A Journey of Transition:

From Gumly Gumly Public to Secondary School

Barry Cocklin

Introduction

Since 1995, I have been involved in an ongoing contact with the staff, students, and community of Gumly Gumly school. Initially, this focussed upon a study commenced under a general ‘question’ as to: what is it that makes the school what it is, and how can this understanding be better used and translated into more effective learning for the school and its community? In adopting this, we sought to start with a description of the culture of the school, then, through an action orientation use these findings to examine and reflect upon the situation, effecting strategies and processes of change and development as a result. This period of direct research has since been followed by frequent visits to the school, interaction with staff, students, and community, not only as a process of gaining further insight but also maintaining contact and making a contribution to the school.

From this developed the notion of this school as representing a learning community. As reported in greater detail elsewhere (Cocklin, 1998a, 1999), this was partly a result of the history of strong community involvement with the school, the sense of ownership of knowledge and the teaching/learning processes by staff, students, and community, and the particular approach to teaching and learning engaged in at the school. This latter aspect reflected the engagement of staff and students in a collaborative learning and teaching process, where the notion of community was a sense of working together, working with, wherein difference and even contestation are valued, and which placed particular emphasis upon the everyday lived reality of the school context. This notion of community, in terms of relationships and children learning, was most akin to ‘going with the flow’ which "puts the emphasis on process, and involves intuition, spontaneity, ‘tacit knowledge’, enthusiasm and fun" (Woods and Jeffrey, 1996:34).

Yet, as we presented these findings (see, Cocklin, 1997, 1998b), and the contact with the school continued, there were other aspects which remained to be considered. In particular, as we discussed the research, ourselves and others raised the question as to what happens when the students move on from Gumly Gumly. Given that this provides a particular teaching and learning environment, and more so an emphasis on ownership of interactions within the school context and the wider community, the question remained as to how such students would experience the move to secondary school.

As well as these concerns from the research community, and the ongoing contact, impetus was provided when one of these students produced the following in 1998. Kylie, then in Year 7, was responding to a school assignment on ‘environmental or hereditary factor which has influenced my health relating to my growth and development’:

It was in light of these, that a decision was made to conduct an initial investigation using three of the students from the original 1995 study.

Case studies

As always, the exigencies of research realities, and time available, dictated that only a sample of those who had moved to secondary school could be the focus of the transition journey. Accordingly, three from the original investigation who could be readily contacted, and meetings arranged, were interviewed once during Term 3, 1999, and discussions were held with parents. They were now in their second year at secondary school, David at a non-denominational independent school (approximate roll = 300), Kylie and Nicole at a Catholic girls’ school (approximate roll = 620). In this sense, they are perhaps not typical of the transition process experienced by the range of students as they move to secondary level, yet they do provide insight in the particular context. However, these can be considered best as representing particular case studies, rather than generic representations of the transition journey. For instance, the following figures illustrate the number, and destinations, of Gumly Gumly students in the period of my association with the school:

The interviews took place, David and Kylie on separate occasions at Gumly Gumly school as providing the most available site for them after school, and Nicole at home. Each recorded interview took place under the notions of conversation reflecting on their experiences as they moved to secondary school, and comparing this to their expectations and primary school perceptions.

Size helps,

Two main issues were noted by the three participants, those of the size of the new environment, but more particularly the nature of the teacher and teaching.

As they came from a Primary with approximately forty students, and a large school grounds, it does seem tautological to note that size was an issue, but all three gave it some mention as part of the initial experiences and reality. However, there were differences according to background and experiences. For Kylie, it was somewhat of a shock:

Scary. It’s so much bigger - there’s hundreds of people, and you don’t know anyone.

Harder - because there’s not many people here.

Kylie had spent her entire Primary career at Gumly Gumly, whereas both David and Nicole had experiences at other, and larger, primary schools. Therefore, in accounting for transitions there would be expected differences according to these backgrounds. All three, on the other hand, did note that initially it was a process of meeting new people, and making new friends, as Nicole recounted:

Similarly, Kylie noted this process of making new friends, at first with others from small schools, but slowly spreading out across the secondary school:

Both Kylie and Nicole were at a secondary school with approximately 620 students, while the experience for David was different:

While the new environment included considerably more students, this appears to have been only an initial issue, as all three noted that they soon adapted, and made new friends. There might, however, be expected differences here, as they were all more gregarious than other students might be:

The experience, then, was generally a positive one, and one that their experiences at Gumly Gumly had prepared them for, not withstanding personal characteristics which may have facilitated making new friends and establishing relationships with other students. Even in this context, the nature of Gumly Gumly may have contributed as, unlike some other small rural schools, it does have a turn over of students, rather than a stable population. In short, during their time at Primary, all would have experienced the arrival and departure of new students, and the need to develop new friendships.

All reported that some of the situations at the secondary school also assisted in the transition. Nicole and Kylie stated that the provision of a common area for the Year 7 students allowed them to mix somewhat independently of the larger population, thereby aiding in the process of establishing friendships amongst peers while also diminishing the effects of the bigger crowds. David spoke of a particular situation in terms of the teaching arrangements which made the transition easier:

After some initial anxiety, but alleviated by the preparation from Gumly Gumly, and facilitated by particular aspects of the secondary school - including the size and special arrangements, David, Kylie and Nicole all spoke of the transition as relatively straightforward. The big difference noted was in the teachers and teacher:student interactions and relationships.

but, teacher is central

The overall context of comment on the secondary experience of teachers and teaching was somewhat negative, and in terms of being a direct contrast to that of Gumly Gumly. As reported previously (Cocklin, 1997, 1999), the teaching and learning situation at Gumly Gumly was one where:

This partnership of teaching and learning involved pupils, staff, parents, and community and visitors, working together, learning and teaching together, in a dynamic interaction and relationship. The secondary school teachers were not seen in a similar light, as Kylie comments:

The students, then, came with particular expectations of teachers and the processes of teaching and learning. This involved a relationship of working together, and interacting as learners and teachers. As Casey, Kylie’s mother, noted:

As Kylie herself reported, she had some expectations that there would be a continuation of the type of interaction and learning:

So, in some aspects there were examples where learning did occur in a more collaborative fashion, but that this was dependent upon the teacher, and less ‘common’ than their prior schooling experiences had led them to expect. While these aspects represent a particular aspect of the learning community notion applicable at Gumly Gumly, and our knowledge of secondary schools may suggest that such close relationships would be somewhat unusual, perhaps it does suggest a need for secondary teachers to examine the ways in which they relate to students. This, it can be suggested, is of some concern given that the particular secondary school has been reported (see, Retallick, 1999) as involved in the learning community process. I would argue, then, that the notion of a learning community must seek to engage the pupils, and that to develop fully it cannot be limited to the teacher level. Certainly, the perception of Kylie and Nicole was one that a strict hierarchy of status, of teacher-as-teacher, and of control was more characteristic of the secondary context:

Nicole was even more outspoken in her perception of the teachers:

For Nicole, while some teachers were seen as acceptable, the dominant position was one of control:

There were also significant differences in terms of the relationship as learners, and in the sense of ‘control’ over the student’s own learning, which created concerns for Nicole:

Kylie summed up the situation in terms of teachers and relationships in the following:

For David, the situation was somewhat different. While noting that there were considerable differences in the relationships, he also noted that the teachers did work together, and that there was some continuity of interactions:

For all three, then, there was a difference noted in terms of the interaction and relationships with the teachers, and in general this was seen as a negative aspect of the secondary school. They noted a more hierarchical set of relationships, and similarly of knowledge and its compartmentalisation, of a focus on issues of control, rather than collaboration, and a greater sense of Balkanisation of culture.

Secondary school as learning community?

The generic answer to this would be a no, and an emphatic one in general. As Nicole commented, there were considerable differences between the two experiences:

Similarly, David noted that the secondary situation did not continue the notions of learning community:

All commented, too, on the differences between the utilisation of community members and other adults in the primary situation, as a central aspect of the notion of learning community (Cocklin, 1999), and the absence in the secondary school. One of the central strengths of the Gumly Gumly context was this wider involvement as David had commented while at primary:

For both parents and students, a further aspect of the learning community school was that of the multi-aged context, and the collaborative learning this produced, again contrasted with the strong hierarchical and Balkanised situation of the secondary school.

Yet, it must also be noted that the participants were aware of the different contexts, and that this might restrict the wider involvement of parents in the secondary school, as David notes:

In this instance, David was commenting on some of the behaviours of some students, although he did also suggest that adolescence was a factor in not wanting parents involved to the same extent. However, this does not preclude the possibilities of involving others in the secondary context, one aspect which may contribute to a greater sense of learning community.

Prepared for the transition?

Did these three students consider that their experiences in a learning community school had prepared them for the transition to secondary school? This had a dual response, yes in terms of their development as individual learners, and in terms of the knowledge and skills, but in a sense no in that their expectations of on-going interactions and relationships with teachers were not fulfilled:

For Kylie:

Certainly, they saw themselves as being ‘prepared’, and perhaps the self-concept as independent learner, and as learner-as-teacher, developed at Gumly Gumly (see, Cocklin, 1999), facilitated this process. Whether this is a case of ‘more so’ than in other primary contexts is beyond the scope of this paper to consider, but what is clearly indicated is that the nature of the ‘teacher’ is crucial in the processes of teaching and learning, and also in developing notions of the learning community school.

Directions

From a small-scale study, and of three particular individuals, we can do little more than raise some speculative comments, and suggest areas for further consideration.

It does appear that the transition journey from the learning community school to the secondary, and the concomitant status passages (see, Cocklin, 1988; Measor & Woods, 1984), is not a difficult experience, at least as far as these three were concerned. That while the larger environment was a factor, this was overcome readily, and new peer relationships developed quickly. What was significantly different, however, was the teaching and learning situation. Overall, these students reported something of a regression in relationships, that they were confronted with a teacher-as-teacher context, with control as the central component, in a marked contrast to the teacher-as-learner, teacher-as-facilitator, and learner-as-teacher they had experienced at primary school. This seems to add further weight to the view that central to the learning community is the nature of teacher, and of teaching and learning relationships and interactions (see, Cocklin, 1999; Woods, 1999). Indeed, that this is the more important component than the size of the school.

It is this which I would suggest has particular ramifications for the secondary school, and for the further development of the notion of learning community. First, while there are always going to be differences between the primary and secondary contexts, size and content being two of many components, this should not preclude the development of a learning community in the secondary school. In order to do so, a focus needs to be established on the notion in its entirety, not one which sees this as something for teachers to develop. That a community can only develop when all are involved in an interactive process:

Second, that secondary teachers need to consider the effects of the hierarchy of knowledge and relationships, the Balkanisation of content and culture, and seek ways to reculture the context to facilitate the learning community notion. In so doing, perhaps there is something they can learn from the primary school situation, and some of David’s earlier comments would be applicable here. But, finally, and perhaps centrally, they need to examine their teaching practices, and interactions. Here again, the notions of creative teaching and relationship to learning community described in the primary school context would be appropriate (see, Woods, 1999). If, then, we are to continue to develop the notion of learning community, we need to consider this transition between contexts, and seek strategies for promoting it as a continuous learning experience, certainly throughout the schooling stages.

References