‘Testing,testing, testing… can you hear me?’

This article draws on material that formed part of a project entitled ‘Sustaining Pupils’ Progress at Year 3'¹. One area that emerged as significant early in the project was the practice and the place of assessment. The project found a high increase in testing and other forms of assessment during Year 3 designed in part to facilitate progress. This article poses the question of whether we can learn from hearing what pupils have to say about their experience of assessment and concludes that, given the language with which to discuss and understand the processes they experience, children's views can indeed be of value as schools focus on ways to sustain learning     

Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools

There is conflicting evidence on whether collaborative group work leads to improved classroom relations, and if so how. A before and after design was used to measure the impact on work and play relations of a collaborative learning programme involving 575 students 9–12 years old in single- and mixed-age classes across urban and rural schools. Data were also collected on student interactions and teacher ratings of their group-work skills. Analysis of variance revealed significant gains for both types of relation. Multilevel modelling indicated that better work relations were the product of improving group skills, which offset tensions produced by transactive dialogue, and this effect fed through in turn to play relations. Although before intervention rural children were familiar with each other neither this nor age mix affected outcomes. The results suggest the social benefits of collaborative learning are a separate outcome of group work, rather than being either a pre-condition for, or a direct consequence of successful activity, but that initial training in group skills may serve to enhance these benefits.     

Open access central funds in UK universities

This paper reports on the extent to which higher education institutions in the UK have set up central funds and similar institutionally co‐ordinated approaches to the payment of open access article‐processing charges. It presents data demonstrating that central funds have only been set up by a minority of institutions and that the number of institutions has not changed significantly between 2009 and 2011. It then explores the barriers to the establishment of such funds and discusses recent developments that might lower these barriers. Finally, it provides a case study of the development of the central fund at the University of Nottingham in the UK and considers the sustainability of such an approach.