachers sent in completed questionnaires do jointly resemble quite closely the whole secondary school population, in terms of schools size, free school meals entitlement and regional location. But the P7 questionnaire sample contained proportionally fewer small schools than the population as a whole, proportionally fewer schools with low free schools meals entitlement, and proportionally fewer schools from the smallest education authorities (see Appendix B for details). These differences should be borne in mind when the findings are reviewed.

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 49 primary schools and by 81 principal teachers in 35 secondary schools (between one and three principal teachers per school). Of the principal teachers, one-third were in geography departments, one-third in history departments, a quarter in modern studies departments, and the rest in social subjects departments.

6.2.2 Courses/programmes

Just under three-quarters of the S2 courses/programmes had been introduced in 1998 or later, and three quarters of all the courses/programmes were currently under revision, with little difference related to the age of the programme. In the primary schools around two-thirds of the P7 environmental studies programmes had been introduced post-1997, and 88% of all the programmes were currently being revised.

Over 94% of the courses/programmes had more than one basis. Among the various possibilities, Table 6.1 confirms that for both P7 and S2 the most frequently indicated bases were national 5-14 guidelines (86% of the primary head teachers and 85% of the S2 principal teachers checked this option) and the school (at P7) or the department's (at S2) own materials (84% at P7 and 99% at S2).

At P7, the next most frequent 'yes' responses were for Local Authority 5-14 guidelines (66%) and commercial textbooks/resource packs (50%). At S2, commercial textbooks and resource packs received even more mentions than at P7 (75%), while Standard Grade arrangements were agreed as a basis for programmes by 26% of the principal teachers. A handful of respondents mentioned 'other' bases, including cluster materials, embassy materials, the internet, the local authority, the library service, teacher materials, and worksheets.

With regard to methods of reporting pupil progress to parents, Table 6.2 shows very clearly that almost all the schools at both stages relied on teachers' comments for progress reporting (over 90%), followed closely by 5-14 levels (around 60% at each stage).

Just over 60% of the respondents for S2 agreed to giving marks or grades for effort, compared with fewer than 10% of the primary head teachers in relation to P7. In contrast, while almost half the primary head teachers indicated use of comments banks for P7 progress reporting, a lower quarter of the S2 principal teachers agreed that they did the same for S2 progress reporting. According to the questionnaire responses, P7 progress reporting to parents never involved marks for end-of-unit or end-of-year tests. At S2, end-of-unit test results are more frequently reported to parents (22%) than end-of-year marks (6%). Among the comments offered to explain 'other' bases at S2 were the following:

• Grades 1-6 linked to boxes ranging from very good to fair
• Numeric attainment grades (1-6) based on all tests in S2
• Grades for achievement
• Pupils are graded 1-6. 20% gain grade 1 etc.
• A-D grades based on unit test scores - change next session
• Assessment grades for KU and ES in each block
• Strengths and development needs
• Moving more to 5-14 format this session, and next
• Reporting 1-4. Desire to move to A-F
• Grades 1-4 based on cut-off scores *5-14 levels as from 2003
• School grading Levels 1-4
• Also behaviour, homework and effort
• And recommended starting point for SG

Respondents were invited at the end of the questionnaire to offer any comments they wished about any aspect covered. A number of volunteered comments related to courses and programmes, in particular to learning/teaching materials, and to attainment reporting. The majority of these came from S2 principal teachers:

Overall I feel that there is a need for some centrally produced material on enquiry skills for S1/S2. Are there any plans to set up a Schools Website for History in Scottish Schools? A good example is the one in England (www.schoolhistory.co.uk).

The geography department is undergoing a major modernisation, with all courses including S1/S2 being totally rewritten for content, assessment, differentiation etc. Therefore last year was the first run of the new courses and materials.

Much more 5-14 work is now covered by feeder primaries. We therefore intend to start standard grade in S2 next session and get rid of our S1 curriculum altogether. Our past revised S2 course will therefore drop down to S1.

Integrated social subjects is difficult to promote as there are few readily available resources. Teachers spend a great deal of time developing and reviewing course content.

5-14 levels at S1/S2: information from LTS, then SEED, has been vague on assessment - talk of 'gut feeling' to differentiate between levels and not any useful exemplars. Integrated social subjects is not easy to resource, therefore heavily dependent on teacher produced materials which require precious development time.

The teaching of enquiry skills is a difficulty in S1 and S2, whereas pupils acquire knowledge readily and generally demonstrate good levels of understanding. It tends to be in S3 and S4 that pupils 'get the hang of' enquiry skills and then they handle source-based tasks well.

Pressures from other parts of the curriculum and lack of assessment exemplification have meant that the desired progress in the development of 5-14 courses has not been achieved.

Enquiry skills are a very important part of what makes a successful student in history. However, the benefits of successful use of Enquiry Skills surely should lead to better knowledge and understanding of key ideas and events to make a student better informed. At present there is an over-emphasis on Enquiry Skills and pupils spend too much time being driven by technique rather than learning and developing.

The success of the course in our subject in S2 is very dependent on the hard work and input of the staff. As befits a subject with a "current affairs" input as well as being concept led, we are constantly adding, in our own personal time, resources which will enrich the curriculum. e.g. we intend to insert a "terrorism" sub unit in our study of international conflict using resources pertaining to Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Sept. 11th.

Knew very little about AAP until I discovered our school had been selected for the national survey. While agreeing that this is a very worthwhile exercise, I cannot help thinking that some national support materials for ES 5-14 would have been at least as effective as use of valuable resources. Most departments still have to re-invent the wheel with little local authority support - after more than a decade, no one has produced national assessment items or exemplar materials, which is a disgrace. Teachers could have been seconded on short term contracts to produce these (as North Lanarkshire appears to be doing now).

The lack of coherence between the terminology and criteria for assessment used for Standard Grade and 5-14 is a nuisance. Our assessment criteria in S1S2 are based on Standard Grade, as we are preparing pupils for S-Grade. The lack of national materials for 5-14 means there are no national standards - much clearer advice is needed on levels.

I have serious questions about why we are continuing to pursue a programme (5-14) which is so ill-conceived! I am not aware of a single primary or secondary teacher who has a good word to say about 5-14 environmental studies and yet it is demanded of us that we "do" it - no questions. The system and method of assessment is confusing. The value of the content is questionable. A major part of this programme - investigating - has been all but abandoned at Standard Grade level and the notion which is at the heart of it all - progression and integration between primary and secondary is - in this area at least - well nigh impossible. A pupil coming from primary with a 'D' in Environmental Studies may have gained this is any or all of - People in Place, People in Time, People in Society, Home Economics, Technical, Biology, Chemistry or Physics! There is very little uniformity of experience across primary schools - as I write this postscript I have an S1 class in front of me representing intake from twelve (12) different schools! How can 5-14 possibly work!!!

The 5-14 National Guidelines are not adequate. They are far too vague. There needs to be a national assessment bank of items which would bring consistency across social subjects.

Exemplars of assessment materials for Level D and Level E (+Level F?) would be helpful. Stability of follow-on courses would be extremely desirable, eg. retention of Standard Grade. Realistic approach and guidance on levels in social subjects in S1, S2, eg. recognition of the lack of any level, or any user level, coming up from primary schools.

We are a small but highly professional department, continuously striving to improve the teaching and learning of our students. Part of our development planning over the last two years has targeted at the further implementation of the national 5-14 guidelines. Assessment and reporting to parents have been accomplished. Development is ongoing.

5-14 still developmental, as we require more discussion with primaries over topics taught etc. This has begun, but is far from finished. It is possible therefore that existing courses in S1/S2 will have to be amended.

Primary head teachers offered the following comments:

General disappointment with the format of the original 5-14 ES document and the need for change so soon.

We are in the process of reviewing the ES programme in the light of new guidelines.

6.2.3 Quality of resourcing and other issues

Using a four-point rating scale ('very good', 'generally good', 'fair' and 'unsatisfactory'), the primary head teachers and the secondary principal 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). 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 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'.

Volunteered comments on these issues from S2 principal teachers included the following:

1 computer/room is fine for staff, access to class set in computer suite is hit or miss, depending on demand. It is thus difficult to organise chunks of course requiring access for all pupils as this cannot be guaranteed.

I am not convinced that the availability of computers/ internet access for pupils in S2 modern studies classes is of any great importance.

Computer 'suites' have a maximum of 20 machines, classes have a minimum of 29 pupils.

Computer access difficult as there is only one computer suite in school, which is heavily used by Maths and English departments.

The above categories are all relevant and any judgements thereby quite subjective. So I hope the results are only going to be used to analyse perceptions rather than to come to conclusions about the state of provision etc.

Comments from primary head teachers are as follows:

Our school was opened in 1910. The school roll has greatly increased to 390 pupils. Accommodation is in 4 buildings and 4 temporary units. A new school is being built under the PPP programme and was due to be completed by August 2003. A delay in the start of the building was recently announced, which has lowered the morale amongst the teachers, who work extremely hard in far from ideal conditions for teaching and learning in the 21st century.

Internet access is available for all teachers and pupils, but the quality of line is poor via corporate intranet and access can be very slow. Quality of learning support is good, but availability coupled with drive to raise language/ maths affects focus on ES.

We have internet access for pupils but we are still at the stage of drawing up an internet protocol prior to giving them access.

Although we have sufficient computers in school we have limited access to plugs - this is due to be resolved soon.

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 social subjects (environmental studies at P7), the expectations their teachers had of pupils to achieve in social subjects, and the morale of teachers in their school or department. The results are shown in Table 6.4.

For teacher morale, there was no significant difference in the rating distributions for the two groups: just 20% of the respondents in each case evaluated this as 'high'. But there were statistically significant differences between the groups in their evaluations of, particularly, pupil motivation to learn (with 42% of the primary head teachers rating this as 'high' compared with 14% of the S2 principal teachers) and teachers' expectations of pupil achievement (25% of the S2 principal teachers rating this 'low' compared with just 6% of primary head teachers).

Volunteered comments from the principal teachers are as follows:

Low morale is due to continual changes being made to courses centrally, the increasing amount of paperwork, lack of time to do the job properly and the lowering of standards nationally (ie."dumbing down").

Some of the questions in the form are very difficult to answer, eg. question 16: some parents are supportive but some are extremely unsupportive, and question 7: in some classes the majority of pupils may require some kind of support, which makes this very difficult.

Morale see-sawing a bit at the moment due to a move towards integrated social studies in S1. Planning and preparation next session for implementation in 2003/4.

Comments from primary head teachers were the following:

The expectation teachers have of pupils to achieve in environmental studies depends on the teacher.

Morale generally in teaching profession is not as good as it should be due to workload pressures and "innovation overload".

Staff morale is not as high as it has been due to exhaustion at this time of the year - likewise children. Earlier in the session I would have marked "very high".

The reason I have ticked two boxes in 17 & 18 is that in most classes motivation is moderately light and in some it's fair.

6.3 Responses of P7 teachers and S2 subject teachers

6.3.1 The respondents

A total of 73 P7 teachers in the 49 primary schools responded to the class teachers' questionnaire (between one and three teachers per school) as did 138 social subjects S2 teachers in the 35 secondary schools (between one and seven subject teachers per school). The P7 teachers were predominantly female (84%) while the group of S2 teachers was more evenly gender representative (49% female).

Just over a third of the S2 subject teachers were qualified in geography, just over a third in history, almost 20% in other social subjects (including modern studies, economics, politics, etc), and just over 5% in languages. The main subjects being taught by the S2 teachers were geography (34%), history (38%) and other social subjects (28%). Four in five of the geography graduates were teaching geography and four in five of the history graduates were teaching history; all the language graduates were teaching history.

Years of teaching experience varied widely in both groups, from one year to just under 40 years, with medians of 17 years at primary level and 20 years at secondary (ie. half the teachers had that many years of experience or less, and half that many or more). The time spent in their current posts also varied widely in both groups, from one year to just under 35 years; the P7 teachers tended to have spent longer in their current posts than their secondary colleagues, with a median of nine years compared with six years.

6.3.2 Current teaching situations

Class sizes varied widely, from six pupils to 50 pupils at P7 and from three pupils to 33 pupils at S2, with median sizes of 26 pupils at P7 and 28 at S2. The P7 teachers spent between one hour and 9_ hours per week teaching environmental studies, with a median time of 4_ hours, and between no time at all and 283 hours on social subjects topics with P7 in the previous school year (2001-2002) - median time 78 hours. Among the secondary subject teachers, contact time with S2 classes varied from half an hour to four hours, with a median time of one and a half hours. Time spent in preparation and marking varied from one hour to eight hours at P7 and from no time at all to 10 hours at S2, with median times of three hours and two hours, respectively.

As far as professional development in their subjects is concerned (environmental studies at P7, social subjects at S2), just over 40% of the P7 teachers and just over 20% of the S2 teachers had not benefited from any during the previous two years. Among those that had spent some time in professional development the median was two days at P7 and three days at S2. When asked how often they met with other teachers to talk about professional issues in environmental studies (P7) or social subjects (S2), 30% of the P7 teachers and 40% of the S2 teachers claimed to have such meetings at least once a week, while around 30% at each stage admitted to having such meetings relatively infrequently - at best once or twice a year (see Table 6.5).

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 P7 teachers and the S2 teachers (full data are given in Table J.1 in Appendix J).

At both stages the learning activities most frequently engaged in by pupils, according to their P7 or S2 teachers, were being taught as a whole class and writing in a jotter or file. Just over 50% of the S2 teachers and 60% of the P7 teachers agreed that their pupils were taught as a class in 'most lessons', and over 50% of the S2 teachers and 40% of the P7 teachers agreed that their pupils spent time in 'most lessons' writing in their jotters or files.

Interestingly, however, while 10% of the P7 teachers claimed that their pupils were rarely (ie. once a year or less often) engaged in these activities around 30% of the S2 teachers gave this same response. Indeed, this pattern of divergence in the views of the S2 teachers is seen for many of the learning activities. While a number of the activities would seem to be more frequent at S2 than at P7 they are simultaneously less frequent.

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 (see Table J.2 in Appendix J, and Figure 6.2).

As Figure 6.2 shows, the general pattern of use was similar across the two stages, with no striking differences between the two groups other than the greater use being made of the national 5-14 guidelines by the P7 teachers (half of them claiming to use these in 'most lessons' compared with one third of the S2 teachers), and the greater use being made of their school's own materials by the S2 teachers (half the S2 teachers claiming to use these in 'most lessons' compared with one third of the P7 teachers).

6.3.5 Preparedness to teach social subjects

In a final enquiry the teachers were asked to indicate their level of preparedness to teach each of the various social subjects topics that they had taught in the previous school year (2001-2002), along with the various enquiry skills and informed attitudes. They were also asked how well resourced they were to teach the aspect of work with their pupils and to what extent they had covered the aspect in their programme (P7 or S2) in the current session.

Almost all the P7 teachers responded for most or all the topics, and all the P7 teachers and most of the S2 teachers responded for enquiry skills and informed attitudes. But, as would be expected given their subject specialisms, distinct subsets of the S2 teachers responded for the different content outcomes: People in the past, People and place and People in society. Since there was little difference in the response distributions across topics within each outcome, the general picture is illustrated in Figure 6.3 (the relevant data are presented in Table J.3 in Appendix J, along with individual topic results).

The evidence in Figure 6.3 is that the majority of teachers at both stages consider themselves to be 'very well prepared' or 'quite well prepared' to teach the various topics in People in the past: around 70% of the responding S2 teachers and 85% or more of the P7 teachers. Among these positive responders proportionally more of the S2 teachers than of the P7 teachers claimed to be 'very well prepared' to teach the topics.

For topics in People and place responses were also quite positive, although slightly less so than for People in the past. Again the P7 teachers tended to be more confident about their preparedness than the responding S2 teachers: around 65% of the S2 teachers who responded felt themselves to be 'very well' or 'quite well' prepared to teach the various topics, compared with 75-85% per topic for the P7 teachers. As before, however, higher proportions of the S2 teachers than of the P7 teachers considered themselves to be 'very well prepared' to teach the topics. Of particular interest in Figure 6.3 is the relatively high average proportion of S2 teachers who felt themselves 'not at all well prepared' to teach the People and place topics: the proportion per topic ranged between 25% and 30% for three of the four topics in this outcome.

For People in society the proportions of confident teachers fell once again, with an average of 60% of the S2 teachers considering themselves to be 'very well' or 'quite well' prepared to teach the various topics, compared with just over 70% of the P7 teachers. Once again we see that while there are proportionally more of the S2 teachers than of the P7 teachers claiming to be 'very well prepared', there are also proportionally more of the S2 teachers than of the P7 teachers feeling themselves to be 'not at all well' prepared, with a much more marked difference at this end of the scale. Compared with just 4% of the P7 teachers, fully a third of the S2 teachers, averaged over the three topics in this outcome, admitted to feeling 'not at all well prepared' to teach the topics: the proportion per topic varied from 30% to 36%.

While over 80% of the P7 teachers felt 'very well prepared' or 'quite well prepared' to teach enquiry skills and to develop informed attitudes in their pupils, the corresponding proportions of S2 teachers were just over 60% for teaching enquiry skills and just over 50% for developing informed attitudes. Here, though, the proportion of S2 teachers considering themselves to be 'very well prepared' was not higher than the proportion of P7 teachers feeling this way: for enquiry skills the proportions were the same for both groups, at around one-third, while for developing informed attitudes a lower proportion of S2 teachers (around one-third) than of P7 teachers (just under half) felt very well prepared. Over 20% of the S2 teachers considered themselves to be 'not at all well prepared' for either of these tasks.

6.3.6 Level of resourcing for teaching social subjects

When asked how well resourced they were for teaching the various social subject topics and enquiry skills, and for developing informed attitudes in their pupils, the P7 teachers were again more positive in their opinions than the S2 teachers, as Table 6.6 shows (again, the data in Table 6.6 are averaged over the various topics, skills and attitudes - individual details are given in Appendix J).

Typically, 75-85% of the P7 teachers thought that they were 'very well resourced' or 'quite well resourced' for all aspects, compared with a lower 50-60% for the S2 teachers. Higher proportions of P7 teachers thought they were 'very well resourced' to teach People in the past and Developing informed attitudes (around one third in each case) than was the case for People and place and Enquiry skills (around one quarter in each case) or People in society (under 20%). The most positive opinion ('very well resourced') was expressed by the highest proportion of S2 teachers for People in the past (35%) followed by People and place (30%), People in society (23%), Enquiry skills (19%) and Informed attitudes (13%). Once again, while rather few P7 teachers claimed that they were 'not at all well resourced' to teach these outcomes, fairly large proportions of S2 teachers (15-25%) felt this for all outcomes except People in the past.

6.3.7 Extent of coverage with pupils in the current session

As Table 6.7 shows, large proportions of the P7 teachers (70-80%) considered that they had 'very well covered' or 'quite well covered' all the outcomes in the current session, with People in society the least well covered outcome. The corresponding proportions for the S2 teachers varied between 50% and 70%, the lowest again being for People in society. Indeed, over a quarter of the S2 teachers felt that they had not covered People in society at all well - this compares with just 3% for People in the past and around 15% for each of the other outcomes.

6.4 Summary

Even accepting that teacher and pupil questionnaires were sent out to schools very late in the summer term, after the pupil attainment survey had taken place, response rates were disappointingly low. Just 49 primary schools (36% of the survey schools at this stage) and 35 secondary schools (less than 30% of the survey schools at this stage) completed and returned teacher questionnaires. While the questionnaire sample of schools at S2 nevertheless represents quite closely the whole secondary school population in terms of school size, entitlement to free school meals and location, the P7 sample under-represents the smallest schools, schools with the lowest free school meals entitlement and schools in the smallest education authority areas. The findings of the questionnaire enquiries should therefore be treated as indicative only. That said, the results make interesting reading.

According to primary head teachers and secondary principal teachers, the majority of programmes of work at P7 and at S2 were currently undergoing revision, whatever their year of introduction - and some had been very recently introduced. Programmes generally had several bases, the most common of which were the school's own materials and the national 5-14 guidelines, both mentioned by a large majority of the schools at both stages. Standard Grade arrangements were mentioned for about a quarter of the S2 programmes. For reporting pupil progress to parents, the vast majority of schools at both stages relied on teachers' comments, followed by 5-14 levels. At S2, marks and grades for effort were as popular as 5-14 levels, while use of a comments bank was the third most popular approach at P7.

When asked to rate various aspects with regard to their P7 or S2 pupils, the senior teachers gave the most positive ratings to six aspects - pupil attendance at classes, pupil behaviour in classes, computer access for teachers, computer access for pupils, internet access for teachers and internet access for pupil - and the least positive ratings to four aspects - school/departmental accommodation, availability of resources for subject teaching and learning, availability of learning support or subject enrichment, and parental support for learning. The P7 ratings tended to be more positive than the S2 ratings, with the exception of parental support for learning where both teacher groups were equally unimpressed.

'Teachers' expectations of pupil achievement' was more highly rated than 'Teacher morale' by both groups. 'Pupil motivation to learn' at S2 was even less positively rated than teacher morale by the secondary principal teachers, but at P7 was rated as positively as teachers' expectations of pupil achievement by the primary head teachers.

P7 class teachers and S2 subject teachers gave facts and opinions about a wider range of issues, including their qualifications, years in service, amount of professional development, class sizes and contact times, their use of resources, etc., and they also rated their own preparedness for teaching the various topics and skills in social subjects and developing informed attitudes, their resourcing for these and their coverage of them during the current session.

The P7 teachers were predominately female, while their S2 colleagues were more evenly gender representative. Among the S2 teachers, geographers and historians predominated, at one-third of the total each; the remaining teachers were graduates in a variety of other social subjects or in languages. The majority of geography and history graduates were teaching their degree subject at S2, all the language graduates were teaching history, while graduates with a variety of social subjects degrees were teaching social subjects or modern studies.

Years of teaching experience and years in post varied widely in both groups from a year or two to decades. As a group, the S2 teachers tended to have slightly more teaching experience than the P7 teachers but slightly less time in their current posts. A substantial minority of teachers in both groups had not had any professional development during the previous two years, while among those that had benefited from such experience the median duration was a matter of days. However, a substantial minority of the teachers in both groups claimed to meet at least weekly with colleagues to discuss subject issues. The majority at both stages gave positive ratings to their pupils' motivation to learn, as had their head teachers and principal teachers.

The most frequent learning activities for pupils in their classrooms were being taught as a whole class and writing in their jotters or files. The P7 teachers made greater use of the national 5-14 guidelines in their lessons than did the S2 teachers, while the latter made greater use than the P7 teachers of their schools' own materials.

The teachers' ratings of their preparedness to teach each of the various topics and enquiry skills in social subjects and to develop informed attitudes in their pupils, their ratings of how well resourced they were in each case, and their ratings of the extent to which they had covered each aspect in the current session were all highly inter-correlated. In general the P7 teachers gave higher ratings than the S2 teachers to most aspects. But perhaps the most interesting finding is that for all outcomes except People in the past (generally taught by history graduates) a substantial minority of the S2 teachers responded 'not at all well' for preparedness, resourcing and coverage, the proportion being highest for P eople in society (taught by graduates with a variety of degree subjects).

« Previous | Contents | Next »