Science Curriculum

School Science Review, March 2005, 86(316) 87
Newberry, Gilbert and Hardcastle Visualising progression

Visualising progression
through the science
curriculum in order to
raise standards
Matthew Newberry, John Gilbert and
David Hardcastle
The Levels Mountain provides a visual representation of
progression through key stage 3 science which both teachers and
pupils have found very helpful
ABSTRACT
The Cams Hill Science Consortium, a partner-
ship involving Cams Hill School, Hampshire
Inspection and Advisory Service and the
University of Reading, has developed through
action research carried out in local schools, a
method of helping pupils and teachers to raise
performance at key stage 3. This is based on the
view that pupils progression to higher levels of
attainment depends upon the effective intro-
duction and systematic development through key
stage 3 of four key models: energy, forces, part-
icles and cells. A visual representation of the key
stage 3 levels the Levels Mountain has
been developed as a tool to assist teaching and
learning and so aid progression. This visualis-
ation has improved teachers understanding of
the meaning of National Curriculum levels and
has encouraged them to share these insights
with their pupils. This has enabled a rise in both
pupil and teacher engagement with the complex
issues associated with progression through the
key stage 3 science curriculum. The Levels
Mountain approach has proved a highly effective
tool for raising the standard of teachers planning
and for the development of effective assessment
for learning within the classroom within
Hampshire secondary schools.
We believe that pupil progression through the content
of the National Curriculumfor science rests upon them
gaining an understanding of four key models: energy,
forces, particles and cells. Pupils progression to
higher levels of attainment depends upon the effective
introduction and systematic development of these key
models through key stage 3. A visual representation
(the Levels Mountain) has now been developed as
a tool to assist teaching and learning and so aid
progression. This visualisation has improved teachers
understanding of the meaning of National Curriculum
levels and has encouraged them to share these insights
with their pupils. This has improved both pupil and
teacher engagement with the complex issues of pro-
gression through the key stage 3 science curriculum
and has proved an effective tool for raising standards
of planning and assessment.
The Levels Mountain approach is the outcome to
date of over five years of action research.
In the first phase, from 1997, a partnership was
formed between the University of Reading,
Hampshire Inspection and Advisory Service (HIAS)
and Hampshire schools. The initial focus was on the
teaching and learning of models and modelling in the
key stage 3 science curriculum to improve pro-
gression. It involved participants from12 Hampshire
and 2 Southampton schools, with support and
guidance from Hampshire science inspectors and
Professor John Gilbert of the University of Reading.
Within a framework of regular workshops and in-
school support, teachers engaged in small-scale
classroom-based action research projects in areas that
they had identified as being relevant to their schools.
Visualising progression Newberry, Gilbert and Hardcastle
88 School Science Review, March 2005, 86(316)
This partnership continued for three years and
contributed to both individual and departmental
professional development. It was through this project
that the four key models (energy, forces, particles and
cells) were first identified as underpinning pupil
understanding and access to progression through the
curriculum (M. Evans and J. Moore, personal
communication, 2003; Moore and Gilbert, 1998).
In the second phase, from 2000 to the present, the
work reported here was carried out through the Cams
Hill Science Consortium, a partnership between Cams
Hill School, HIAS, and Professor John Gilbert. The
project, funded by Cams Hill School as part of their
Leading Edge Partnership, currently involves 16
secondary schools and 6 primary schools fromacross
Hampshire and East Sussex. Our work involves a
coordinated programme of action research projects
into models and modelling in science to improve
progression.
The issues faced
Through analysis of five-year trends within data
arising from national tests taken at ages 11 and 14, it
became apparent that pupils in the county of Hamp-
shire were making significant progress in achieving
the expected level 4+ in science at key stage 2 (age
11 years). However the numbers achieving the
expected level 5+ at key stage 3 (age 14 years) were
not increasing at the same rate. There was also a mis-
conception held by many secondary school teachers
that levelling was not consistent across the two key
stages and that it was easier for pupils to achieve a
level 5 at key stage 2 than at key stage 3. Work carried
out by Bunyan (1998) indicates that this is not the
case. A number of year 9 (14-year-old) pupils in
schools across Nottinghamshire were tested with key
stage 2 and key stage 3 papers in the run-up to their
actual National Curriculum tests. The papers were
marked according to the published mark scheme and
it was found that just over one half achieved the same
level in the key stage 2 and 3 papers. Afurther third
achieved one level higher in the key stage 3 paper
than in the key stage 2, with only a tenth achieving
better in the key stage 2 paper than the key stage 3.
Work carried out within the Hampshire
CurriculumInspection Teamfor science by Jill Moore
and David Hardcastle (personal communication,
1998) also discounts the idea that it is easier to achieve
level 5 at key stage 2 than key stage 3. Key stage 2
and key stage 3 question papers were analysed for
the type of questions that were set. Pupils tend to score
better on recall questions than they do on those that
require explanation, application or interpretation. For
the national tests for key stage 3 pupils can be entered
to sit tests in one of two tiers of entry, a lower tier
covering levels 3 to 6 or a higher tier covering levels
5 to 7. It was found that a significantly higher
percentage of marks was awarded for recall on the
lower tier of entry papers than on the key stage 2
papers from the same year. Approximately 60 per cent
of the marks on the key stage 2 paper were dedicated
to application, explanation or interpretation style
questions, while only about 40 per cent of the marks
were linked with this style of question in the key stage
3 level 3 to 6 papers.
In recent years, secondary school teachers have
felt under increasing pressure to focus upon test
results, as national, local and school targets have been
set for numbers of pupils who achieve level 5 and
above at key stage 3. This focus has encouraged
teachers to concentrate upon improving the
achievement of the middle to lower achieving pupils
in key stage 3. All science departments in Hampshire
schools reshaped their schemes of work so as to cover
the very wide breadth of content that the curriculum
requires. They did this in a whole variety of ways and
with mixed success. However, one common factor
was that they all began to test pupils regularly so as
to measure their progress. The tests in most cases
were constructed by teachers using past-paper
questions and marked as percentages. Pupils who had
become used to working in levels and being set targets
in terms of levels at key stage 2 were no longer
receiving such information in their regular interactions
with teachers in key stage 3. Departmental schemes
of work, written and re-written several times in recent
years perhaps adopting different published schemes
had focused on the content of the curriculum and
what pupils are taught, rather than on the progression
in scientific thinking skills required and on howpupils
are taught. These observations were made by
inspectors and consultants and through the University
of Reading PGCE Schools Partnership for pre-
service teacher training. The focus on content meant
that it was difficult to see what needed to be done to
raise standards.
The report Progress in key stage 3 science (Ofsted,
2000) found that as much as 10 to 15 per cent of
teaching time in key stage 3 science had become
devoted to assessment. In general, only a limited range
of techniques was used and the use of the data
generated was also limited. It concludes that the use
of so much teaching time on testing is therefore often
unproductive (p. 14). It contrasts this with the work
carried out by the best science departments. A
common feature was the quality of the feedback
provided to pupils and the excellent use of directed
questions by teachers to inform their knowledge of
pupils level of understanding.
The advent of the DfES Key Stage 3 National
Strategys science strand (DfES, 2002) has provided
a welcome fresh focus upon raising standards at key
stage 3. Its implementation has helped teachers to
focus on key stage 3 and to think about how to raise
standards of teaching and learning. However, in our
roles of consultant (MN) and county inspector/adviser
for science (DH) in Hampshire, we became aware that
teachers were finding it difficult to sort out the key
messages within the science strategy materials. Many
reported feeling deluged by the quantity of materials
and good ideas on offer. Teachers now found
themselves faced with a bewildering array of different
ways of measuring progression and differentiating
materials for pupils within their classes. These
included the National Curriculum level descriptions
(DfEE, 1999), the differentiation offered by the QCA
schemes of work (DfEE/QCA, 2000), advice within
commercially published schemes of work, and now
the Key Stage 3 National Strategys yearly teaching
objectives for science (DfES, 2002).
While these are all valuable resources, their advent
posed two problems. First, teachers were becoming
concerned by the number of different approaches.
There did not appear to be a coherent message, and
they could not envisage how they could possibly put
all of theminto practice within the classroom. Second,
pupils could not be involved in measuring their own
progression through the levels of the curri-culum.
Although in most schools they were frequently tested,
the results were rarely reported to pupils in terms of
National Curriculum levels. Not only were pupils
unaware of the meanings of these levels, but they also
did not know what was expected of themor how they
could progress towards the next level.
A way of uniting the key messages was needed
that could encourage and stimulate both teachers and
pupils to engage with levels and levelling in the
classroom and make coherent use of the resources
available. What was missing was a clearly com-
municable way of understanding the level descriptors.
With such an understanding in place, teachers should
find it easier to engage with levels and levelling in
the classroom, such that measuring progression
becomes an interactive relationship between teacher
and pupil and not just a relentless series of
unconnected topic tests. Furthermore, pupils should
be able to understand how to improve the quality of
their work and achievement in science.
Methodology
Working with teachers from different science
departments, the Hampshire LEA science team
working in partnership with Professor John Gilbert
has developed a visual representation of the journey
that pupils make through the National Curriculum
levels as they progress in their understanding of
models and modelling through key stage 3 (the Levels
Mountain Figure 1). This was done by studying the
National Curriculum level descriptors and breaking
themdown into simple statements which describe the
essential elements of models and modelling associated
with each level. What soon became clear was that
applying a knowledge and understanding of the
principles of scientific models and modelling enables
the level descriptors to be defined in terms of a clear
progression of thinking and communication skills
which can be taught to pupils. The levels are each
given simple pupil speak prompts for the level
descriptors.
This Levels Mountain is not intended as a method
of labelling pupils with levels from summative
assessments (end-of-topic tests). It has been designed
as an aid to effective teacherpupil interaction in the
classroom, giving instant feedback on verbal as well
as written levels of understanding across the key stage
3 science curriculum. The best use of this tool has
been to encourage teachers and pupils to challenge
their own thinking in the classroom. Pupils are
enthused and motivated by the explicit use of levels
and the Levels Mountain in class, they have been
heard to say:
Thats OK because we have got the scientific
words needed for a level 4 answer what
explaining have we got to do to get to level 5?
(lesson observation, The Vyne Community
School, Basingstoke)
No that cant be level 6 because he hasnt
explained the particles in enough detail.
(lesson observation, Priestlands School,
Lymington)
I know that this is something to do with energy,
but can you help so I can get the level 5.
(lesson observation, Neville Lovett Community
School, Fareham)
If the journey is imagined to be like climbing a
staircase, you will notice that not all the steps are of
equal height or depth. Level 5 is a key area since
significant numbers of pupils fail to progress from
level 4 at key stage 2 to level 5 at key stage 3. Level 5
has very complicated level descriptors in the National
Curriculum. However, it was distilled down into two
parts. The first part of achieving level 5 requires pupils
to be able to apply scientific ideas and explanations
in unfamiliar situations whilst the second requires
them to begin to engage with models of abstract
concepts to explain phenomena.
To assist teachers in visualising level 5 for pupils
it is best described as a big step and a long journey
because of the cognitive demands, as well as the
breadth, of the materials covered by this level. This
visualisation becomes very useful to explain to pupils
(and their parents) why they may have been working
at level 5 for some time. In some schools they have
adapted the long journey of level 5 to be visualised
as a slight incline. In the light of experience, and as
the result of many of our classroom-based action
research projects, it became apparent that some of the
abstract models contained within the curriculum are
easier than others for pupils (and teachers) to access
and apply. For example, the particle/kinetic theory
models seem to be easier abstract ideas for pupils to
engage with and apply than the energy transfer model.
The snakes and ladders in the diagramare used to
visualise the reliance that science has upon literacy
and numeracy skills. When pupils have satisfactory
or good literacy and numeracy skills, these have the
potential to act as a ladder. They enable pupils to
progress to the next level, providing that there is an
appropriate degree of challenge given within their
science teaching. If they have weaknesses in either
of these skills, this has the potential to act as a snake,
Figure 1 Visual representation of the Levels Mountain.
The Levels Mountain
4
Recall & vocab
5
Content + models
(Energy, Forces, Particles
and Cells)
in unfamiliar situations
6
Explaining individual
models in detail including
their strengths &
limitations
Interdependence
7
Link two
or more
models &
use relevant
maths
3
... because ...
making progression to the next level a more demand-
ing process for both the pupils and the science teacher.
Levels 5, 6 and 7 (and in the higher version level
8) are all described in terms of the pupils under-
standing and application of abstract models (energy,
forces, particles and cells). Many Hampshire schools
have reported that they find models and modelling to
be an excellent way of enabling pupils to make
tangible progress through the curriculum levels.
Understanding of models and modelling also therefore
becomes a highly effective way of measuring and
monitoring pupil progress through the curriculum
levels.
As a result of our programme of action research
projects in the classroom, we have come to differ in
our interpretation of the fifth key idea (inter-
dependence) from the description in the Framework
of the National Strategy. In the Framework, inter-
dependence is described in terms of environmental
biology; the interdependence and energy section then
links energy flow along food chains, etc. Neither our
project nor its predecessor initially identified inter-
dependence as a key idea (or curriculum-structuring
concept) at key stage 3. However, as some of the
schools involved in the project became more adept at
integrating models and modelling into their
curriculum and more enlightened as to the inter-
pretation and application of National Curriculum
levelling, it emerged that interdependence is the key
to progression to level 7. The interpretation of
interdependence in the light of our findings can be
described as:
The inter-reaction between two or more of the
four key models (energy, forces, particles or
cells) to explain more complex phenomena.
For example, when teaching balanced forces, pupils
sitting on their chairs can often be used as an example
within the classroom. The answer to the question Why
does a chair push up with an equal and opposite
force? requires the application of the model of
balanced forces (level 5 or 6, depending upon the
quality of explanation). However, the question How
is the chair able to push back with an equal and
opposite force when different people of different
weights sit on it? requires an answer that uses the
interdependence between the models of particles and
forces to explain why the chairs reaction is different
(this linking of models is level 7).
Research in several Hampshire schools has shown
that the explicit teaching of models and modelling
enables pupils to recognise and understand what levels
5 and 6 are about. Level 7 can be thought of as the
application and explanation of the links
(interdependence) between two or more of the four
key curricular models. It has been shown that it is
easier for pupils to engage with and comprehend more
complex areas of the curriculum, such as respiration,
if they can be presented as being a process that
involves a relationship between cells, energy and
particles. When teachers use the simple models and
modelling associated with particles, cells and energy
to introduce and then explain aerobic respiration,
pupils can assimilate these models into their own
explanations of the more complex phenomenon. This
focus of developing understanding through the
application and refinement of models and modelling
promotes pupil understanding by allowing them to
see that they can use their existing knowledge and
understanding to seek more complex explanations.
In a similar way, chemical reactions occur as a result
of the interdependence of particles and energy;
electromagnetism is a result of the interdependence
of particles, energy and forces; human reproduction
cells, energy and particles, etc. Getting the
progression and sequencing of the four key models
(energy, forces, particles and cells) correct and giving
them the emphasis that they deserve is the bedrock to
the success of the whole key stage 3 curriculum.
The value of the Levels Mountain approach to
using levels explicitly within class is evident from
the following comments:
It helps me to explain to the pupils much more
easily, and in doing so, helps me to gain a
clearer picture of where they are in their own
understanding so that I can inform them of how
to progress.
(G. Jackson, Second in Science, Warblington
School, Havant)
The Levels Mountain has helped me to put into
perspective the different demands made of
pupils at each level, and the time needed within
our schemes of work to consolidate the
associated ideas. It has helped me to illustrate
this to both pupils and teachers alike. I have
also found it a most useful tool for focusing
booster work to target specific pupils to achieve
their different targeted levels.
(A. Grevatt, AST, Uckfield Community
Technology College, East Sussex)
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
a
P
u
p
i
l
-
s
p
e
a
k
l
e
v
e
l
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
r
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y

C
a
m
s

H
i
l
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
,
F
a
r
e
h
a
m
.
L
e
v
e
l
W
h
a
t

y
o
u

n
e
e
d

t
o
b
e
a
b
l
e

t
o
d
o
3
Y
o
u
r

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
i
s

g
o
o
d
e
n
o
u
g
h

t
o
a
n
s
w
e
r

r
e
c
a
l
l
t
y
p
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
4
Y
o
u

c
a
n

u
s
e

t
h
e

s
c
i
e
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

y
o
u

h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n

t
a
u
g
h
t
t
o

t
r
y

a
n
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e

w
h
a
t

h
a
p
p
e
n
s
.
Y
o
u

c
a
n

u
s
e
s
o
m
e

s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

v
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

w
o
r
d
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

a
n
s
w
e
r
s
.
5
Y
o
u

h
a
v
e
a
h
i
g
h
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
o
f
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
a
n

u
s
e

t
h
e
s
e
i
d
e
a
s

t
o
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
a
n
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
.
Y
o
u

c
a
n
b
e
g
i
n

t
o
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
H
o
w

o
r

W
h
y

t
h
i
n
g
s
h
a
p
p
e
n
i
n

t
e
r
m
s

o
f
e
i
t
h
e
r

E
n
e
r
g
y
,
F
o
r
c
e
s
,
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
o
r

C
e
l
l
s
.
6
Y
o
u

a
r
e
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t

i
n

u
s
i
n
g

s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

v
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
E
n
e
r
g
y
,
F
o
r
c
e
s
,
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
,
C
e
l
l
s
o
r

I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

t
o
a
n
s
w
e
r

l
o
n
g
e
r
E
x
p
l
a
i
n
o
r
D
e
s
c
r
i
b
e

t
y
p
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
.
7
Y
o
u

c
a
n
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
d

t
h
i
n
g
s

b
y

s
e
e
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
i
n
k
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
o
r

m
o
r
e
o
f

t
h
e
5
b
i
g
i
d
e
a
s

(
E
n
e
r
g
y
,
F
o
r
c
e
s
,
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
,
C
e
l
l
s

o
r

I
n
t
e
r
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
)
a
n
d
h
o
w

t
h
e
y

r
e
l
a
t
e

t
o
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
.
Y
o
u

c
a
n
a
l
s
o

u
s
e
m
a
t
h
s

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
e

t
o
d
o
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d

u
s
e

t
h
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t

u
n
i
t
s
C
a
m
s

H
i
l
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
,
F
a
r
e
h
a
m
H
o
w

c
a
n
I
m
a
k
e
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
l
e
v
e
l
s

i
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
?
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
b
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
f
o
r

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
i
n
g
p
u
p
i
l
s
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

s
c
i
e
n
c
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y

C
a
m
s

H
i
l
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
,
F
a
r
e
h
a
m
.
C
l
i
m
b
i
n
g

t
h
e
L
e
v
e
l
s

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
L
a
y
o
u
t

o
f
a
n
s
w
e
r
H
o
w

.
.
.
?
F
i
r
s
t

.
.
.
,

t
h
e
n
.
.
.
,
T
h
i
n
k
i
n

t
e
r
m
s
t
h
e
n
.
.
.
,
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
l
l
y

.
.
.
o
f

t
i
m
e
W
h
y

.
.
.
?
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
.
.
I
t
s

O
K

t
o

s
t
a
r
t

t
h
e

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e

w
i
t
h
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
i
n

t
h
i
s
c
a
s
e
!
E
x
p
l
a
i
n
/
U
s
e
a
b
u
l
l
e
t

p
o
i
n
t

H
I
N
T
D
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
.
.
.
l
i
s
t

t
o
l
i
n
k
c
a
u
s
e
m
a
k
e

s
u
r
e

t
h
a
t
a
n
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
y
o
u

h
a
v
e
a
s

m
a
n
y
b
u
l
l
e
t

p
o
i
n
t
s

a
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
m
a
r
k
s

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
C
a
m
s

H
i
l
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
,
F
a
r
e
h
a
m
The introduction of the Levels Mountain
changed not only the teachers understanding of
levels, but it has had a revolutionary effect upon
the pupils understanding about what they need
to do to progress on to the next level. It has
given the teachers and pupils a common
language. Whilst the Science Strategy has had a
very positive impact upon the teaching and
learning in science, the use of the Levels
Mountain has enabled both teachers and pupils
to see where they are at present and where
they are going.
(D. Seib, Head of Science, Fort Hill School,
Basingstoke)
Application of the Levels
Mountain
As with all initiatives, this visualisation of the National
Curriculum levels and progression has proved far
more effective when schools customise it to suit their
own needs. Anumber of alternative approaches have
evolved.
Pupil Speak level descriptors
It is good practice to share the level descriptors with
pupils so that they can have an active and meaningful
involvement in monitoring and tracking their own
progress and carrying out self-assessment. Figures 2a
and 2b give examples of resources that can be used to
do this. These have been used both as posters in
science teaching rooms and as information in pupils
exercise books. Non-teaching assistants and special
needs staff have also found these to be a valuable
resource for understanding and applying levels to
everyday classwork in science lessons and for
formulating questions.
Using the Levels Mountain explicitly
within lessons
Teachers and consultants working in the county have
found that using the Levels Mountain explicitly within
lessons can not only engage and motivate pupils, but
also assists teachers with planning effective and
levelled learning objectives and learning outcomes.
When teachers have planned starter activities, they
have found it to be a highly useful tool with which to
identify expected learning objectives and outcomes
and so aid more focused and challenging differ-
entiation.
Many science departments have developed their
own approach to this use of the Levels Mountain.
Figures 3a, 3b and 3c show wall displays in Staunton
Park and Warblington Schools in Havant and also a
Figure 3a Wall display of customised Levels Mountain from Staunton Park School, Havant.
summary of an interactive animated PowerPoint
presentation developed by The Clere School in
Newbury.
Teachers have found that the Levels Mountain has
been a very useful tool for engaging year 9 (14-year-
old) pupils in revision for their forthcoming SATs
exams. In this way it has served to support and
coordinate the Science Strategys Booster materials.
Lesson observations conducted by HIAS and
Professor Gilbert have identified that the use of the
Levels Mountain has been shown to be a very useful
method of raising the standard of pupils verbal
contributions in classroom discussions and debates.
When the teachers use the Levels Mountain both to
make evident and to value pupils verbal levels, it has
been shown that this can be an effective tool for raising
standards of engagement with literacy issues within
science. If pupils appreciate that they can achieve a
higher level of understanding and explanation verbally
than in written tests, this promotes an internal
frustration within the pupils mind so that they want
to engage in improving their literacy.
If they believe that they are clever enough to do
something then they want to try!
(teacher, Cove School, Farnborough)
Currently our work in the Cams Hill Science
Consortium is focusing upon the development and
trials of a resource to challenge pupils thinking skills
and support raising the standard of their verbal and
written explanations within lessons. Further details
of this work can be found on our website (see end).
Teachers have also found it very useful to have
two copies of the Levels Mountain on display in the
Figure 3b Wall display of customised Levels Mountain from Warblington School, Havant.
Figure 3c Summary of an interactive animated PowerPoint presentation of the Levels Mountain developed
by The Clere School, Newbury.
classroom, one for view by the pupils and another
upon the back wall for the teacher to use as a tool for
levelling pupils responses during question-and-
answer sessions. Where teachers use the Levels
Mountain as a resource, pupils have become very
motivated to use it themselves. Through our work
supporting schools we (MN, DH and the rest of the
HIAS science team) have both delivered and observed
lessons where pupils are being encouraged to level
their own discussions and work. What is very
noticeable is that pupils become surprisingly adept at
understanding and implementing the levelling criteria
and motivated to achieve the best level answer that
they can. The Levels Mountain has become a very
useful tool for focusing pupils discussions and
debates to assist progression whilst also becoming a
focus for teachers own professional debate and
development.
The Clere School, Basingstoke
Level 3
Your knowledge is good enough to answer
simple scientific questions
Level 4
You can use scientific knowledge and
words to describe what happens.
Level 5
You can use a higher level of scientific knowledge and words to
explain and describe what happens.
You can begin to explain How or Why things happen in terms of
either Energy, Forces, Particles or Cells.
Level 6
You are confident in using scientific vocabulary & understanding to answer more detailed questions.
Level 7
You can explain complicated things by seeing the links between 2 or more of the 4 big ideas
(Energy, Forces, Particles or Cells) and how they relate to each other.
You can also use maths formulae to do calculations and use the correct units
Summary
The Levels Mountain has improved teachers
understanding of the meaning of National Curriculum
levels and has encouraged them to share these insights
with their pupils. This has enabled a rise in both pupil
and teacher engagement with the complex issues
associated with progression through the key stage 3
science curriculum. The approach has proved a highly
effective tool for raising the standard of teachers
planning and for the development of effective
assessment for learning within the classroom within
Hampshire secondary schools.
References
Bunyan, P. (1998) Comparing pupil performance in key
stages 2 and 3 science SATs. School Science Review,
79(289), 8587.
DfEE (1999) Science; the National Curriculum for England.
London: Department for Education and Employment.
Available from: www.nc.uk.net
DfEE/QCA (2000) Science: a scheme of work for key stage 3.
London: Qualifications and CurriculumAuthority.
DfES (2002) Key Stage 3 National Strategy science strand.
London: Department for Education and Skills. Available
from: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/keystage3
Moore, J. and Gilbert, J. K. (1998) Improving standards in
Hampshire and Southampton schools for pupils in key stage
3: interim report for 1997/8. Southampton: Hampshire
Inspection and Advisory Service.
Ofsted (2000) Progress in key stage 3 science. Ref. HMI 221.
Available from: www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications
Website
Cams Hill Science Consortium: www.thinkingframe.com
Matthew Newberry is now Leading Edge Coordinator at Cams Hill School, Fareham, Hampshire.
John Gilbert is a professor at the Institute of Education, University of Reading.
David Hardcastle is a School Improvement Manager for Hampshire LEA.
All three authors can be contacted via: www.thinkingframe.com

Science Curriculum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Curriculum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School Science Review, March 2005, 86(316) 87

Newberry, Gilbert and Hardcastle Visualising progression

You might also like