R1. Research Methodology and Sample

R1.1 A series of ten mini group discussions were conducted among school pupils aged between 8 (Yr 4) and 18 (Yr 13 - Upper 6th). Each group comprised 5-6 respondents and was 45 minutes to one hour in duration. The students were recruited in friendship pairs, with only one gender and one school being represented in any group.

R1.2 The student groups were structured as follows:

Group	Age	Sex	School
1	8-9	F	School A; Hertfordshire **
2	9-10	M	School B; Bristol *
3	10-11	F	School C; Surrey **
4	11-12	M	School D; Essex
5	12-13	F	School E; Surrey
6	13-14	M	School F; Hertfordshire
7	14-15	F	School G; Bristol
8	15-16	M	School H; Bristol *
9	16-17	F	School I; Surrey
10	17-18	M	School J; Bristol *

R1.3 Of the three primary schools included in the sample, two (marked **) had been sent "activity box" resource material provided by the Institution of Chemical Engineers. In fact only School A was aware of having received it. School C had no knowledge of the "Boxes in Schools" material. This mirrors our experience with another school initially contacted but not included in the project who were also on record as having been sent the activity box but were not aware of having received one. Whilst this may be due to teacher turnover, it does mean that the boxes are unlikely to have been used recently.

R1.4 Of the other schools recruited, three (marked *) were named by CST as schools known to have a positive attitude towards scientific investigation. This does not imply that the other schools did not.

R1.5 The other five schools were chosen at random, with the intention of comparing the perceptions, attitudes and understanding of these respondents (where school may or may not have a positive attitude towards science) with those from schools known to have such an approach. In the event, all secondary schools represented in the sample claimed to have links of some kind with science, engineering and technology in the 'real world'.

R1.6 It should be noted however that whilst the head teachers or heads of departments claimed to have these links in a short questionnaire-based interview prior to the group discussions, few of the respondents were able to recall having participated in any associated activity.

Equally, whilst School A claimed to have used the resource material provided by the 'Boxes in Schools', none of the children interviewed were aware specifically of having done so. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that they have not been exposed to the material and have not learnt from it.

R1.7 Ability and social background were left to fall out naturally. In the event, a broad social spectrum was achieved although there was bias towards children from more affluent working class and middle class homes.

Perhaps partly as a reflection of this, while less able children were included in the sample, the majority tended to be intelligent and articulate.

R1.8 All respondents in groups 9 and 10 were studying for at least one science A-Level. All had high academic aspirations, especially the boys in group 10 who were very science orientated and were usually aiming for a science/engineering related career.

R1.9 In addition to the ten student groups, two mini group discussions were conducted among teachers. One group comprised 5-6 primary school teachers, half of whom were science coordinators/post holders. The other comprised 5-6 science teachers in secondary school, with a range of subjects being represented. Each group discussion was an hour in duration.

No more than two teachers were recruited from any one school. The schools represented in the sample were chosen at random and were not expected to meet any specific criteria.

R1.10 All schools represented in the sample, either in the student or the teacher groups, were asked to provide specific information on the:

student profile;
number of qualified science teachers employed;
examining boards used for GCSE and A-Level science;
links with professional science/industry;
health and safety education resource material used.

A summary of each school's responses is included in Appendix I of this report.

R1.11 Each group discussion followed an agreed Topic Guide which covered the following areas:

understanding and interpretation of the concepts of danger and risk;
awareness of danger and risk in everyday life, attitudes towards it and how one responds to it;
an assessment of the relative likelihood of a number of possible occurrences;
awareness of and attitudes towards risk in science:
- in school;
- in the outside world;
and whence these perceptions derive;
how safety is taught in science, how useful it is and whether this is applicable to life outside school.

Although the same Topic Guide was used across all student groups, it was spontaneously adapted to suit the level of each age group interviewed. Copies of the Students' and Teachers' Topic Guides are included in Appendix II.