The Impact of a Science Qualification Emphasising Scientific Literacy on Post-compulsory Science Participation: An analysis using national data

Abstract

In 2006 in England an innovative suite of science qualifications for 14–16-year-olds called Twenty-First Century Science (21CS) was introduced. These qualifications have a strong focus on developing scientific literacy in all students whilst simultaneously providing preparation for the study of post-compulsory science for a smaller proportion of students. Claims have been made that such an innovative qualification would impact significantly on post-compulsory science participation—either positively or negatively. Using national data in England to track one cohort of students over 2007–2011, this study compares progression rates to post-compulsory science qualifications in England between 21CS qualifications and more traditional non-21CS qualifications. Methods employed include simple comparisons of proportions progressing from each qualification, and more complex multi-level modelling approaches that take account of both students clustered in schools, and potentially differing demographic and achievement profiles of students in the 2 groups of qualifications. A simple descriptive analysis shows that there is very little difference in overall progression rates between the 2 types of 14–16 science qualification. More fine-grained descriptive analyses show that there are some important differences, based in particular on the interaction between the amount of science studied at ages 14–16, and on the post-16 science qualification chosen (biology, chemistry or physics). Furthermore, sophisticated modelling analyses indicate a consistently negative small to moderate impact on progression from the 21CS qualification. Overall, our findings suggest that the emphasis on scientific literacy within the 21CS qualification suite has not had a major impact on the uptake of post-compulsory science qualifications.

Keywords:

• Scientific Literacy
• Curriculum Reform
• Post-compulsory Participation

Acknowledgements

The National Pupil Database data were obtained after a request to the Data Services group at the Department for Education in London, UK. We are grateful for their efficient and prompt responses to our queries.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study.

2. http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/national-pupil-database.

3. Recall that any estimated effect is independent of all other effects. In other words, the estimates are interpreted as if all other predictors are controlled for.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Nuffield Foundation (www.nuffieldfoundation.org) under grant EDU/40106.