Literacy in the transition years.

Cairney, Trevor ; Buchanan, John M. ; Sproats, Eira 等

The transition from primary to secondary school is a constant source of concern for teachers, parents and students. In this article Trevor Cairney et al. report on a major study that particularly focussed on literacy development and practices in this transition period. The study, which followed Year 6 students into their first year of secondary school, identifies some important issues for teachers, parents and administrators to consider.

Introduction

The divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary education have long been considered at best arbitrary, and at worst open to challenge (Nisbet & Entwistle, 1969). While the divisions are longstanding, educators have increasingly begun to examine the impact of the structure of our educational system into phases with 'hard' transition points. One area of inquiry has been the impact on students' literacy practices of movement across these educational boundaries. The study described in this article was funded by DEETYA under the National Children's Literacy Projects program (Cairney, Lowe & Sproats, 1994) and investigated variations in literacy practices across the primary /secondary divide. In particular, it focussed on the effects of transition on students' literacy development.

The nature of school and the transition process

While many have claimed that the transition period is disruptive of students' literacy development, little systematic study has occurred concerning the literacy practices experienced by Year 6 and Year 7 students. The common belief that the transition period is disruptive of students' learning is evident in the number of educational systems that are currently placing an emphasis on curriculum and professional development work in years 6-8.

Much of this interest can be linked to a recent influential study that showed that literacy development, like other scholastic abilities, seems to plateau in the first two years of secondary school (Hill, Holmes-Smith & Rowe, 1993). Other earlier researchers such as Power & Cotterell (1979, 1981) have also observed that despite a degree of continuity between primary and secondary practices, a change in emphasis, from the mastery of literacy skills to their use, is evident. It was the desire to more systematically explore the differences and the impact of changing literacy practices across the primary/secondary transition that led to this study.

Foundational to the study was a belief that schooling is a social practice, or rather an amalgam of social practices. Its practices reflect, and at the same time shape, the culture to which they belong. If observed at one level, as skills to be mastered, the literacy practices of primary and secondary schooling look remarkably similar. However, this study was driven by the belief that differences in practices require more than a simple analysis of the products or processes of literacy. All literacy practices are social phenomena which are part of the cultural fabric of groups. As such, the literacy practices of schools may in fact privilege certain academic procedures (Gee, 1990), and randomly promote certain social expectations (Bourdieu, 1977). Others have gone as far as to suggest that schools arbitrarily privilege certain academic procedures, and also promote specific definitions and traditions of literacy (Bourdieu, 1977; Friere & Macedo, 1987; Lankshear & Lawler, 1987; Street, 1984). Primary and secondary schools differ not only in their highly visible structures, but also, more subtly, in their cultural expectations. Students are faced with this adjustment during the transition into adolescence (Bezzina, 1988) with its inherent pressures related to social, physiological and emotional changes.

Studies of the transition period

Some studies of the transition period have focussed on broad curriculum issues and the degree of contact between primary and secondary. For example, Power and Cotterell (1979,1981), in a study of sixty-two primary and seventy-two high schools in Australia, observed that compared with primary schools, high schools created environments which are more goal-orientated and cohesive, less structured and more conducive to independence. The degree to which content material built on primary school work varied considerably between subjects. Later, Eltis, Low, Adams and Cooney (1987) observed that while the transition to high school was positive for most students, there existed little curriculum-related contact between primary and secondary schools.

Other studies have shown that particular groups of students are more affected than others by the transition process. It has been variously suggested that special problems seem to exist for the socially unconfident (Ward et al., 1982), aggressive or disruptive students (Mekos, 1989), those from lower socio-economic backgrounds (Murdoch in Nisbet & Entwistle, 1969) and those in the lowest performance decile (Hill, Holmes-Smith & Rowe, 1993). Ward et al. (1982) also observed that students regarded by their teachers as `dependent' also encountered difficulties, in that they needed intensive support in the form of feedback and direction. Such students, while working capably in small groups, had problems in whole-class learning situations. Needless to say, the above groups are already among those most at risk.

Other findings are less conclusive. For example, findings have varied on the comparative effects on boys and girls (Nash, 1973; Ward, 1982; Mertin, Haebich & Lokan, 1989). As well, there appears to be little information on the impact of the transition process on students whose home languages differ from the language of instruction. One interesting finding is that the students who are the most apprehensive about adjusting to high school are not necessarily those who ultimately encounter the most problems in the transition process (Mekos, 1989). In general, students anticipated that high school would provide an increase in challenges and relevance to adult life. Subsequent attitudes to high school appear to depend on the extent to which these expectations were fulfilled (Power & Cotterell, 1979, 1981).

Just as culture is not static, it is not internally consistent. Within school cultures, sub-groups are constantly forming and evolving. Commencement at a new school provides an environment conducive to changes in such groups. This can have potentially positive and negative benefits. Nash (1973) observed that the nature of these subgroups, and teachers' perceptions of them and of their members, were likely to influence the nature of teacher-student relationships.

However, from an educational point of view, it appears that transition processes tend to compromise academic progress for all students, albeit temporarily (McGee, 1989; Galton & Willcocks, 1983; Nisbet & Entwistle, 1969), with the effects being most enduring on the least able (Hill, Holmes-Smith & Rowe, 1993).

Responses to perceived differences

Given that the division between primary and secondary schooling is likely to remain in some form, several researchers have made recommendations to facilitate the transition process. Whitta (1977), for example, advocated the establishment of orientation programs and increased opportunities for primary and secondary teachers to familiarise themselves with each other's situation and practices, as well as the development of extra-curricular activities during the first year of high school, capitalising on friendship groups throughout the transition process.

Others have recommended the establishment of middle schools (Hough, 1989), peer support programs (Reinstra, 1987), a more gradual, or staggered, transition process (Clarkson, 1988) and increased information sharing between schools' personnel (Beddoe, 1985; Dean, 1985; Jensen, 1984). The Beazley Report (Beazley, 1984) recommended the appointment of one primary teacher in each school to be responsible for the transition, and urged that attention be given to the social, as well as the physical, environment of the high school in orientation programs. It would appear that some of these recommendations have been trialled but rarely at a system level. One exception was the priority given to the transition period in NSW in 1997.

Studies focussing more specifically on literacy-related issues

As mentioned in the introduction, one of the key concerns of the study described in this article was the effects of the transition process on literacy development. Literacy could be described as the 'legal tender' of school and of society, the currency in which academic and social transactions take place. Not surprisingly, then, literacy practices play a central role in any changes encountered in the transition process. They constitute an important indicator and potential determinant of one's membership of, or exclusion from, particular social groups. As such, they have been studied by a variety of researchers and educational systems.

One major study was the Writing Reading Assessment Programme (Education Department of South Australia, 1992) which sought to investigate literacy practices in years 6 and 10 in South Australian schools. The Programme examined school curricula and assessed students on a range of tasks, and also reported on the links between attitude and literacy performance. In terms of range of texts, and purposes for which literacy was used, similarities across the years appeared more evident than differences.

Other researchers have investigated secondary students' interest in reading (Atwell, 1987; Bintz, 1993) and text suitability (Homer & Moore, 1981). For example, Bintz (1993), working with forty-four students from eleven high schools, identified three levels of reader enthusiasm, describing readers as avid, passive or reluctant. He argued, that much reluctance towards reading derives from the mismatch between in-school and out-of-school reading. Bintz observed that secondary teachers, in the face of their students' apparent disinterest, further tightened control of reading processes and materials. In his view, it is lack of choice in reading material which quenches much student interest.

Beavis (1981) examined the apparent decline in enthusiasm for reading among secondary students when compared with their primary school counterparts, and advocated a literacy-rich environment, where students could immerse themselves in conversation and literature (including their own compositions). Such an approach would include allowing students to `make thinking public' (Schmidt, Barry, Maxworthy & Huebsch, 1989: p. 430), sharing and exchanging their thoughts in draft form. This collaborative dimension of literacy is reinforced by Furniss and Green (1991), who observed students' capacity, when support was offered, to compose sophisticated texts.

Goodall (1981) suggested that the `human dimension' may be the central component of a program's success, observing that, `It is an interesting possibility that the success of some special transition programs ... may not be due to how they cushion the impact of transition but to the fact that for once a group of teachers are taking a personal and organisationally sensitive interest in the students as people rather than learning units' (p. 34). According to Gunter (1981: p. 50), attention to literacy development in the transition years Will not only assist students educationally, but can help them make sense of the transition process, serving to `encourage confidence in the present, and understanding of coming life situations'.

On the basis of previous work conducted and the on-going concerns of schools about the transition period, DEETYA identified this area as a priority in 1993. The project described here was conducted in 1993-94. It was predicated on the assumption that further research was needed into the strategies primary and secondary teachers use to support their students' literacy, and the different purposes for which literacy is used, as well as into the wider cultural context in which words and ideas are exchanged.

Methodology

The expected outcome of the study (outlined in the DEETYA project brief) was the provision of information concerning effective strategies to bridge the gap between the primary and the secondary school. To do this, the study explored the effects of the transition process. More specifically, it sought to describe literacy practices in a defined set of primary and secondary schools, and investigated ways in which students cope with the literacy demands in each context as they move from primary to secondary school.

Four high schools were identified in socio-economically diverse communities. These schools and all of their primary feeder schools served as the sites for the study. The research consisted of two distinct stages. In the first, the research team spent a period of four months (one day per week) in a total of thirteen Year 6 primary school classrooms, observing the nature of literacy practices and forms of teacher support. In the second phase, thirty-five of the students from within the above thirteen classrooms were observed in the following year in a variety of Year 7 classes over a period of three months in the first and second school terms. In this phase the students were `followed' as they moved from class to class.

The first community is located in Sydney's inner western suburbs, and is characterised by high levels of unemployment and family breakdown. The local students come from a range of language backgrounds. The second community is situated in an economically disadvantaged area of Western Sydney. About two-thirds of the local housing is government-owned and the level of unemployment is above state and national averages. The third neighbourhood is in Sydney's outskirts. The area is populated by a Large proportion of professional people, is demographically stable, and enjoys moderate affluence. The fourth of these communities is located about three hours' drive west of Sydney. The high school, in a rural town of about 2500 people, draws its students from relatively small, far-flung primary schools, including a one-teacher school.

An attempt was made to identify student participants who represented the diversity of the populations present in the focus schools of the thirty-five students interviewed for the study. Factors considered included gender, ability levels, and language background (English-speaking or non-English-speaking). Similar numbers of boys and girls were included, and nine of the thirty-five students were from a non-English-speaking background. Ability levels of the students were varied; thirteen were considered as `above average' by their teachers, fourteen were deemed to be `average', and the other eight were regarded as `below average'.

Data collection procedures were similar for the primary and secondary phases, and consisted of interviews, classroom observations, the collection of artefacts such as student work samples, and the analysis of school policies and teachers' programs (see Figure 1). Students were interviewed on three occasions, once during the primary stage and at the beginning and end of the secondary stage. Parents were interviewed once during the primary stage, and again during the secondary stage. Teachers, principals and librarians in the participating primary and secondary schools were interviewed during the corresponding stages of the project. Further information was also sought from primary school teachers, in the form of a questionnaire during the secondary stage.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Examination of the teacher's role as a supporter of literacy learning was accomplished as a result of 260 hours spent observing the twenty primary school and 102 secondary school teachers who agreed to participate in the study. Observations covered as wide a range as possible of Key Learning Areas. Data were also gathered from interviews with the stakeholders, i.e. the students, teachers and other staff, and parents. Parents from twenty-seven of the thirty-five participating families made themselves available for the initial interview. Of these, six were from non-English-speaking backgrounds. At the end of the secondary phase, eighteen parents consented to be interviewed.

Student interviews sought to explore a variety of issues such as their attitudes to reading and writing, reading tastes, and sources of ideas for writing. Year 6 students were asked about their expectations regarding reading and writing in Year 7. Once in Year 7, the students were asked how they had settled into high school, how it matched their expectations, and how it compared to primary school. They were also asked about the kind of help they received in certain subjects. Later in the year, they were asked similar questions, as well as asked about their favourite reading experience and their best piece of writing in high school.

Parents of sixth graders were asked to identify how their children learned to read and write, and how they themselves supported this learning process for their children. They were also asked about their children's current literacy practices and any communication they had received from the high school. In the following year, they were asked about their children's adjustment to high school, their progress, the workload and assistance provided by the school and its teachers.

Primary teachers were asked about their views on literacy acquisition, their classroom literacy practices and support materials, their expectations for their students in the following year, and the ways they helped them prepare for secondary school. Secondary teachers were asked how they supported literacy, the resources they used, their writing, spelling and assessment procedures, as well as the ways in which primary school prepared their students for high school.

Extensive field notes were taken during classroom observations. Other forms of data collection included the recording of the amount of time allocated to various literacy events.

Given that the classroom observations were extensive, incorporating diverse perspectives, the data collected were descriptively `thick' (Geertz, 1973). Procedures for data analysis were recursive, in that findings from previous visits informed later investigations. Data analysis methods corresponded to assumptions from traditions of qualitative research (e.g. Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Erickson, 1986). Analysis of the data drew on the principles of `grounded theory' (Glasser & Strauss, 1967), to identify themes as they emerged.

Key issues and factors in the transition period

A. Students', parents', and teachers' apprehensions

Consistent with findings from previous studies, (e.g. Power & Cotterell, 1981) most students' fears regarding high school were unfounded or short-lived. Apprehensions concerning matters such as the difficulty and amount of reading and maths, `initiations' and getting lost at the school quickly disappeared. On the other hand, some of the students actually looked forward to the new social and curricular opportunities high school offered. At the end of the secondary period, many of the students found Year 7 to be easier than Year 6 (e.g. 46 per cent had expected reading to be harder)Some of them felt that high school curriculum material overcompensated for perceived difficulties associated with the transition process. A number of students complained that they had covered certain material in Year 6, including, in some cases, having read an assigned book before. In the words of one teacher, high schools were, `Treating Year 7s like babies, giving them too many workshops, wonder words...'. One of the students' expectations which was fulfilled was the increased amount of homework in Year 7. Many of the students (31 per cent) indicated that in Year 7 they did not have the time to read books for pleasure due to other school reading demands. As well, the proportion of boys who read for pleasure dropped from 83 per cent to 56 per cent. The girls in the study remained more avid readers than the boys across years 6 and 7, but still experienced a slight reduction in reading for pleasure (from 94 per cent to 88 per cent).

It would seem that parents were yet more anxious than their children about the transition to high school. While it was not a focus of the research, it may be that these fears were associated with perceptions of their own diminishing ability to support their children as the level of difficulty of work increased. Most parents (80 per cent) nevertheless felt that primary school had prepared their children well for secondary education.

Parental involvement was considerably greater in primary than in high schools. Nevertheless, support for their children's success at school did not diminish from Year 6 to Year 7. Many parents continued to help their high school children with research, either by providing resources such as encyclopaedias at home or assisting with trips to the local library. Some children, however, having entered high school, began to resist help from their parents. Several primary schools offered training programs for parents in areas such as computer literacy, or support with literacy learning at home, e.g., Talk to a Literacy Learner Programme (Cairney & Munsie, 1992).

Among primary tear-hers' apprehensions concerning high school was the fear that less able students would not receive the help they needed. Responses suggested that Year 6 teachers felt that there were considerable differences between the expectations of primary and high school. All schools in the study had implemented strategies to facilitate the transition process. These included visits by Year 6 students to the high school, lessons taught to Year 6 students by high school teachers, and peer support programs including camps, as well as information sharing between primary and secondary teachers.

B. Variations in resources

Students and parents readily identified variations in resources across the transition period as both an opportunity and sometimes a threat While the use of computers was limited at both levels, high schools made greater use of them. Most primary classrooms had access to only one computer, which was not always in use, and although some students were avid computer game players, use of computer software was uncommon. High schools tended to have computer rooms with a minimum of twenty computers, but in neither case did students seem to identify computers as a central component of their education.

Use of the school library tended to differ between primary and high schools. Whereas 57 per cent of Year 6 students claimed to borrow books, only 38 per cent of Year 7 students reported doing so. It would appear, though, that this difference represents part of a trend which takes place over several years. Some students appeared to struggle initially when using a larger, more diverse high school library.

Library lessons were more common at primary level. Given the greater size and complexity of the school libraries this is problematical. The purpose for using the library also varied between the cohorts. While it was not uncommon to observe sets of library books being used for research purposes in primary classrooms, none of the participating students mentioned using the library for research purposes during Year 6. In Year 7, however, 50 per cent reported doing so. There appeared to be a corresponding decrease in library use for leisure reading. Of those case study students making use of the library, only 20 per cent borrowed fiction books in high school, whereas in Year 6, 70 per cent had done so.

Primary and secondary classrooms in the study tended to present quite different learning environments in terms of resources. Primary classrooms contained materials such as reference books, as well as fiction and non-fiction texts. Posters, photo-stories of school events, students' work samples, merit charts and awards were visible. Several primary classrooms had books belonging to `packaged' reading schemes. Overall, primary classrooms were more inviting than many secondary schools, which were often barren -- not surprising given the multiple use of general classrooms and the large number of students who move in and out of them. An exception to this were the various specialist rooms (e.g. Science and Technics) which students experience for the first time at high school.

C. Variations in policies and classroom practices

Another factor contributing to the varied nature of classrooms across the transition was a range of different policies and practices. For example, increased mobility in high schools led to less specific classroom `ownership' on the part of teachers and students. In most cases, students and teachers brought their books with them to the classroom. Nevertheless, some secondary classrooms and corridors displayed posters and work samples. Reasons for this included the opportunity to share examples of `best practice', and as a source of ideas. Owing to the differing expectations regarding the autonomy of primary and secondary students, the latter are more likely to be in classrooms without a teacher. There was a fear among some teachers that unsupervised students might damage materials left unattended. Indeed, one text type more evident in secondary than in primary school classrooms was graffiti. A further difference which impacted on primary and secondary teaching strategies was the time factor. Teachers in primary schools enjoyed more flexibility in terms of session timing; unlike their secondary counterparts they were free of the tyranny of bells ringing every forty minutes or so.

Assessment procedures also differed, and tended to be more formally administered in high school. There was a range of assessment approaches to writing in primary school, from the identification of spelling and punctuation errors in writing, to assessment of aspects such as creativity. In some schools, students were tested and graded according to their reading ability on entry to Year 7. Reflecting the corresponding curricular emphases, testing in secondary school was inclined to focus on content material, rather than on the skills involved in writing. Primary assessment of writing tended to focus on content, process and skills.

Forms of reporting also differed, although primary and secondary schools both conducted parent-teacher interviews, and issued twice-yearly reports. Primary school reports tended to be more comprehensive in terms of literacy performance. Components of Year 6 reports, such as writing, spelling, reading (oral), comprehension and listening were subsumed under the term `English' in most high school reports. One of the high schools, however, referred to competencies such as `ability to write for different audiences' within English.

There appeared to be minimal expectations regarding homework in primary school. As mentioned earlier, student participants observed that there was considerably more homework in secondary school. Homework was set in almost all Key Learning Areas. Much of this consisted of exercises begun in class, or research projects.

One of the more paradoxical differences between primary and high school was the variation in levels of responsibility. While students gradually acquire more autonomy during their school career, they go from a situation in primary school where they are the most senior students to one in where they are the most junior. As a result, they may be accorded less responsibility on arrival at high school. Similarly, primary students appeared to be given more responsibility in school matters, e.g., representation on the student council. Other reasons for this diminution in older students' responsibility may be student disinterest, or peer pressure not to display interest in the establishment. Moreover, it may be that, whereas primary students in the role of advisers are seen as endearing, adults feel comparatively threatened by adolescents in the same role. Nonetheless, one of the secondary schools tailored a peer tutoring program for Year 7 and Year 8 students, using Year 11 students as tutors, under staff supervision. Another of the schools operated a peer support program in order to help students work collaboratively.

Major variations also occurred in relation to classroom organisation. Group work was the rule rather than the exception in the primary schools visited, and was both student- and teacher-initiated. It occurred in matters of curriculum (collaborative problem solving) and administration (school council). Although group work was considerably less prevalent in the high schools, student interaction, whether sanctioned or not, was common in both contexts. Topics ranged from the work at hand to totally unrelated themes such as leisure activities. The physical set-up of some `practical' rooms in high schools (for example, science labs) facilitated interaction, and some secondary school teachers arranged the furniture in their rooms so as to establish small groups.

On occasion, secondary students, too, were directed to share their discoveries with the rest of the class, or were encouraged to ask their peers for help. Nevertheless, much secondary teaching involved direct instruction. It may be that older students feel less at ease than their primary school counterparts asking for, and offering, assistance, and the result is a more teacher-centred approach. Further research may reveal whether this drives, or is driven by, the differences in school practice. It would seem reasonable to expect, though, that students who have come from an environment rich in student interaction may take some time to adjust to a less collaborative milieu. Discipline was a more complex problem in secondary than in primary schools, and this, too, may further contribute to some teachers' preference for more formal lessons.

The difference in emphases on group work has implications for the type and amount of classroom talk in years 6 and 7 Discussion or brainstorming (whole class and small group) occupied 50 per cent of all sanctioned talk in the primary school classrooms observed. While such talk remained at about 43 per cent of sanctioned talk in secondary school, whole class discussions chaired by the teacher were much more common than small group interaction. While teacher talk constituted almost half of all classroom discourse, the proportion of directive/disciplinary talk rose from 23 per cent in primary to 33 per cent in high school. Explanations, on the other hand, dropped slightly from Year 6 to Year 7.

Another variation from primary to secondary which perhaps impacted on literacy, particularly in relation to teacher support, was that secondary students tended to regard their teachers as experts in their field, with specialist knowledge to impart. Correspondingly, secondary school teachers, apart from those in the English faculty, were less likely than their primary school colleagues to `foreground' their role as teachers and models of literacy Subject specialisation also had an effect on the vocabulary used in secondary classes, where teachers were at pains to explain the terminology specific to their subject, and at times changed their students' terms when responding to their questions. Explanations of word origins were more likely in secondary than in primary school. In primary schools, new vocabulary was encountered and reinforced more commonly by means such as find-a-words, definitions and synonym and antonym exercises. While there was considerable overlap in the literacy practices required by primary and secondary schools, the primary teachers were far more likely to focus on the learning of literacy, whereas secondary teachers placed more stress on using literacy to learn.

D. Variations in literacy, and literacy-related, practices

Literacy was a dominant practice in primary and secondary classrooms. Figures 2 and 3 outline the relative amounts of time devoted in primary and high schools to various classroom activities and indicate the extent to which literacy was prevalent in primary and secondary classrooms. As these tables show, the relative proportion of time devoted to literacy was similar across primary and secondary school. However, there were many variations in the type of literacy practices demanded. For example, spelling was taught formally in all but two of the primary classrooms. Dictations were conducted at the end of the week in some cases. Spelling revision, as a component of proofreading and conferencing, was also common in primary schools. In secondary schools, by contrast, spelling was dealt within a less structured fashion. Spelling tests were still conducted in some classes, and were observed on three occasions. Interestingly, the students expressed less concern about spelling and its capacity to interfere with the quality of their writing in Year 7 than they had in Year 6. This may reflect the differing priorities of secondary and primary schools in relation to spelling or could be an expression of an emerging adolescent bravado.

[Figures 2 and 3 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Reading aloud was almost twice as common in primary as in high school. On only two occasions were secondary teachers observed reading from novels under study by the class. Students in secondary school seemed less willing than they had been in primary school to volunteer to read aloud, even though they now reported being less concerned at the prospect of reading aloud than they were the previous year. Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) programs appeared to be less effective in secondary than in primary school. The greater time commitment needed for satisfactory interaction with longer works of fiction may in part account for this. Secondary students were most often observed reading magazines and textbooks during DEAR time.

Materials read also differed between primary and high schools. While novels were commonly read in primary school, most oral reading in Year 7 consisted of reading from worksheets, overhead transparencies or the board, for the purpose of gaining knowledge. Comprehension exercises were common in both Year 6 and Year 7, but were used to different ends. In Year 6 they served to give practice in reading skills, whereas in Year 7 they were used to reinforce content material.

Moffett's (1981) hierarchy of writing was adopted as a broad indicator of degree of intellectual sophistication. Implementing Moffett's theoretical frame as a guide, we derived three categories of writing based on the degree of intellectual demand, the extent to which composing was a central concern, and the complexity of the discourse. This led to the use of three categories of:

* handwriting, transcribing, copying;

* short answer pieces, and note making, and

* extended discourse. Writing tasks in all of these categories were evident in both Years 6 and 7. Writing also occurred across a variety of text types, including narratives, reports and recounts across the two years.

However, while writing was a central component in both the Year 6 and Year 7 classes, extended discourse diminished across the primary-high school boundary, from 39 per cent to 28 per cent of total time spent writing (see Table 1). In Year 7, most of this extended writing consisted of prose narrative. Correspondingly, short answer pieces of writing increased from 33 per cent in Year 6 to 45 per cent in Year 7. Like reading, it would seem that in Year 7, writing was used as a tool for conveying information rather than as a practice to be acquired.

Table 1: Proportion of time used for specific writing practices in Year 6 and Year 7

Writing practices Year 6 Year 7

Transcribing/copying 28 27
Short answer pieces 33 45
Extended discourse 39 28

Conclusion

According to some previous studies, the effects of the transition process have sometimes been underestimated, while at other times it appears that schools have overcompensated for the anticipated effects. Although attention has been given to the visible, structural differences between primary and secondary schools, less energy has been devoted to the more subtle differences in practices such as the use of literacy.

The research described in this article found that schools were aware of differences between primary and secondary schools and that they implemented a variety of transition programs. Some of these addressed the curriculum as well as the structural differences between primary and secondary schools.

Nevertheless, our work indicated the need for more information sharing between schools. This should include exchange of information between primary and secondary schools, and an increased overlap in the purposes for and processes by which literacy is used at primary and secondary levels.

The study confirmed that literacy is a dominant practice in primary and secondary classrooms. But while the relative proportion of time devoted to literacy was similar across primary and secondary levels, there were many variations in the type of literacy practices demanded in primary and secondary classrooms. For example, spelling was taught formally in all but two of the primary classrooms; in secondary schools, it was dealt with in a less structured fashion.

As well, reading aloud was almost twice as common in primary as in high schools, and materials read also differed between primary and high schools. While primary students often read independently from novels, most oral reading in Year 7 consisted of reading from worksheets, overhead transparencies or the board, primarily to gain knowledge. Comprehension sheets and exercises were common in both Year 6 and Year 7, but were used to different ends. In Year 6 they provided practice for reading skills, whereas in Year 7 they aimed to teach content.

Writing was found to be a central component in both the Year 6 and Year 7 classes. However, extended discourse diminished across the primary-high school boundary, from 39 per cent to 28 per cent of total time spent writing, and in Year 7 most of this extended writing consisted of prose narrative. Depressingly, short answer pieces of writing increased from 33 per cent in Year 6 to 45 per cent in Year 7. Nevertheless, like reading, it would seem that in Year 7, writing was used far more as a tool for conveying information rather than as a skill to be taught.

One interesting and yet worrying finding in this study was an apparent decline in student interest in reading in Year 7. This is similar to the previous findings of Bintz (1993) and Beavis (1981). However, for the students in this study, the main reason for this reduction appeared to be reduced time caused by increased homework.

Given the differences in the purposes for which literacy is used in Year 6 and Year 7, we were surprised to find that most students adjusted quickly to the transition phase. Our research did not uncover significant problems for many of the students in making the transition to Year 7. Of course, it may well be that some students do not experience literacy difficulties until later in high school (perhaps Year 8). There is some evidence from the comments of students in this study, and from other research (Hill et al., 1993), that schools may in fact `mark time' for a period in Year 7, thus reducing the impact on students. This might partly explain the fact that this study did not uncover significant problems for large numbers of students.

Another interesting observation within this study was a lack of variation in provision for students with different needs. We observed few adjustments for students from non-English-speaking backgrounds and found little difference in literacy practices across communities which at times varied greatly in terms of wealth, parental education levels, and student ethnicity. A closer examination of literacy practices across such diverse groups would be a useful extension to our work.

The success with which students adapt to their new academic environments bears testimony to the efforts, initiatives and partnerships established by schools. Some students defied their own and others' expectations by performing better in high school than they had previously. As well, our study found some support for the conclusions of Power and Cotterell (1979, 1981) that attitudes to high school are influenced by the extent to which student expectations prior to high school are fulfilled.

Nevertheless, some specific groups of students do appear to suffer academically from the effects of the transition, something which Hill et al. (1993) have identified. It may also be the case that there are more subtle changes in literacy practices as students move from Year 7 to Year 8, something that was not a focus of the present study. Further research may reveal whether those who arrive at high school with the greatest `scholastic capital' (Bourdieu, 1977) adjust more easily to changes, further widening the gap between the literacy `haves' and `have-nots'.

REFERENCES

Atwell, N. (1987). In the Middle: Writing, reading and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Beavis, C. (1981). Secondary teacher looks at a primary school. English in Australia, 56, July. pp. 41-46.

Beazley, K. et al. (1984). Education in Western Australia: Report of the Committee of Inquiry (Beazley Report). Perth: Ministry of Education.

Beddoe, N. (1985). The transition procedures of schools in the Narrandera High School feeder area: Administrative implications. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of New South Wales.

Bezzina M. (1988). Meeting the needs of children in transition: A middle school programme for preservice teacher education. The South Pacific journal of Teacher Education, 16, 1. pp. 101-108.

Bintz, W. (1993). Resistant readers in secondary education: Some insights and implications. Journal of Reading, 36, 8. pp. 604-615.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel and A. Halsey (eds), Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cairney, T., Lowe, K. & Sproats, E. (1994). Literacy in Transition: An evaluation of literacy practices in upper primary and junior secondary schools. Vols 1-3. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training.

Cairney, T. & Munsie, L. (1992). Talk to a Literacy Learner Programme. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.

Clarkson, M. (1988). Emerging Issues in Primary Education. London: The Falmer Press.

Dean, J. (1985). Managing the Secondary School (Dean Report). London: Croom Helm.

Education Department of South Australia (1992). Writing Reading Assessment Programme (WRAP). Adelaide: Education Department of South Australia.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative research. In M. Whittrock (ed.), The Handbook of Research in Teaching. New York: MacMillan.

Friere, P. & Macedo, D. (1984 Literacy: Reading the word and the world. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Furniss, E. & Green, P. (eds). (1983). The Literacy Connection. Melbourne: Eleanor Curtain Publishers.

Galton, M. & Wilkocks J. (eds). (1983). Moving from the Primary Classroom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Gee, J. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: The Falmer Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Glasser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heath, S. (1983). Ways with Words. London: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, P., Holmes-Smith, P. & Rowe, K. (1993). School and Teacher Effectiveness in Victoria: Key findings from the phase 1 of the Victorian Quality Schools Project. Melbourne: Centre for Applied Education Research.

Horner, J. & Moore, F. (1981). Research into reading: A study of reading in the transition between primary and secondary schools in Tasmania. English in Australia, 58. December. pp. 43-61.

Hough, D. (1989). Vertical Articulation for the Middle Grades. Riverside, CA.: California Educational Research Cooperative.

Jensen, C. (1984). Transition from Primary to Secondary School. Sydney: Inner City Education Centre.

Lankshear, C. & Lawler, M. (1987). Literacy, Schooling and Revolution. London: The Falmer Press.

McGee, C. (1989). Crossing the divide: Transition from primary to secondary school. SET, Research information for teachers, 1. pp 1-4.

Mekos, D. (1989). Students' perceptions of the transition to junior high: A longitudinal perspective. Paper presented at the 1989 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indiana.

Mertin, P., Haebich, E. & Lokan, J. (1989). `Everybody will be bigger than me': Children's perception of the transition to high school. Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 6, 2. pp 2-5.

Moffett, J. (1981). Coming on Centre: English education in evolution. Montclair, NJ: Boynton Cook.

Morris, J. (1975). Reading in the later years. Reading. A journal for the study and improvement of reading and related skills, 9, 2, June. pp 22-30.

Nash, R. (1973). Classrooms Observed: The teacher's perception and the pupil's performance. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Nisbet, J. & Entwistle, N. (1969). The Transition to Secondary Education. London: University of London Press Ltd.

Power, C. & Cotterell, J. (1979). Students in Transition. Adelaide: ERDC.

Power, C. & Cotterell, J. (1981). Changes in Students in the Transition from Primary to Secondary School. ERDC Report, No. 27. Canberra: AGPS.

Rienstra, G. (1987). From primary school to secondary school: Making it easier for students. The Practising Administrator, 9, 4. pp. 28-30,

Schmidt, C., Barry, A., Maxworthy, A. & Huebsch, W. (1989). But I read the chapter twice. Journal of Reading, 32, 5. pp 430-31.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ward, B. et al. (1982). Junior High School transition study: Volume VII, Executive Summary, Junior High School Transition Study. San Francisco: Far West Lab for Educational Research and Development.

Whitta, J. (1977). Environmental press as a factor in primary /secondary school transition. Queensland Institute for Educational Research Journal, 11.