Advertisement

UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATION RATES IN POST-16 MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS: CONCEPTUALISING AND OPERATIONALISING THE UPMAP PROJECT

  • Michael ReissEmail author
  • Celia Hoyles
  • Tamjid Mujtaba
  • Bijan Riazi-Farzad
  • Melissa Rodd
  • Shirley Simon
  • Fani Stylianidou
Article

Abstract

We report on a project currently in progress that aims to identify through research the range of factors (individual, school and out-of-school, including home) and their interactions that influence post-16 (i.e. post-compulsory) participation in mathematics and physics in the UK and to assess their relative importance among different student populations. In this project, we are beginning to elucidate the views of students and examine the sources of these views by exploring the contexts in which both school and university students experience barriers or opportunities and form their identities with regard to participation in mathematics and physics. Our focus in this paper is on our methodology, the reasons for it and how and why our approach to data collection developed during the project. We situate our work within a mixed-methods approach, using multilevel modelling and discourse analysis to analyse and interpret our findings that derive from our own questionnaires, interviews and ethnography and from existing large-scale datasets. We argue that greater acknowledgement in the education literatures that investigate student participation in mathematics and science needs to be made than is usual of the range of factors, including unconscious forces that may affect participation.

Key Words

choice defences mathematics mixed methods multilevel modelling participation physics school factors unconscious forces 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, M., Squire, C. & Tamboukou, M. (Eds.). (2008). Doing Narrative Research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Black, L., Mendick, H. & Solomon, Y. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematical Relationships in Education: Identities and Participation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Blalock, C. L., Lichtenstein, M. J., Owen, S., Pruski, L., Marshall, C. & Toepperwein, M. (2008). In Pursuit of Validity: A Comprehensive Review of Science Attitude Instruments 1935–2005. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 961–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blenkinsop, S., McCrone, T., Wade, P. & Morris, M. (2006). How do Young People make Choices at 14 and 16? Research Report 773. Nottingham: DfES.Google Scholar
  5. Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boaler, J. (2009). The Elephant in the Classroom: Helping Children Learn and Love Maths. London: Souvenir Press.Google Scholar
  7. Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning to ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, M., Brown, P. & Bibby, T. (2008). “I Would Rather die”: Reasons Given by 16-year-olds for not Continuing their Study of Mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 10, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cann, R. (2009). Girls’ Participation in post-16 Mathematics: A view from Pupils in Wales. Gender and Education, 21, 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson, S. (1999). Shaping the Future: 2 – Physics in Mathematical Mood. Bristol: Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  11. Centre for Longitudinal Studies (2010). Cohort Studies. http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/ (last accessed 5 December 2010).
  12. Chase, S. E. (2008). Narrative Inquiry: Multiple Lenses, Approaches, Voices. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 57–94). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Cleaves, A. (2005). The Formation of Science Choices in Secondary School. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 471–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gill, T., Vidal Rodeiro, C.L. & Bell, J.F. (2009). The complexities surrounding the uptake of A-level Physics. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Manchester University, September 2009.Google Scholar
  15. Glenn, D. W. & Jackson, C. (1994). The Personality of Physicists. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 187–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldstein, H., Burgess, S. & McConell, B. (2007). Modelling the Effect of Pupil Mobility on School Differences in Educational Achievement. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, 170, 941–954.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, J., Schagen, I. & Charles, M. (2004). Tracking Pupil Progress from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2: How much do the 'Route' Taken and the Primary School Attended Matter? Research Papers in Education, 19, 389–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hannover, B. & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-Self Prototype Matching as a Strategy for Making Academic Choices. Why High School Students do not Like Math and Science. Learning and Instruction, 14, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harré, R. & Gillett, G. (1995). The Discursive Mind. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Hay, I. & Ashman, A. F. (2003). The Development of Adolescents' Emotional Stability and General Self-Concept: The Interplay of Parents, Peers, and Gender. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50, 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollins, M., Murphy, P., Ponchaud, B. & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls in the Physics Classroom: A Teachers’ Guide for Action. London: Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  22. Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Institute For Social & Economic Research (2010) The UK Longitudinal Studies Centre. http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/survey/ulsc (last accessed 5 December 2010).
  24. Kenedy, E. & Charles, S. C. (1990). On Becoming a Counsellor (2nd ed.). Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Kyriacou, C. & Goulding, M. (2006). A systematic review of strategies to raise pupils’ motivational effort in Key Stage 4 Mathematics. Report. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  26. Lord, P. & Jones, M. (2006). Pupils’ Experiences and Perspectives of the National Curriculum and Assessment: Final Report for the Research Review. Slough: NFER.Google Scholar
  27. Marsh, H.W. (1992). Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) II: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of adolescent self-concept. A test manual and research monograph. Macarthur, New South Wales, Australia: University of Western Sydney, Faculty of Education.Google Scholar
  28. Matthews, A. & Pepper, D. (2007). Evaluation of Participation in a Level Mathematics: Final Report. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Agency.Google Scholar
  29. Mendick, H. (2006). Masculinities in Mathematics. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. MLwiN (2009). MLwiN: A software package for fitting multilevel models. Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol. http://www.cmm.bristol.ac.uk/MLwiN/index.shtml (last accessed 31 December 2009).
  32. Murphy, P. & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls in the Physics Classroom: A Review of the Research on the Participation of Girls in Physics. London: Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  33. Nardi, E. & Steward, S. (2003). Is Mathematics T.I.R.E.D? A Profile of Quiet Disaffection in the Secondary Mathematics Classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nimier, J. (1993). Defence Mechanisms Against Mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 13, 30–34.Google Scholar
  35. Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes Towards Science: A Review of the Literature and its Implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. QCA Research Faculty (2007). Evaluation of participation in GCE mathematics: Final report, QCA/07/3388. London: QCA. Available at http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/QCA_3388_Maths_GCE_eval_report.pdf (last accessed 30 December 2009).
  37. Reiss, M. J. (2000). Understanding Science Lessons: Five Years of Science Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Reiss, M. J. (2005). The importance of Affect in Science Education. In S. Alsop (Ed.), Beyond Cartesian Dualism: Encountering Affect in the Teaching and Learning of Science (pp. 17–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. Rodd, M. & Bartholomew, H. (2006). Invisible and Special: Young Women's Experiences as Undergraduate Mathematics Students. Gender & Education, 18, 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sammons, P. (2011). The Contribution of Mixed Methods to Recent Research on Educational Effectiveness. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Sammons, P., Day, C., Kington, A., Gu, Q., Stobart, G. & Smees, R. (2007). Exploring Variations in Teachers' Work, Lives and Their Effects on Students: Key Findings and Implications from a Longitudinal Mixed Methods Study. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 681–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden: Norwegian Youth’s Orientations Towards Science—Seen as Signs of Late Modern Identities. Oslo: Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  43. Sfard, A. & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling Identities: In Search of an Analytic tool for Investigating Learning as a Culturally Shaped Activity. Educational Researcher, 34, 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shanahan, M.-C. (2009). Identity in Science Learning: Exploring the Attention Given to Agency and Structure in Studies of Identity. Studies in Science Education, 45, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smithers, A. & Robinson, P. (2005). Physics in Schools and Colleges: Teacher Deployment and Student Outcomes. Buckingham: The Carmichael Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sullivan, A. (2006). Students as Rational Decision-Makers: The Question of Beliefs and Attitudes. London Review of Education, 4, 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taconis, R. & Kessels, U. (2009). How Choosing Science Depends on Students’ Individual fit to ‘Science Culture’. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1115–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UPMAP (2009). Home page. http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/departments/gems/4814.html (last accessed 13 December 2009).
  49. Valero, P. (2009). Mathematical Relationships in Education. In L. Black, H. Mendick & Y. Solomon (Eds.), Identities and Participation (pp. 213–226). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Walkerdine, V. (1998). Counting Girls out: Girls and Mathematics. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  51. Williams, P. (2008). Independent review of mathematics teaching in early years settings and primary schools: Final report. London: DCSF. Available at http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/Williams%20Mathematics.pdf (last accessed 30 December 2009).

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Reiss
    • 1
    Email author
  • Celia Hoyles
    • 1
  • Tamjid Mujtaba
    • 1
  • Bijan Riazi-Farzad
    • 1
  • Melissa Rodd
    • 1
  • Shirley Simon
    • 1
  • Fani Stylianidou
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations