We all know men vastly outnumber women in post-16 physics take-up. Just 2 per cent of girls commence A-level physics, representing less than a fifth of the total cohort. The situation gets even worse during the two sixth-form years, with around 40 per cent of those girls then failing to take the final exams (see bit.ly/WhyNotPhysics and bit.ly/AlevelTakeup).

I was struck by this phenomenon when teaching at my first school, a large co-educational academy in South London with A* outcomes in its triple-science GCSE classes. I took up the challenge of part-time MEd study to find out more, and quickly realised that many academics shared my curiosity. I also discovered that attempts to address the shortfall suffer from a desire for a silver-bullet solution, when what we really need is a better appreciation of the complexity of the problem in the context of each school.

What does the research say?

The Institute of Physics (IOP) published It’s Different for Girls in 2012. The report increased public awareness of the issue and highlighted variations in uptake based on school type. Girls at single-sex or independent schools were found to be more likely to progress to physics A level than alternative schools. This year’s Why Not Physics? update reveals that more than half of schools still have no more than one girl taking A-level physics. Many students choose biology and chemistry instead, even when they have weaker GCSE scores in those subjects than in physics.

Why might this be the case? Louise Archer and the Aspires project team at the UCL Institute of Education (IoE) have found that most 10- to 14-year-olds aspire to professional and technical careers, yet few recognise that becoming a scientist could offer the job satisfaction they value. The researchers also found that the masculinity typically associated with physics can make it difficult for teenage girls to reconcile their femininity with academic success in the subject.

Meanwhile, interviews conducted during the Understanding Participation rates in post-16 Mathematics And Physics (Upmap) project, also at the IoE, identified that physics undergraduates were likely to have been encouraged by an influential adult to pursue the subject; notably, girls experience such encouragement less often than boys.

The selection of physics also relies on having been well taught. Students’ perceptions of how “good” they are correlate with their future attainment - in fact, self-reported ability in the subject can act as an effective grade-prediction tool. On the other hand, where students doubt their ability, the act of not choosing physics can be a form of defence against failure.

There is some debate about the significance of the influence of the peer group. Students consider their personal enjoyment of a subject to be more important than the influence of others, but I would suggest that the two are inextricably linked, albeit unconsciously.

How does this relate to practice?

Most of the research on this issue finds common ground in its recommendations.

To improve the balance of students taking physics, interactive careers information should be embedded in the curriculum. The IOP resources for consulting with girls, inviting role models into schools and identifying the relevance of physics might be of benefit here. This gives students the ability to make a proactive rather than reactive choice. Teachers, meanwhile, can evaluate the communication in their lessons by implementing the “science capital teaching approach” and are advised to adapt the format of science clubs to become more project-led.

But I will admit that none of this provides a ready-made quick fix. Indeed, the IOP has also published the Girls Into Physics: action research manual for teachers who would like to set about investigating their own specific classroom concerns.

Despite good intentions, these recommendations - including the appointment of a whole-school gender champion, gender analysis of subject progression, provision of unconscious-bias training, work on stereotypes in PSHE and preparation of students in advance of options evenings - are highly unlikely to reach the eyes of the intended senior-management audience.

What do girls dislike in physics?

In my project, I used a modified Relevance of Science Education (Rose) questionnaire to survey students about lessons, the curriculum, science in society and everyday engagement with physics.

I found boys are at least content with all physics topics, but girls dislike aspects of the GCSE specification (electricity production, nuclear power, and atoms and molecules).

The girls, interviewed across the key stages, were also put off A-level physics by specific exam pressures, the mathematical demands, a repetitive scheme of work and a failure to see the relevance of experiments.

I also discovered that “high-ability” science classes in key stage 3 were set based on prior maths Sats results, but had very few girls.

Finally, girls recognise the influence of their family, gender-role stereotyping in society and teachers on their choices, and feel that they lack role models in science. To improve matters, they suggest that physics be “forced” upon girls through clear careers advice that makes the subject seem like a no-brainer.

After the project, I made the following recommendations to my senior management:

● Check the gender distribution when setting in key stage 3.

● Fund CPD for teachers.

● Create community science outreach links.

● Allocate physics lesson time to teach maths in the required terminology.

● Appoint a head of physics to outline whole-school physics vertically.

Did the interventions work?

My ideas were implemented, and in the next academic year more girls (well, four!) did select physics. But I suspect that the very act of my taking an interest raised girls’ consciousness of physics as an option. I had also run a student-led Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) club with entrants to the Big Bang Competition and modified the curriculum for all KS3 students to attempt a Crest project.

But I would caution against assuming the efficacy of this guidance nationwide and urge all physics teachers to identify any barriers their students face at their own schools.

Let us not lose sight of other inequalities in subject selection either - socio-economic background, ethnicity, and special educational needs and disability (SEND) status to suggest a few.

There is no silver bullet. We should empower our students to make well-informed decisions, free from covert bias, and respond to the context of our own school as we find it.

Emma Mitchell is head of higher education at Whitgift School in South Croydon and is studying for an EdD at the UCL Institute of Education. She tweets @emmaphysics

Acknowledgements: Dr Elaine Wilson and Dr Fran Riga at the University of Cambridge

Find out more

● IOP: bit.ly/IOPGender

● Aspires: bit.ly/AspiresIoE

● Upmap: bit.ly/UpmapIoE

● Rose: roseproject.no

● Big Bang: competition. thebigbangfair.co.uk

● Crest: crestawards.org