1. Investigating Factors Influencing the Number of People
Participating in Physics at a Higher Level
Robbie Patterson
C1205404
April 2015
Abstract
The objective of this report is to investigate the different factors responsible for the shortfall
of students taking physics into higher education and discuss ways of combatting it. Although
many of these factors needs to be addressed on a higher level in government, methods of
combatting it for teachers in the classroom are also considered and demonstrated in a
developed lesson plan for KS4 GCSE students. This is achieved by using teaching methods
that interest and engage the students that self-identify as ‘not STEM’, but have the aptitude to
succeed in the field. This report highlights ways of engaging more girls and different types of
learners in a classroom, effectively engaging a greater number of students and hence reducing
the amount of students that drop out of physics before AS level. Furthermore results of a
questionnaire given to a class of year 10 students displays their attitudes to the subject. This
report was successful in investigating factors responsible for the shortfall of students taking
physics into higher education, as well as suggesting ways to combat them and developing a
lesson plan using these methods.

2. 1
Contents
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 2
2. Factors that influence STEMparticipation............................................................................... 3
2.1. Career relevance............................................................................................................ 3
2.2. Ability to achieve good grades........................................................................................ 3
2.3. Adult encouragement ....................................................................................................5
2.4. Student’s interest andenjoyment................................................................................... 6
2.5. Lack of appeal to females in physics................................................................................ 7
3. How to reduce the number of STEMdropouts ........................................................................8
3.1. Combatting the shortfall of girls taking physicsin the classroom.......................................9
3.2. Learning styles ineducation: the VARK system.............................................................. 10
3.3. Using learning styles to combat the number of STEMdropouts...................................... 10
4. Results of questionnaire assessing student attitudes to physics ............................................. 11
5. Practical lessonidea on soundproofing................................................................................. 14
5.1. Reasoning behind lesson.............................................................................................. 14
5.2. Lesson plan ................................................................................................................. 15
5.3. Time planning.............................................................................................................. 15
5.4. Lesson in practice ........................................................................................................ 16
6. Background science to lesson plan ....................................................................................... 17
7. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 17
8. References.......................................................................................................................... 18
9. Appendix 1.......................................................................................................................... 22
Questionnaire given to students.............................................................................................. 22
Appendix 2............................................................................................................................. 23
OCR nature of controlled assessment task................................................................................ 23

3. 2
1. Introduction
The lack of interest of current GCSE students continuing to study STEM subjects into higher
education is cause for concern in the science community. Currently in England, only one in
four students choose two or more STEM subjects at A level, with one in 11 studying Maths
and Physics [1]. This is in striking contrast to other countries such as France which have half
of their 16-18 year old students studying a science orientated baccalaureate [2]. These
statistics in England are significantly lower than what you would expect based on students
interest in STEM subjects earlier in their education as shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Figure showing declining engagement in STEM subjects for older students [3]
This figure suggests that there is a problem in the way secondary schools are teaching STEM
subjects in the UK, as the student engagement declines dramatically for older students.
This is a problem that desperately needs addressing in the UK. Far too many people with an
interest in STEM subjects, who could potentially have success in the field, are losing interest
and dropping out before A level.
The aim of this report is to highlight the factors that are influencing a great number of
students to drop out of STEM subjects and in particular focus on how these problems relate to
physics. Furthermore a questionnaire given out to a year 10 class of students further
illustrates reasons for students dropping out. By investigating these factors as well as
analysing results from the questionnaire this report discusses methods of combatting the
declining interest in continuation of physics at a higher level. Furthermore a lesson plan is
displayed which aims to address the issues found.

4. 3
2. Factors that influence STEM participation
5 main factors influencing the number of people participating in STEM subjects are:
 Students perceived career relevance
 Ability to achieve good grades
 Adult encouragement (teachers and parents)
 Students interest and enjoyment
 Lack of appeal to females in physics
2.1. Career relevance
The difference between what 16-18 year old students think about the career paths STEM
subjects offer, compared to the reality, are alarmingly different. It is a common
misconception in this age range that career paths following on from higher education STEM
subjects are limited, despite employers in a vast range of areas calling for the skills the
subjects have to offer [4]. Interviews performed by A.T. Kearney on 17-18 year old non
STEM students illustrated the lack of career path knowledge students at this age have. When
asked what students studying Physics become, the most common answer was ‘I don’t know’
[5]. This lack of career knowledge displayed by students at this age is further consolidated by
the ASPIRES1 study which confirmed students mainly thought studying STEM subjects led
into careers as only a scientist, science teacher or doctor [6]. This idea of studying STEM
subjects being a ‘dead end’ is further reinforced in the classroom. The shift in the focus from
engaging practical work to a concentration on theory as students move up through school can
cause many to become disillusioned with STEM subjects and to see the content as being too
specific and not career relevant [7]. Despite these misconceptions, 45% of 16 year olds say
they will choose A levels based on what they think is important for their future career [8].
This statistic illustrates just how negatively students’ perceived career relevance of STEM
subjects is effecting those continuing it into further education. The disconnect between what
is taught in lessons and its relevance to the world of work is far too big and the ‘push’ from
school education needs to be better matched by the ‘pull’ from employers in order to make
sure students gravitate towards the right careers [9]. This solution would result in a much
greater student awareness of the importance of studying STEM.
2.2. Ability to achieve good grades
A student’s confidence in their ability to achieve well in a subject plays a great role in their
desire to continue it past GCSE. This can result in students deciding against choosing STEM
subjects which they are naturally interested in, in favour of subjects they feel they are more
likely to achieve higher grades in. This prioritisation of attaining higher grades over studying
subjects of interest can be strengthened by teachers and schools under pressure to achieve
higher overall exam results [10]. When talking to teachers from a local school a common
theme was how the schools attitude to teaching had greatly shifted towards achieving well in
exams, with less lesson flexibility and opportunity to inspire students through innovative
teaching [11].
The idea of STEM subjects being more difficult to do well in has been supported by
statistical figures in recent years. Figure 2 below demonstrates how students studying
different A level subjects GCSE attainment level varies. The figure displays the number of

5. 4
applicants in each subject and bands them in between 1-20 based on their average point score
at GCSE (point score being relative to the grades they get- 20 being the best).
Figure 2: Graph showing GCSE attainment levels of students studying different A level
subjects [12]
This figure clearly illustrates how students entering Physics A level average the highest
GCSE points, whereas students electing to study Media studies average the least among the
subjects in the figure above. This figure suggests that those students studying Physics A level
will achieve higher grades, however figure 3 illustrates how this is not the case. Figure 3
shows the average points achieved by students in each of the subjects, with the students
banded into groups based on their overall points scored at KS4.
Figure 3: Graph showing average point score of different A levels [12]

6. 5
This figure clearly shows that despite entrants to physics A level achieving the highest GCSE
grades of the subjects above, physics students on average get a lower grade in physics
compared to students grades in the other subjects. In fact, students studying media studies
achieve the best average grade relative to the other subjects, even though their GCSE results
were lowest. These figures imply that it is harder to achieve a good grade in physics than in
other subjects, consolidating student’s choices to avoid physics and other STEM subjects to
maximise their chances of achieving higher grades.
This kind of disparity between A level results in different subjects leads to students thinking
that STEM subjects are only for the ‘ultra bright’ which can cause those studying the subject
to lose confidence quickly and give up on the subject far too soon. In interviews of 17-18
year old non STEM students, 75% thought STEM subjects were harder than others, with this
message often reinforced by teachers and students from the year above [13].
2.3. Adult encouragement
Teachers and parents in particular play a huge role in influencing a student’s self confidence
in STEM subjects, greatly affecting their decision to take it further in education. In an
interview conducted with 16 year old students, the ASPIRES2 study found that 55% consider
their parents their biggest influence when making subject choices, with 19% saying teachers
were [14]. Furthermore it was shown that students that have a parent with a STEM degree are
much more likely to pursue STEM subjects further as well [15]. This is largely because of the
natural interest in the child’s work and the parents own scientific knowledge allowing
scientific discussion at home. Having a family background in science appears to improve a
student’s chances of taking STEM subject further into education. This gives rise to the
concept of a families ‘science capital’ playing an important role in a student’s likelihood to
pursue STEM into higher education [16].
With these figures illustrating how adults affect a student’s decision on what subjects to
pursue further into education, the focus on achieving high exam grades leads to poor
guidance from both teachers and parents. The high accountability and scrutiny teachers
receive for students to get good grades from parents and OFSTED results in teachers being
restricted to a certain uniformity of teaching which threatens student’s self-confidence and
willingness to participate [17]. It can further result in teachers only encouraging the very elite
to continue studying STEM causing those who are not to switch courses to something easier
to get a good grade [18]. Furthermore a lack of specialists in the subject could also
discourage students to continue STEM subjects, as they may be less confident in their teacher
and therefore less confident in their ability to achieve a high grade. One in every three
secondary state school teachers in England lacks the relevant post A level qualifications to
teach physics, a quarter of chemistry teachers face the same problem [19].

7. 6
2.4. Student’s interest and enjoyment
Students interest in science diminishes as they move up through school, which is a driving
factor in them not continuing STEM subjects at a higher level.
Figure 4: figure showing declining interest in what students learn in science [20]
Figure 4 clearly shows that there is a problem in engaging students in lessons as they progress
through school.
Part of this problem is the perceived lack of career relevance talked about previously,
furthermore the shortage of qualified teachers, however the way lessons are taught in the
classroom are also partially responsible for this decline in interest. As students move up
through school they experience less engaging practical work and an increased amount of
theory which students often find boring [21].
This problem of less variety in the material covered in lessons and the methods of teaching
are largely due to schools prioritisation on exam results. This exam focus in lessons results in
a teachers focussing only on the syllabus, with the emphasis on test tactics rather than deep
learning and understanding [22]. This focus on exam results puts pressure on teachers, which
when interviewed expressed their desire to teach creative and investigative lessons, but
ultimately felt that they did not pay off in terms of results and were better of covering more of
the syllabus [23]. This pressure is amplified by regular inspection of teachers by OFSTED,
which leads to lessons becoming uniform and dull [24]. There is a clear evidence that high
stakes testing and accountability measures discourage creative teaching [25]. This lack of
creative teaching is causing students to lose interest in science subject, as they themselves
feel they learn best when a lesson is different and memorable [26]. This idea is supported
Heisbergs study into ‘guided play’ teaching, where it is shown that children are most engaged
and learn best through extensive guided play [27].
However the focus on exam results inhibits teacher’s willingness to teach these types of
lessons. In a survey conducted by Merryn Hutchings of London Metropolitan University in
2015 93% of teachers agreed ‘the focus on academic targets means there are fewer
opportunities for creative, investigative and practical activities’ [28]. Furthermore 96% of
survey respondents agreed this intense pressure resulted in a lack of time to explore the needs
of individual pupils, thus having less time to help deal with a pupil’s distress or to talk about

8. 7
things that interest them. Finally 93% said this pressure led to stress which affected the way
they interacted with pupils, which may have led to disinterest in the subject. This idea that
teachers are communicating less and less with students as individuals is reiterated in a study
by G Donaldson when reviewing the curriculum in Wales. In the report he argues how the
impact of ‘increasingly powerful accountability mechanisms’ has caused teachers ‘to
implement external expectations faithfully, with a consequent diminution of…
responsiveness to the needs of children and young people’ [29]. It is not a stretch to believe
this increasingly impersonal way of teaching and failure to meet individual needs could lead
to more people dropping out of STEM subjects.
Although there is international evidence that external accountability has positive effects on
students attainment in tests [30], other research illustrates how this does not reflect any
greater understanding or knowledge, but only that students have been taught how to succeed
in one particular test [31]. This brings into question the focus on high stakes tests and rigid
teaching if they could equally teach more creative and varied lessons with less concentration
on the syllabus, engaging many more students and maintain the same level of understanding.
2.5. Lack of appeal to females in physics
Girls outnumber boys in STEM subject choices in total and also outperform them at STEM
qualifications at all levels [32]. Despite this one of the main reasons for the STEM shortfall in
the UK comes from the failure to appeal to females in physics. The percentage of girls that
make up the total A level entrants for physics has remained fairly constant at around 20% for
the last 30 years [33]. The figure below clearly shows the proportions of girls to boys in
different subjects.
Figure 5: figure showing proportions of girls to boys in different A level subjects [34]

9. 8
Physics is the 4th most popular choice of A level amongst boys with 15% of those eligible
taking it at AS level, whereas it is the 19th most popular for girls with less than 5% of those
eligible taking it further [35]. Furthermore 49% of state schools send no girls to study physics
A level, with girls in single sex schools 2.5 times more likely to study physics due to school
culture [36]. The A level dropout rate for boys in physics was 37.8% in 2014, whereas for
girls it was much higher at 46.7% [37]. This statistic suggests boys perform better than girls
at Physics, however to the contrary girls outperform boys in physics, with one in four girls
getting an A at AS level compared to one in five boys [38]. This disparity between the
numbers of males taking physics into higher education clearly transcends the education
system as women in the UK have a lower participation in the STEM workforce than
anywhere in Europe, with only 13% of those occupations held by women [39].
There are many reasons explaining the lack of appeal of physics to girls. One of the primary
reasons is derived from the stigma that physics is a ‘boys subject’ and girls want to avoid
doing ‘masculine subjects’ [40]. This is a stigma that is often supported by an unconscious
bias in homes as well as schools, where there is lots of evidence to suggest teachers favour
boys perceiving them as ‘better’ and ‘more naturally able’ giving them higher marks for work
even where attainment data indicate otherwise [41]. This demonstrates how teachers often
have stereotypically lower expectations of girls in physics, which only reinforces female
students to self-identify as ‘not physics’. This poor relationship between female students and
their teachers is a key reason for the lack of appeal physics has to girls, studies made by the
Institute of Physics even found that teacher quality and a poor student teacher relationship is
much more impactful on girls than boys [42].
3. How to reduce the number of STEM dropouts
Increasing the number of students in the UK taking STEM subjects past the age of 16 is a
challenge that needs to be confronted in several areas. A large part of the problem comes
from outside of the classroom and needs to be addressed and improved on a larger scale by
the government. These are issues such as the inequality of A-level grading leading to less
people taking science subjects further as they are harder to attain a high grade in. Furthermore
STEM subjects desperately need to attract more STEM graduates into teaching to reduce the
number of unqualified teachers in the field. These issues, as well as the need for employers to
emphasise STEM qualifications importance and relevance to influence careers advice, are all
factors that need to be addressed on a much larger scale.
However a great deal can be done to reduce the number of STEM dropouts within the
classroom. Firstly efforts can be made to portray physics as a gender-neutral subject and
certain teaching methods can be used to target girls in the class. Ideas for practicing this will
be illustrated in the next section. Furthermore teachers need to change the focus of the
students from just targeting high grades irrespective of subjects, to also taking into account
their levels of interest and enjoyment in a subject. With interest and enjoyment then
becoming a priority in what A-level choices to make, it is then down to the teacher to deliver
as engaging and varied lessons and content in order to attract as many students as possible
towards STEM subjects. This report will highlight ways in which teachers can be more
creative and dynamic in their lessons, connecting with a greater number of pupils with
different strengths.

10. 9
3.1. Combatting the shortfall of girls taking physics in the classroom
Research from the WISE (women in science, technology and engineering) campaign into
female students reasoning for not continuing with physics into higher education gives
evidence that they are making completely logical career choices based on the information
available [43]. This suggests they are uninformed or misinformed by teachers as studying
physics provides a huge range of diverse career possibilities. Further evidence from the
Nuffield foundation shows one off interventions don’t work and that consistent approaches
are required to integrate science careers awareness into the mainstream science curriculum
[44]. The report details how a more sustained effort is needed to educate female (as well as
male) students in what future careers studying physics offers.
This problem feeds into the idea that teachers need to focus on making physics appear
relevant as a whole. This can be practised in the classroom as teachers can try to offer
students an idea of ‘the big picture’ by reinforcing links between topics and key ideas, as well
as providing applications of the physics wherever possible. When possible it can also be
considered to talk about the applications before the principles so that the reasoning for
studying the particular topic is clear throughout. Furthermore backing up standard class
literature with relevant clips from the internet or cut outs from newspapers would help
convey physics as relevant. When providing applications or illustrations efforts need to be
made to draw on the interest of girls as well as boys. For example when teaching vectors
using the illustration of a man throwing a football in a bending path would mainly appeal to
boys, so using a common experience such as the moving hand of a clock is more appropriate.
The use of language in the classroom can also be adjusted to connect with more female
students. Research has shown that generally girls self-identify using adjectives such as
helpful or organised, whereas boys tend to do so with the use of activities they are involved in
such as their interests and hobbies [45]. This can lead to girls thinking physics is not for them
as it is more of a ‘doing’ subject, therefore by using adjectives to describing the types of
people required for certain jobs in STEM more girls should feel encouraged pursuing STEM
careers. More generally, teachers should reframe from using non-essential technical
language, particularly during the early stages of learning. Using pupils everyday language
until a concept is clear will help build the students confidence as well as make the physics
seem more relevant as it can be talked about in normal language [46].
In the classroom it is often found that when responding to rapid fire closed questions in the
classroom boys tend to dominate, often girls feel unable to respond, articulating their
understanding or concerns [47]. This highlights how good questioning techniques are
required, with more open and extended responses being favourable to girls with examples and
guidance of such given in the Kings College London ‘Black Box’ publications [48].
Furthermore by giving students individual whiteboards to give quick responses to questions
would encourage more girls to participate as they would feel less self-conscious about taking
risks and potentially getting the question wrong in front of the other students. A useful
technique that can also be used is to encourage group discussion with a spokesperson in a
collaborative effort that lowers the stakes. The Churchill fellowship found that girls don’t
need competition but much prefer collaborative tasks with goals to achieve [49]. This is
particularly relevant to practical tasks where it is often found girls take longer and do things
properly whereas boys think things are ‘good enough’ and move on quicker causing girls to
lose confidence in competition as boys race ahead as they are less concerned with detail and

11. 10
being wrong. The same report indicates that girls work most effectively when in a girl only
event, therefore splitting into a girl group and a boy group can actually be helpful so long as
there is no competition. This splitting up into girls and boys can even go further with some
coeducational schools even splitting up entire science classes in order to achieve more girl
participation, which has been successful [50].
3.2. Learning styles in education: the VARK system
Research has shown that students have significantly different learning styles: they tend to
prefer to focus on different types of information and operate in different ways- achieving
understanding at different rates [51]. There are many contesting theories that aim to account
and categorise for the varying styles of learning, although VARK is one of the most widely
known and credited theory [52]. VARK is essentially a sixteen question questionnaire which
aims to highlight whether an individual is a visual, audial, read-write or kinaesthetic type of
learner based on the responses given.
Visual learners favour pictorial imagination and expression, finding understanding through
the relationship between images and meanings. They typically prefer learning through the use
of pictures, shapes and images and might be suited to design or engineering roles.
Audial learners display an appreciation and use of sound and learn most effectively by
recognising and remembering tonal and rhythmic patterns. They use music, sounds and
rhythm to aid their learning, often using songs and lyrics to remember information and are
better suited towards jobs in acoustics.
Read-write learners favour the use of words and language, retaining information most
successfully if they have ideas communicated to them via language and then make their own
interpretations. These individuals choose to write instruction sets or even edit an existing
written piece of work to their own liking. Roles these learners might excel at would be those
which need good communication and analysis, potentially working as consultants or even
presenters.
Finally Kinaesthetic learners usually have good hand to body coordination and strong balance
and physical agility. They learn positively when in physical experience and movement, using
touch and feel. These qualities lend themselves to roles in demonstration or crafts work.
3.3. Using learning styles to combat the number of STEM dropouts
When students choose the subjects they are going to take into AS level there is a split into
two categories: those who continue in STEM subjects and those who have the ability to do so
but instead switch to non-scientific courses [53]. By engaging and raising the confidence of
those in the second tier the drop-out rate of those choosing to continue STEM can be
combatted.
Evidence has proven that students with a learning style that matches their teacher tend to
retain and apply information more effectively and generally have a much more positive
attitude towards the subject compared to students whose learning style is mismatched [54]. A
key reason for students lacking engagement and confidence in STEM subjects is poor
teaching due to failures to address common learning styles with a large number of the class
[55]. Unfortunately teacher tend to favour their own learning style in the classroom, largely
instinctively because it is how they were taught, which results in the teaching style being

12. 11
skewed to favour a small percentage of the students. This results in a big mismatch between
the prevailing teaching style and the learning style of most of the students which has serious
consequences [56]. Students that suffer from this mismatch in learning styles feel as though
the subject is being taught in a foreign language they cannot relate too, ultimately leading to
them getting lower grades than those who don’t [57]. As a result of this students are much
less likely to develop interest for the course material and may lose interest in the subject all
together [58]. The overall outcome of this miscommunication is that students become
discouraged, as well as teachers who confronted with poor student performance can lose
confidence. However the key problem is students with an aptitude and possible career in
STEM dropout.
The quality of science teaching can be significantly improved if teachers modified their
teaching to include elements from all the different learning styles therefore accommodating
for all the students in the class [59]. With a balance achieved between the four VARK
learning styles in lessons, each student would sometimes be taught in a way that matches
their learning style, therefore causing them to learn effectively and promote a positive attitude
towards STEM [60]. At other times a student awareness that the style does not match would
sometimes compel them to improve upon weaker areas of their ability, improving their ability
as a scientist [61]. Furthermore by teaching using all variations of learning styles students’
potential absorption for learning increases as holistic brain activity is dependent on
interconnectivity between modules of perception [62].
As a result of students developing an awareness of their own learning style and how each
style has something to offer to careers in STEM, they will feel more confident in their ability
and therefore remain more engaged in STEM and likely to take it into further education [63].
This awareness that all learning types are applicable and useful in STEM will help to stop
students self-identifying as ‘not STEM’ and will help combat the number of STEM dropouts.
As a further benefit of this students would take on more responsibility for their education as
they would each have individual preferences to learning which they could practice in their
own time in order to achieve at their best, therefore taking some of the accountability for
results off teachers.
4. Results of questionnaire assessing student attitudes to physics
In this part of the report results of a questionnaire given to a 2nd set year 11 physics class will
be discussed. The questionnaire used was inspired by one used in the ‘CLES – an instrument
for monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments’ report [64] as well
as one used in the ‘Developing attitudes towards science measures’ report [65]. The
questionnaire is focussed on gaining insight into the student’s attitude towards physics at the
age of 16 just before they choose what subjects they are going to take into AS level. The
questionnaire was completed by 30 students in the class and both the questions and the tallied
responses to them are shown below. The full questionnaire format can be found in the
appendix.

13. 12
Stronglyagree
Agree
Unsure
disagree
Strongly
disagree
1. We learn interesting things in physics lessons
2. I look forward to my physics lessons
3. I like physics betterthan most othersubjects at school
4. In my physics class I understand everything
5. I am just not good at physics
6. Practical work in physics is exciting
7. I like practical work because I can decide what to do myself
8. I would like more practical work in lessons
9. What I learn has nothing to do with the world outside of
school
10. I know lots of science related jobs
11. I would like to study more physics in the future
Figure 6: Tallied number of responses to questionnaire given 30 students
The questionnaire is used to determine the student’s attitude to physics and is initially
focussed on their general interest and enjoyment of the subject from questions 1-5, then
questions 6-8 concentrate on their thoughts on practical work before the finally highlighting
students perception of the subjects relevance to the outside world and careers in 9-11. All
students were also given the opportunity to write additional comments on changes they might
like to see in their lessons, as shown in the appendix.
The outcome of the very first question regarding student’s interest in the subject displays that
75% of students believe they learn interesting things in science lessons. Moreover, with six
students unsure in their response, only one out of a class of 30 students did not think science
lessons taught interesting things. Although this sample group is a second set class so are
likely to be naturally interested people, this result still conveys strongly how physics
stimulates students. However responses to the next two questions are less positive towards
the subject, with less than half of students looking forward to classes and 2/3 of students
0
0
2
2
6
0
0
0
6
1
0
1
7
18
5
14
1
7
4
15
12
3
6
10
6
17
4
3
2
2
7
13
17
20
12
2
5
6
12
15
7
2
3
8
3
1
2
1
0
14
6
17
0
1
2

14. 13
preferring most other subjects at school. Regarding the students perceived ability in physics
2/3 of the students believe they are good at science, with only 20% thinking they are not.
From these results it is clear most students think they learn interesting things in physics and
perceive themselves as good at it, however the majority still prefer most other subjects and
don’t actively look forward to lessons. This suggests that it is not the content or the difficulty
that deters students, but possibly the way in which it is taught in classes.
The next question of whether practical work in physics is exciting was met with an extremely
positive response with over 85% of students saying practical work is exciting and only 1 of
the 30 students disagreeing. The modal response to the question was that students strongly
agree that practical physics is exciting, furthermore 80% of students would like more
practical physics in lessons. Although 2/3 of students agree they enjoy practical work because
the freedom of deciding what they do, the response is slightly less positive with almost a
quarter of students disagreeing. This could potentially be due to the rigidity of the practical
work, with students preferring a more flexible open ended task.
The student response to whether what they learn in the classroom is relevant to the outside
world is also positive with 2/3 of students thinking there was a correlation. However only 4
of 30 students indicated they knew lots of science related jobs with 1/3 of students deciding
they didn’t know of lots and the most common response held by the 13 students who were
unsure. This clearly illustrates the lack of career knowledge of students and the need to
educate them on career paths leading from science. The final question in this questionnaire
asks whether the students would like to study more physics in the future, where 1/3 of
students responded positively. However quite revealingly over half of students responded that
they were unsure with only 3 of 30 disagreeing. This displays how although there are a
number of students interested in taking physics further, there is a great number of students
who remain unsure and could go either way. This highlights the need to reach out to these
‘second tier’ students who have an aptitude and interest for physics, but ultimately might
drop before AS level.
Further analysis of results showed that all four of the students who knew lots of science
related jobs also said they would like to continue studying more physics in the future. This
supports the idea that students with a good knowledge of careers leading on from physics are
more likely to take it further, conveying the importance of teachers educating them on this
matter. When students were given the opportunity to add their own thoughts on what they
would like to see more of in lessons the only response two students saying they would like to
do more group work.

15. 14
5. Practical lesson idea on soundproofing
5.1. Reasoning behind lesson
This lesson plan has been developed for a GCSE physics class and concentrates on raising the
interest and enjoyment of students in physics in an attempt to increase the amount of students
taking it into AS level.
This lesson focusses on practical work, with the experiment based on the concept of sound
proofing. The decision to do a practical lesson was based on the positive feedback to practical
work given in the questionnaire in the previous section, displaying students both find it
exciting and would like to be given the opportunity to do more in lessons. Furthermore
practical work promotes the idea of physics being relevant, particularly when supported by
giving students potential applications of the concepts used, as stated previously in the report.
The idea of this lesson is that it is different from most throughout the year and is therefore
memorable for students. Moreover as mentioned previously in the report Heisbergs theory of
guided play states that students learn best when given more freedom to do tackle a task using
their own approach, something this lesson will offer. As a consequence of giving a task that
requires little teacher interruption to address the class as a whole, there is more opportunity
for the teacher to move around and interact with students from the class individually to
address any problems or concerns or even just to discuss any aspects of the physics they
might find interesting. All of these reasons for developing this lesson plan stem from the
importance of making physics interesting for the students, as a key way of encouraging them
to pursue physics into further education.
This lesson has also been designed to appeal to girls in the class. When splitting into groups
girls will be given the opportunity to work together in groups without boys. This will give
them the opportunity to work at their own rate and not to feel rushed or pressured.
Furthermore it provides girls with the opportunity to perform collaborative work without the
feeling of competition which as stated previously girls prefer.
Lastly in relation to learning styles, this lesson clearly favours kinaesthetic learners as it is a
very ‘hands on’ type of learning, however this is in contrast to normal lessons where
read/write type learning dominates. This lesson does involve all the different types of learner
though, effectively engaging them all. When explaining the practical task at the start of the
lesson, the idea will be explained orally as well as a brief demonstration given physically,
therefore communicating effectively to both visual and auditory learners. At the end of the
task the opportunity to write down any problems they found as well as how they enjoyed the
experiment will be given to all students, hence appealing to read/write type learners.
This lesson would also satisfy some of the requirements of the OCR physics GCSE syllabus
on practical learning, as seen in the appendix.

16. 15
5.2. Lesson plan
Equipment required:
 8 shoe boxes
 8 egg boxes
 8 sound generators
 Sound meter
 Selection of insulating materials i.e.- paper, cotton wool, cling film, tin foil, bubble
wrap, straws
 Scissors
 Cello tape
Objective
Students will split into groups of 4 or 5 and be working on sound proofing either an egg box
or a shoe box. They will be given the opportunity to pick their choice of box and they will
place their sound generator inside it operating at a known decibel level. They will then be
working on insulating the box with any of the selection of insulating materials given in order
to try and sound proof it as effectively as possible. At the end of the lesson a sound meter will
be used to measure the amount of decibels of sound transmitted through the box, hence the
magnitude of the sound decrease will be recorded.
5.3. Time planning
This lesson will be split into three time slots: a 10 minute introduction followed by the 40
minute experiment and ending with 10 minutes to discuss the results as a class and for
students to give feedback.
The initial 10 minute introduction will be used to explain the objective of the experiment as
well as a very basic demonstration of how to do it where a sound generator is placed inside
the box and the sound magnitude is measured. The remaining time will be used to split the
class up into single sex groups of 4 or 5.
Then the experiment itself can begin, during this period of time the teacher can move around
the class and talk to groups and individuals about any problems that have occurred and offer
ideas such as using straws to separate layers of insulating materials. This would act as a
cavity like that in double glazed glass, but the idea behind this will be explained briefly in the
final 10 minutes of the class, as well as in the background section of this report. After about
25 minutes of the experiment groups will be asked to complete their finishing touches, tidy
their work area and sit down ready to present their work. This presentation will be about 2
minutes per group with each group electing a spokesperson to say what materials their group
used as well as any layering techniques they did.
The final 10 minutes of the lesson can be used to discuss what materials and layering
techniques were effective and why that may have been, as well as explaining their choice of
box. Images could be shown of the inside of sound studios to students, illustrating how the
shape of the walls is much like that of an egg box- giving a real life application of sound
proofing [66]. Then the students would each be asked to write a couple of sentences or bullet

17. 16
points on whether they enjoyed the lesson and what they found good or bad about it, as the
focus of the lesson is it excite and engage the students. The feedback would be handed in
anonymously to try and promote honest comments and would be used to further develop and
improve the lesson plan. Research has shown feedback on lessons from the students is
critically important [67].
5.4. Lesson in practice
This lesson was carried out on a year 10 after school science club of 9 students- 6 boys and 3
girls. Overall the lesson was a success, as the students enjoyed the class and also gained
practice in some practical work techniques.
There was some aspects of the lesson which did not go to plan however, as the class were
unable to use sound receivers to measure the decibels of sound, so they had to judge by ear
which box was more sound proof. This meant they were unable to record quantitative results.
Although this was a negative aspect of the lesson and needs to be avoided in the future, it did
not in any way ruin the lesson as judging by ear proved effective enough. The lesson itself
also took significantly less time to complete than was accounted for, as from start to finish it
took around 40 minutes. However this was with a small class size and only 2 different teams,
so it is likely it would fill the entire hour of a school lesson. Furthermore the groups were not
split into single sex groups as there was not enough girls, instead the girls went together but
in a group of 5. It could be seen throughout the experiment that some students did dominate
the activity, so either careful selection of groups or smaller groups might help combat this.
The lesson began well with all the students quickly grasping the idea of the experiment and
keen to get going, with one group opting to use the shoe box and one the egg box
respectively. Without much discussion of ideas or tactics, the groups started insulating the
boxes. One group briefly considered the idea of leaving the bottom of the box uninsulated as
it would have the table underneath it anyway, an extremely intuitive idea which was decided
against. Generally the tactic was to use as much material as possible in order to ‘block’ more
sound, however once supplied with the idea of using straws to create cavities between layers,
the students began to act with more precision and an increased sense of enthusiasm at the
task.
After the groups had completed their task it was judged that both groups had successfully
sound proofed their boxes, as comparative to the sound made when tested outside the boxes it
was significantly reduced, however it was agreed that the egg box was more effective. When
discussing why this was it was agreed that as the egg box was smaller, more insulating layers
were able to be applied which was the main reason for it being more sound proof. The idea of
the shape of the egg box being a factor was briefly introduced, as well students being shown
images of the inside of a sound studio wall and its similarity to that off an egg box, however
details of the science behind this were not discussed.
Overall the students reacted extremely positively to the experiment, many of them
commenting that they wish they did more practical work like it in class and enjoyed the more
‘real world’ experiment. Therefore the lesson was a success as the main focus was on student
interest and enjoyment. The teacher present during the class did also think the lesson was
successful in being interesting and engaging, but also commented on the pressure to teach
content from the curriculum inhibiting her willingness to teach creative and practical lessons.
The physics used in this lesson plan is not part of any GCSE syllabus, but the practical skills

18. 17
used would be good training for any controlled assessment. However the teachers comments
about the pressure to teach from the curriculum suggest that standard lessons are unlikely to
change in the near future.
6. Background science to lesson plan
This experiment deals with the idea of what is most effective for sound proofing, in this case,
trying to prevent sound leaving a box. The initial measure that should be taken to sound proof
the box is the sealing of all the boxes openings [68]. After that sound absorbing materials can
be used to insulate the egg box which would help in absorbing mid-range and high frequency
sounds, however bass frequencies tend to transmit thorough solid structures more easily [69].
To tackle this problem a ‘double wall’ approach can be used to greatly reduce transmission
[70]. In the case of this experiment, separating layers of sound absorbing material with straws
then adding more layers can be used as an effective way of reducing the total sound
transmitted. This works through the phenomena of cavity resonance, when a particular
frequency is range is getting through, a cavity constructed between insulating layers offers
resonant absorption in that range [71].
The reason egg boxes themselves provide fairly good sound proofing is due to their shape.
Due to its bumpy non-flat nature sound waves bounce of various surfaces having part of their
energy absorbed on each contact, therefore reducing the total energy of the waves that are
finally transmitted. Therefore egg boxes should theoretically be better at sound proofing then
shoe boxes.
7. Conclusion
There are many ways to combat the shortfall of students taking physics into AS level in the
UK. A great deal of the problem comes from issues that need to be solved on a higher level
from the government: the inequality of A level grading, the lack of qualified teachers and the
lack of career advice deterring students from continuing to study physics into higher
education. However action can be taken by teachers within the classroom to reduce the
number of STEM dropouts in two ways. Firstly teachers changing the emphasis of their
lessons from strictly and rigidly educating students directly to the syllabus, to interesting and
engaging students through the use of innovative and dynamic lessons which appeal to a
greater number of the class. Secondly an awareness on how to engage more girls in the
classroom as well as different types of learners, as detailed in this report, teachers can
effectively tackle student’s misconceived self-identity that they are ‘not STEM’. The overall
outcome of this would be to engage and inspire a much greater number of students giving
them confidence to pursue STEM subjects, in particular physics, further into education,
therefore combatting the number of students dropping the out after before AS level. This
report was successful in investigating factors responsible for the shortfall of students taking
physics into higher education, as well as suggesting ways to combat them and developing a
lesson plan using these methods.

19. 18
8. References
[1] Department of education data for UK 2014-2015 academic year, ratio based on pupils
entered for at least one A level, Date accessed 22/03/2016
[2] French ministry of education, 2015, ratio based on students taking the general French
baccalaureate, Date accessed 22/03/2016
[3] ASPIRES 1 and 2 studies, King’s College London, UPMAP study, UCL, institute of
education, Date accessed 22/03/2016
[4] https://www.sciencepioneers.org/parents/why-stem-is-important-to-everyone Date
accessed 02/04/2016
[5] A.T. Kearney, interviews with 17-18 year old non STEM students, 2015, Date accessed
22/03/2016
[6] ASPIRES 1 study, Kings College London, Date accessed 22/03/2016
[7] A.T. Kearney, Tough Choices: The Real Reasons Students are Steering Clear of Science
and Maths, 2016, Date accessed 20/03/2016
[8] ASPIRES2, Kings College London, survey of 15-16 year olds, 2014, Date accessed
22/03/2016
[9] Gatsby Foundation, Good Career Guidance Report, 2014, Date accessed 22/03/2016
[10] Kelli Ballard, Making a Connection between Student Achievement, Teacher
Accountability, and Quality Classroom Instruction, Illinois State University, 2008, Date
accessed 28/03/2016
[11] Robbie Patterson, talks to teachers at Bulmershe School, 2015
[12] Dave Thompson for Education Datalab, Is A level physics too hard (and media studies
too easy?), 2015, Date accessed 22/03/2016
[13] A.T. Kearney, interviews with 17-18 year old non STEM students, 2015, Date accessed
22/03/2016
[14] ASPIRES 2, Kings College London, interviews of 15-16 year olds, 2014, Date accessed
22/03/2016
[15] ASPIRES 2 study, King’s College London, UPMAP study, UCL, institute of education,
Date accessed 22/03/2016
[16] Archer et al, Science capital: A conceptual, methodological and empirical argument for
extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts, 2015, Date accessed 22/03/2016
[17] Merryn Hutchings, Exam Factories: The impact of accountability measures on children
and young people, London Metropolitan University, 2015, Date accessed 25/03/2016
[18] Richard Felder, The second tier in collage science education, 1993, Date accessed
20/03/2016
[19] DFE, School Workforce in England, 2013, Date accessed 20/03/2016

20. 19
[20] ASPIRES 1 and 2 studies, Kings college London, Date accessed 22/03/2016
[21] Robbie Patterson, talks to 16 year old students at St Crispins school, 2016,
[22] Children, Schools and Families Committee (2008) Testing and Assessment, HC 169-1. ,
Date accessed 25/03/2016
[23] Robbie Patterson, talks to teachers at Bulmershe School, 2015
[24] OFSTED inspection: the experiences of teachers and school leaders, NASUWT, 2012,
Date accessed 25/03/2016
[25] Lobascher, S. (2011) What are the potential impacts of high-stakes testing on literacy
education in Australia? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 19(2): 9-19, Date accessed
28/03/2016
[26] Robbie Patterson, talks to 16 year old students at St Crispins school, 2016
[27] Weisberg, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K. and Golinkoff, R. (2013), Guided play: where curricular
goals meet a playful pedagogy, Mind, Brain, and Education, 7: 104–112. , Date accessed
29/03/2016
[28] Merryn Hutchings, The impact of accountability measures on children and young
people: emerging findings, London Metropolitan University 2015, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[29] Donaldson, G. (2015) Successful Futures: Independent Review of Curriculum and
Assessment Arrangements in Wales at
https://hwbplus.wales.gov.uk/schools/6714052/Documents/Donaldson%20Report.pdf,
Date accessed 29/03/2016
[30] Carnoy, M. and Loeb, S. (2002) Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A
cross-state analysis, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), pp305-331. ,
Date accessed 29/03/2016
[31] Wiliam D. (2010) Standardized testing and school accountability, Educational
Psychologist , 45 (2), pp. 107-122. , Date accessed 29/03/2016
[32]https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/uploads/wise/files/6pp_NFPLM_SUMMARY_v31.pd
f Date accessed 29/03/2016
[33] ‘Closing doors: Exploring gender and subject choice in schools’, Institute of physics,
2013, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[34] http://www.jcq.org.uk/examination-results/a-levels/2015/entry-trends-gender-and-
regional-charts-gce-2015, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[35, 36] ‘It’s different for girls: the influence of schools’, Institute of physics, 2012, Date
accessed 29/03/2016
[37, 38] www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27596247, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[39] Professor Averil Macdonald, WISE, ‘Not for people like me’ underrepresented groups in
science, engineering and technology, 2014, Date accessed 29/03/2016

21. 20
[40] ASPIRES 2, Kings College London, interviews of 15-16 year olds, 2014, Date accessed
22/03/2016
[41] Ref Archer L, Osborne, J. & Dewitt, J. (2012) ‘The case for early education about
STEM careers’, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[42] Patricia Murphy, Girls in the Physics Classroom A Review of the Research on the
Participation of Girls in Physics, Institute of Physics report, 2006, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[43] Professor Averil Macdonald, WISE, ‘Not for people like me’ underrepresented groups in
science, engineering and technology, 2014, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[44] Practical work for learning: ‘Science in the workplace – Research summary’, Nuffield
Foundation, 2012, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[45] Fotaki, M, & N. Harding (2013) “Lacan and sexual difference in organization and
management theory: Towards a hysterical academy?” ORGANIZATION, Volume: 20,
Issue: 2 Pages: 153-172., Date accessed 29/03/2016
[46] S. O. Oyoo, Language in Science Classrooms: An Analysis of Physics Teachers’ Use of
Beliefs About Language, 2011, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[47] Girls in the physics classroom: a teacher’s guide to action, IOP report, 2006, Date
accessed 29/03/2016
[48] Working Inside the Black Box, Kings College London, 2002, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[49] UK Science and Discovery Centre Effectively engaging under-represented groups, UK
Association for Science and Discovery Centres, 2014, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[50] In a Class of Their Own? Teaching science in single sex classes in coeducational
schools – a guide to good practice, WISE, 2004, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[51] Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science Education,
Richard M. Felder Department of Chemical Engineering North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7905, 1993, Date accessed 20/03/2016
[52] http://vark-learn.com/introduction-to-vark/ Date accessed 20/03/2016
[53] Tobias, Sheila. They're Not Dumb, They're Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Research
Corporation, Tucson, 1990, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[54] Felder, Richard. "How Students Learn: Adapting Teaching Styles to Learning Styles,"
Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, ASEE/IEEE, Santa Barbara, CA, 1988, p.
489, Date accessed 20/03/2016
[55] Tobias Sheila, Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most
Don’t, Research Corporation, Tucson, 1992, Date accessed 29/03/2016
[56] Linda Silverman. "Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education."
Engineering Education 78(7):674--681; April 1988, Date accessed 29/03/2016

22. 21
[57] Godleski, Edward. "Learning Style Compatibility of Engineering Students and Faculty."
Proceedings, Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. ASEE/IEEE, Philadelphia, 1984, p.
362. , Date accessed 29/03/2016
[58] Felder, Richard. "How Students Learn: Adapting Teaching Styles to Learning Styles,"
Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, ASEE/IEEE, Santa Barbara, CA, 1988, p.
489. , Date accessed 20/03/2016
[59] Felder, Richard. “Understanding Student Differences”, North Carolina State University,
2005, Date accessed 20/03/2016
[60] Stice, J.E., “Using Kolb’s Learning Cycle to Improve Student Learning,” Engineering
Education, Vol. 77, No. 5, 1987, pp. 291–296., Date accessed 29/03/2016
[61] Felder, R.M., “Matters of Style,” ASEE Prism, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1996, pp. 18–23, Date
accessed 20/03/2016
[62] http://www.brainboxx.co.uk/a2_learnstyles/pages/LStyles_debate.htm Date accessed
20/03/2016
[63] Felder, R.M., and Brent, R., “The Intellectual Development of Science and Engineering
Students. 2. Teaching to Promote Growth,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 93, No. 4,
2004, pp. 279–291. , Date accessed 20/03/2016
[64] http://surveylearning.moodle.com/cles/papers/CLES_AERA94_Award.htm, Date
accessed 02/04/2016
[65] http://dro.dur.ac.uk/4908/1/4908.pdf?DDD29+ded4ss Date accessed 02/04/2016
[66] http://soundproofingapartment.us/ceiling-soundproofing/music-studio-
soundproofing.html Date accessed 02/04/2016
[67] http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/a2_learningstyles/pages/LStyles_debate.htm Date accessed
02/04/2016
[68] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/studio.html Date accessed
02/04/2016
[69] Applied Physics for Engineers p. 989, Mehta Neeraj, 2011, Date accessed 02/04/2016
[70] http://www.soundproofingcompany.com/soundproofing101/room-within-a-room/ Date
accessed 02/04/2016
[71] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/cavity.html Date accessed 02/04/2016

23. 22
9. Appendix 1
Questionnaire given to students
This questionnaire asks you to describe this classroom which you are in right now. There are no
right or wrong answers. This is not a test. Your opinion is what is wanted.
Do not write your name. Your answers are confidential and anonymous.
Stronglyagree
Agree
Unsure
disagree
Strongly
disagree
1. We learn interesting things in science lessons
2. I look forward to my science lessons
3. I like science betterthan most other subjects at school
4. In my science class I understand everything
5. I am just not good at science
6. Practical work in science is exciting
7. I like practical work because I can decide what to do myself
8. I would like more practical work in lessons
9. What I learn has nothing to do with the world outside of
school
10. I know lots of science related jobs
11. I would like to study more science in the future
Is there anything you’d like to see different about your science lessons?
(Comment below)
X

24. 23
Appendix 2
Thispart of the OCR syllabus displaysthe skillsstudentsneedtodisplayintheircontrolled
assessment.The practical lessoninthisreportwouldprovidegoodpractice forthese techniques.
OCR nature of controlled assessment task
Controlled assessment tasks for GCSE Physics A practical investigations require candidates to:
• develop hypotheses and plan practical ways to test them, including risk assessment
• manage risks when carrying out practical work
• collect, process, analyse and interpret primary and secondary data, including the use of
appropriate technology to draw evidence-based conclusions
• review methodology to assess fitness for purpose
• review hypotheses in the light of outcomes.
Practicalinvestigations therefore draw together the skills of predicting and planning, and collecting,
interpreting, evaluating and reviewing primary and secondary data within the context of a whole
investigation. Candidates should be familiar with these requirements before starting any controlled
assessment task.
It is expected that candidates will be involved in a variety of practical work during the course that will
prepare them for this assessment. This should include developing their abilities to handle equipment
and carry out practical procedures safely, illustrating science principles with real experiences and
learning how to carry out and evaluate investigations.