Participant Sample Selection

Group Y11 Students Y12 Students Y13 Students HEI Lecturers

Number Eleven Eight Seven Two

Invited/Asked Thirty-one Nine Seven Two

Gender Split Five Male, Six Female Two Female, Six Male Two Female, Five Male One Male, One Female

Figure 11: Table of participants

As described above, the participants in the interviews and focus groups were either my students or those through which I had a professional or personal acquaintance. While this may seem to fall within the categorisation of a ‘convenience sample’, one that involves choosing the nearest individuals as respondents (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011), I follow Gall, Borg, and Gall’s (1996) view that a proximal sample is not automatically weak if the sample suits the purpose of the study. It is argued here that the selection of participants is purposive; that is to say that they have been selected because of some characteristic other than convenience (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011).

Combining the ideas of Patton (1990) and Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) the student focus groups were intended to represent a combination purposive sample, in that they afford triangulation with nationally reported statistics (as well as each other), and that they demonstrate multiple interests and needs. For example, within the classes that were selected there is useful variation - a mix of boys and girls, some students who have chosen to study Physics further and some that have not (or are intending to drop the subject part- way through the course), some that achieve highly and some less so, those that seem to enjoy Physics and some that do not. Thus my knowledge of the classes as a teacher assisted in their selection.

The views of these students are considered useful and valid, however they are not intended to be described as representative of all students nor a particular sub-group that is of

interest as a ‘stratified purposeful’ case (Patton, 1990). The nature of the Y11 self-selection resulted in volunteers who, while unique individuals, could all be described as eager and articulate. While this does limit the extent to which these students’ views may represent those of all students, that is not the intention of their inclusion or invitation. In seeking to understand why these students made certain life decisions, and to interrogate why they enjoy certain school subjects and aspects of the curriculum, a varied sample was

considered. However, the focus of the research on A level Physics required additional considerations. Of the three groups, two are made up from those who selected to study it; the Y11 group, as the Triple Science group, are those more likely to consider Physics as an option (rather than a Combined Science group of low ability, who would not consider studying the subject for reasons beyond the scope of the study). As such the research does not attempt to suggest that these students’ views will be reflective of all students; instead, the nature of the focus groups is to continue to narrow the focus of the study into smaller regions in order to contextualise the wider issues and discourses and see how they are experienced in local environments and contexts.

Turning to the HEI interviews I chose a ‘confirming/disconfirming purposive’ approach. Ball (1990) considers the selection of participants because they are knowledgeable people purposive (and of intrinsic value) in of itself. Hence the HEI lecturers were selected due to their in-depth knowledge of physics and its teaching, their experience of HE Physics and experiences within the sector, their specific professional roles affording them knowledge and understanding of the A level to undergraduate transition, and their experience of working in schools during outreach programmes. I did not, however, believe that this was sufficient grounds to consider the views of HEI lecturers on the basis of being a ‘critical case’ – despite the possibility that they may “yield insights that might have wider application” and “illuminating issues on the topic which are of wider concern and use” that is the key feature of Teddlie and Tashakkori’s sub-category (2009, p. 174). The notion of a ‘critical case’ suggests an element of uniqueness, significance, and elements of power that I believe is lacking from the lecturers’ definition. This is not to say that their views and experiences did not contain illuminating aspects or wider application, but that part of their selection and

inclusion in the study was to consider their experiences as Physics lecturers and to search for areas of similarity and difference with that which was suggested by the document analysis, thereby acting as a triangulation with other publicly expressed views of other HEIs and the IoP. This was more akin to Patton’s (1990) description of a confirming or

disconfirming sample, with an opportunistic element and a flexibility from a semi-structured interview approach allowing for the possibility that new avenues, considerations and areas may emerge during the interview (Mason, 2002).

As described later, the students involved in the research were invited to attend the focus groups. The focus groups were optional, with the Y11 session taking place at a lunchtime that was during a lesson with me34_{, and the Y12 and Y13 sessions taking place in an optional}

lesson. This was the chosen strategy due to a will to combine two suggestions, the first from Greig and Taylor (1999, p. 131) that as natural a setting as possible is preferred –

interpreted here a session with myself (their teacher) and in ‘our’ classroom. The second was a synthesised combination of slightly contradictory suggestions from Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2011, p. 433) that an informal setting is helpful but also that a formality can convey how important the session is. To do this the session was informal and optional, but with the classroom setting and my presence affording an element of formality and routine. Further description of the nature of the interviews and focus groups such as contextual participant information, location, length, and make-up of the groups/interviewees is found at the beginning of each of their respective sections. I now turn to the ethical considerations of the study, in particular the interview and focus groups.

34 _{This situation is due to some year groups at my school having their lunchtime scheduled part-way through a}

lesson. Here the students left the lesson, ate their lunch, and returned to the classroom before the start of the lesson resumed.