evaluation of the lab in a lorry programme · evaluation of the lab in a lorry programme: final...

Evaluation of the Lab in a Lorry Programme

Final report for

the Institute of Physics

30 March 2017

Dr Anna Grant

Dr Kathy Seymour

Jenny Smith

AlphaPlus Consultancy Ltd

Evaluation of the Lab in a Lorry Programme: Final report

Contents Executive summary ........................................................................................................1

Background to the programme ...................................................................................................... 1 Focus for this report ....................................................................................................................... 1 Data collection ............................................................................................................................... 2 Key messages ................................................................................................................................. 2 Key findings .................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................6

Background .................................................................................................................................... 6

Evaluation approach and focus ...................................................................................................... 6

Data collection methods .............................................................................................. 11

Online surveys .............................................................................................................................. 11

Teacher survey ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Volunteer survey ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Telephone interviews ................................................................................................................... 13

Teacher interviews .................................................................................................................................. 13 Volunteer interviews ............................................................................................................................... 13

Case study research ..................................................................................................................... 14

Pupil survey .................................................................................................................................. 15

Evaluation findings: Volunteers .................................................................................... 16

Volunteers’ experiences and perceptions .................................................................................... 16

Initial awareness and reasons for volunteering ...................................................................................... 16 Pre-event information............................................................................................................................. 17 On-site training and support ................................................................................................................... 18 Overall perceptions ................................................................................................................................. 20

Volunteers’ skills and personal development .............................................................................. 23

Communication skills .............................................................................................................................. 23 Team working skills ................................................................................................................................. 25 Other skills .............................................................................................................................................. 26 Volunteers’ perceptions of personal gains ............................................................................................. 27

Working with pupils ..................................................................................................................... 28

Volunteering in the future ........................................................................................................... 29

New volunteer experiences ......................................................................................................... 30

Findings from one-off interviews with new volunteers .......................................................................... 30 New volunteer case studies .................................................................................................................... 32

Returning volunteer experiences ................................................................................................. 35

Evaluation findings: Teachers and the wider school ...................................................... 39

Teachers’ perceptions of gains ..................................................................................................... 39

Use of post-visit experiment sheets ............................................................................................. 39


Impact on teaching practice ......................................................................................................... 40

LIAL visit outcomes for the wider school ..................................................................................... 40

Evaluation findings: Pupils ........................................................................................... 42

Pupils’ experience during the Lab session ................................................................................... 42

Pupils’ reactions immediately after the Lab session .................................................................... 43

Pupils’ responses during the days following the Lab session ...................................................... 44

Teachers’ perceptions of what pupils gained .............................................................................. 45

Effect on pupils’ attitude to science/STEM subjects .................................................................... 45

Pupil exit survey outcomes .......................................................................................................... 46

Evaluation findings: A repeat Lab visit .......................................................................... 48

Event evaluation outcomes .......................................................................................... 51

Suggestions for changes ............................................................................................... 53

Appendix 1: Volunteers’ most memorable moments .................................................... 54

Appendix 2: Pupils’ responses following the Lab session .............................................. 59


Tables

Table 1: Number of responding schools, by language medium ............................................................ 11

Table 2: Number and percentage of respondents with each degree subject ....................................... 12

Table 3: Number/percentage of respondents teaching physics at different levels .............................. 12

Table 4: Interviewed staff members’ role at their school ..................................................................... 13

Table 5: Where did you first hear about Lab in a Lorry? ....................................................................... 16

Table 6: Reasons for volunteering with Lab in a Lorry .......................................................................... 17

Table 7: Summary of issues raised in the comments on the pre-event information ............................ 18

Table 8: Summary of issues raised in the comments on on-site training and support ......................... 19

Table 9: Extent to which volunteers enjoyed their LIAL experience ..................................................... 20

Table 10: Summary of issues raised in the comments on what volunteers liked best about the day .. 21

Table 11: Summary of suggestions made by volunteers in their survey responses ............................. 22

Table 12: Summary of topics raised in respondents’ ‘further comments’ ............................................ 23

Table 13: Extent to which volunteers’ communication skills have improved ....................................... 23

Table 14: Summary of ways in which respondents’ communication skills had improved .................... 24

Table 15: Extent to which volunteers’ team working skills had improved ........................................... 25

Table 16: Summary of ways in which respondents’ team working skills had improved ....................... 26

Table 17: Whether volunteers developed other new skills as a result of their Lab experience ........... 26

Table 18: Summary of other skills developed by volunteers during the Lab experience ..................... 26

Table 19: Summary of what respondents had gained personally from the volunteering experience . 28

Table 20: Summary of what volunteers felt pupils had gained from the Lab experience .................... 29

Table 21: Whether respondents signed up to the STEM Ambassador scheme as a result of the LIAL programme ............................................................................................................................................ 30

Table 22: Whether respondents mentioned the STEM Ambassador role to teachers at the schools .. 30

Table 23: Summary of new volunteers’ experiences and perceptions based on their survey and interview responses .............................................................................................................................. 31

Table 24: Summary of returning volunteers’ experiences and perceptions based on their survey and interview responses .............................................................................................................................. 35

Table 25: Summary of pupil reactions immediately after the Lab session as reported by teachers .... 44

Table 26: Teachers’ views on what types of pupil gained most from the Lab visit .............................. 45

Table 27: Volunteers’ most memorable moments from the Lab .......................................................... 54

Table 28: The types of things pupils said during the days following the Lab visit as reported by teachers ................................................................................................................................................. 59


Figures Figure 1: LIAL programme logic model .................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Satisfaction with aspects of the pre-event information ........................................................ 17

Figure 3: Lab visit outcomes for wider school ....................................................................................... 41

Figure 4: Teachers’ perceptions of student experience in the Lab ....................................................... 42

Figure 5: Pupils’ responses to statements about the impact of the Lab ............................................... 47

Figure 6: Teachers’ evaluations of different aspects of the Lab visit .................................................... 51


Page 1

Executive summary Background to the programme The Lab in a Lorry (LIAL) programme was set up by the Institute of Physics (IOP) in 2005 to address

concerns about the long-term supply of scientists and engineers in the UK and Ireland, and to foster

the public's support and engagement in science. LIAL takes the form of a mobile science laboratory

that brings hands-on, open-ended physics experiments to secondary schools.

The project offers pupils aged 11-14 years the opportunity to experience science as it is done in the

real world as opposed to simply repeating demonstrations where the outcome is already known. The

project also gives scientists and engineers a structured and supported opportunity to inspire and

enthuse the next generation by acting as volunteers to present and engage pupils in science

experiments.

LIAL is free to schools and aims to require minimal organisational effort from teachers. The LIAL team

works with local agencies, including Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Network

(STEMNET), and the IOP’s Teacher Network, to identify and target schools that do not usually take

advantage of STEM activities. By mid-2015, LIAL had embarked on several tours across the UK,

engaging over 200,000 pupils at approximately 1,500 schools and recruiting more than 3,000

volunteers.

Lab in a Lorry received funding from the Welsh Government to visit secondary schools throughout

Wales between September 2015 and March 2017. AlphaPlus Consultancy Ltd was commissioned to

undertake an evaluation of this Welsh tour. This evaluation report is based on data collected during

the Welsh tour 2015-2017 and the findings presented in this report apply to that time period only.

Focus for this report

This final report focuses on findings regarding the extent to which the intended outcomes and impact

of the LIAL programme have been achieved in/for pupils, teachers and volunteers. The report

answers the following evaluation questions:

1. What is the role of volunteers in the programme and how is this valuable to the volunteers

and the programme?

2. To what extent do the LIAL visits increase science teachers’ awareness of other STEM

enhancement and enrichment activities/opportunities, including STEM Ambassadors’ ‘offer’,

and take-up of IOP membership?

3. To what extent has the LIAL visit encouraged/inspired science teachers to introduce LIAL

style open-ended, experimental activities in the science classroom (unless they were already

using such approaches)?

4. To what extent has the Lab visit and any follow-up activities organised by their science

teacher had an impact on pupils’ attitude to science?


Page 2

5. To what extent has the LIAL experience encouraged pupils to consider studying STEM

subjects at GCSE level and/or a STEM-based career?

6. To what extent have the intended outcomes been achieved in one school that has had two

visits from the LIAL?

Data collection

The findings presented in this report are based on primary data collected using the following

methods from the stated number of people:

• An online survey for science teachers – 40 respondents

• An online survey for Lab volunteers – 114 respondents

• Telephone interviews with a sample of:

o new volunteers – six interviewees

o returning volunteers – seven interviewees

o science teachers – nine interviewees

• Face-to-face and telephone interviews with science teachers at a selected, single case study

school – two interviewees, where one was interviewed twice

• A quick ‘exit survey’ with pupils at the end of their session in the Lab at a sample of schools –

535 on two questions and 286 on one question

Key messages

The role of volunteers in the programme

Volunteering in the Lab in a Lorry has been a positive experience for volunteers and enabled them to

further develop their existing communication and team working skills.

The large majority of volunteers are willing to volunteer again, provided the Lab continues to offer a

positive experience for them and for the pupils in terms of enthusing them about physics and STEM

subjects.

Some volunteers have also been encouraged to volunteer in other STEM roles, such as the STEM

Ambassador scheme, as a result of their Lab volunteering experience.

LIAL visit outcomes for science teachers

The majority of science teachers had looked at the materials detailing LIAL style science activities

provided by the Lab team after the visit and had found the suggested activities useful.

Some teachers reported that the Lab had inspired them to undertake more LIAL style activities in

class than before and some others said that they lacked the time and equipment to do so.

LIAL visit outcomes for the wider school


Page 3

The Lab visit had increased half the science teachers’ awareness of other STEM enhancement and

enrichment activities/opportunities.

It had prompted one third of teachers to contact a local STEM Ambassador to arrange for them to

come and run an activity with their science pupils.

The effect of the Lab in a Lorry experience on pupils

A large majority of pupils reported having learned something new about the real world during their

session in the Lab.

For one in five pupils the Lab provided their first chance to meet someone with a science job.

In the science teachers’ view, the Lab experience had been a source of inspiration and one piece of a

larger jigsaw encouraging their pupils to consider studying STEM subjects at GCSE level and beyond.

Key findings The role of volunteers in the programme

Volunteers were generally highly positive about their experiences in the Lab, both in terms of

personal and professional development and in terms of enjoying the experience and gaining a sense

of satisfaction and achievement when they see the pupils engaging and becoming enthusiastic about

science.

A key intended outcome of the LIAL programme is ‘volunteers have improved their communication

and team working skills’. The data collected during the LIAL evaluation provides the following

evidence on the extent to which this outcome is being achieved:

• Ninety-six per cent of volunteers who completed the survey said that their communication

skills had been developed to some degree as a result of volunteering in the Lab.

• Nearly a third said that their communication skills had developed a great deal and just over a

third said those skills had developed a fair amount.

• For many volunteers this was in terms of communicating and interacting with a younger

audience than they were used to.

• Others said that the experience had taught them to rapidly adapt what they are saying

and/or how they say it in response to the levels of interest, knowledge or engagement

evident among the audience.

• Somewhat fewer volunteers reported improvement in their team working skills than in

communication skills with 86% saying that there had been some level of improvement in this

area.

• One in seven said that they had developed their team working skills a great deal and two in

five said those skills had developed a fair amount.

• Volunteers’ team working skills had developed by having to negotiate tasks and work

alongside different teams of volunteers at each event and having to ensure that a positive

and coherent experience is presented to the pupils with little time to prepare.

The evaluation also sought to evidence the extent to which ‘volunteer scientists and engineers have

volunteered again and become involved in other science engagement and outreach activities’.


Page 4

• All but two volunteer survey respondents said that they would volunteer in the Lab again in

the future.

• Provided the Lab continues to offer a positive experience for them as volunteers and for the

pupils in terms of enthusing them about physics and STEM, many volunteers are very willing

to continue to volunteer.

• More than half of respondents were already STEM Ambassadors and a further quarter said

that they had signed up to the scheme as a result of volunteering in the Lab.

• Most of those who were STEM Ambassadors said they were fairly active in this role, and

those who were less active tended to be so due to practical constraints such as a lack of time

and travelling distances.

• Very few volunteers had undertaken other relevant volunteering activities outside the LIAL

or STEM Ambassador scheme but where they had, this tended to be via existing links, such as

helping at the local school.

LIAL visit outcomes for science teachers

The LIAL programme has been looking to inspire science teachers to introduce LIAL style follow-up

science activities in class following the Lab visit. The key findings regarding introducing LIAL style

activities are:

• Three quarters of the teachers who responded to an online survey said that they had used or

were planning to use the post-visit experiment sheets (detailing LIAL style science activities)

provided to them after the Lab visit.

• Half the interviewed teachers had had a look at the post-visit experiment sheets, thought

that they were useful and had used one or two of them or were planning to add them to

their schemes of work when it became topical.

• A few teachers confirmed that they were more likely to undertake LIAL style activities in class

than before.

• Those who had already been undertaking open-ended, experimental activities in the science

classroom said that they would continue doing so at the same level as before.

• Some teachers said that they did not have the time or equipment to implement such

activities.


The outcomes sought by the LIAL programme regarding individual teachers and the wider school are

an increase in science teachers’ awareness of other STEM enhancement and enrichment activities/

opportunities, including STEM Ambassadors’ ‘offer’, and take-up of IOP membership.

• The Lab visit had increased just over half the surveyed science teachers’ awareness of other

STEM enhancement and enrichment activities/opportunities.

• It had prompted one third of teachers to contact a local STEM Ambassador to arrange for

them to come and run an activity with their science pupils.

• Just under one third of teachers had become motivated to find out about and/or consider

taking up individual IOP membership following the Lab visit.


Page 5

• Nearly half the teachers reported that the visit had prompted their school to find out about

and/or consider joining IOP as an Affiliated School.

The effect of the Lab in a Lorry experience on pupils

The key impact that the LIAL programme intends to achieve regarding pupils is to encourage them to

consider studying STEM subjects at GCSE level and to take up a STEM-based career in the future.

While it was not possible to evidence the extent to which one session in the Lab visit contributes to

these choices (due to both other variables and the timeframe of the evaluation), it was possible to

collect data on pupils’ experience and perceptions of the Lab visit that may, in part, contribute to the

intended impact later.

Evidence from a short survey with over 500 pupils suggests that:

• the majority (98%) had understood something new about the real world during the Lab

session

• nearly one in five pupils had not met anyone with a science job (other than their science

teacher) until their Lab session

• just under half (43%) of pupils responding to a question of whether they would imagine

doing a science job in the future said yes right after their session in the Lab

Evidence from the science teachers, who teach the pupils, suggests that the Lab experience had:

• enhanced pupils’ understanding of how science is connected to the real world

• been a source of inspiration and one piece of a larger jigsaw encouraging their pupils to

consider studying STEM subject at GCSE level and beyond

• facilitated contact with pupils and knowledgeable people with a science background, which

had inspired some pupils to begin considering a science career


Page 6

Introduction Background

The Institute of Physics (IOP) set up the Lab in a Lorry (LIAL) programme in 2005 to address concerns

about the long-term supply of scientists and engineers in the UK and Ireland, and to foster the

public's support and engagement in science. LIAL takes the form of a mobile science laboratory that

brings hands-on, open-ended physics experiments to secondary schools.

The project offers pupils aged 11-14 years the opportunity to experience science as it is done in the

real world as opposed to simply repeating demonstrations where the outcome is already known. The

project also gives scientists and engineers a structured and supported opportunity to inspire and

enthuse the next generation by acting as volunteers to present and engage pupils in science

experiments.

LIAL is free to schools and aims to require minimal organisational effort from teachers. The LIAL team

works with local agencies, including Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Network

(STEMNET), and the IOP’s Teacher Network, to identify and target schools that do not usually take

advantage of STEM activities. By mid-2015 LIAL had embarked on several tours across the UK,

engaging over 200,000 pupils at approximately 1,500 schools and recruiting more than 3,000

volunteers.

Lab in a Lorry received funding from the Welsh Government to visit secondary schools throughout

Wales between September 2015 and March 2017. AlphaPlus Consultancy Ltd was commissioned to

undertake an evaluation of this Welsh tour. This evaluation report is based on data collected during

the Welsh tour 2015-2017 and the findings presented in this report apply to that time period only.

Evaluation approach and focus

A theory of change approach was used in the development of the research design. The approach

included working with the LIAL programme team to:

• make assumptions explicit about the purpose and nature of the programme

• identify key aspects of programme implementation

• gain a shared understanding about what change is being sought

• identify the intended outcomes and expected impact of the intervention

• consider results within a wider context of policy development and strategy

Following discussion with the programme team a theory of change logic model was developed for

the programme. The logic model outlines:

• what the programmes hopes to achieve within the defined timelines i.e. outputs, outcomes,

impact

• how constituent parts of the outputs and outcomes can be mapped to the intended impact

and define expected causal links

• the context for the programme e.g. wider policy drivers


Page 7

The logic model (Figure 1) maps the linked processes underpinning the work and how positive

outcomes, leading to the desired impact, are expected to be achieved. This allows the identification

of expected outcomes and impact and defines the inputs.


Page 8

Figure 1: LIAL programme logic model


Page 9

During the theory of change workshop the expected outcomes and intended impact of the current

Welsh tour were defined in such a way as to make it plausible to focus the evaluation on both

outcomes and impact within the given timeframe. The evaluation has sought to establish the extent

to which the outcomes and impact are being achieved in/for pupils, teachers and volunteers. It has

also sought to understand what has influenced any change, including interdependencies between

different outcomes and impact with regards to pupils, teachers and volunteers.

Based on the theory of change workshop, including the logic model, the following overarching

evaluation questions were developed:

The role of volunteers in the programme

1. What is the role of volunteers in the programme and how is this valuable to the volunteers

and the programme?

LIAL visit outcomes for science teachers and the wider school

2. To what extent do the LIAL visits increase science teachers’ awareness of other STEM

enhancement and enrichment activities/opportunities, including STEM Ambassadors’ ‘offer’,

and take-up of IOP membership?

3. To what extent has the LIAL visit encouraged/inspired science teachers to introduce LIAL



The effect of the LIAL experience on pupils

4. To what extent has the Lab visit and any follow-up activities organised by their science


5. To what extent has the LIAL experience encouraged pupils to consider studying STEM


The effect of a repeat visit on one school

6. To what extent have the intended outcomes been achieved in one school that has had two

visits from the LIAL?

This final evaluation reports on findings regarding all six evaluation questions stated above. Data for

addressing these questions was collected using a range of methods:

Evaluation question 1

• Volunteer online survey and volunteer telephone interviews

Evaluation questions 2-3

• Teacher online survey and teacher telephone interviews

Evaluation questions 4-5

• Teacher online survey and teacher telephone interviews


Page 10

• Quick ‘exit survey’ with pupils as they leave a Lab session

Evaluation question 6

• Face-to-face and telephone interviews with staff at a case study school


Page 11

Data collection methods The findings presented in this report are based on primary data collected using the following

methods:

• An online survey for science teachers

• An online survey for Lab volunteers

• Telephone interviews with a sample of:

o new volunteers

o returning volunteers

o science teachers

• Face-to-face and telephone interviews with science teachers at a selected, single case study

school

• A quick ‘exit survey’ with pupils at the end of their session in the Lab at a sample of schools

Online surveys

One online survey was developed for completion by science teachers and another by the Lab

volunteers. The teacher survey gathered some background information on the school and the

respondent’s role at the school and largely qualitative data on the effects and opinions of the LIAL

programme. A similar approach was taken in the volunteer survey.

Teacher survey

Teachers received a request to provide feedback on the Lab visit within a day or two after the Lab

had left the school. The email was sent to the Lab visit main contact, who was asked to complete the

survey and to forward the request to other teachers involved. If no response from the school was

received within two weeks of the original invitation, a reminder email was sent. After another 10-14

days, the main contact was called by phone to encourage participation.

Of the 54 schools visited, 34 submitted at least one survey response, giving a response rate 63%. In

total, there were 40 individual responses to the survey. The maximum received from any one school

was 2 responses.

School characteristics

Data was collected on the language medium of the school to establish what proportion of teacher

survey responses came from which type of schools. Table 1 shows the language medium of the

schools. Of the 34 schools, 23 were English medium, four Welsh medium and seven bilingual (English

and Welsh).

Table 1: Number of responding schools, by language medium

Type of school n %

English medium 23 68

Welsh medium 4 12

Bilingual 7 20

Total 34 100


Page 12

Respondent characteristics

The teacher survey respondents were asked a few questions about their teaching experience and

degree subject. Table 2 shows the degree subjects the respondents studied at university.

Table 2: Number and percentage of respondents with each degree subject

Degree subject n %

Biology 15 38

Physics 10 25

Chemistry 9 23

Other 6 15

Total 40 100

Those who stated ‘other’ specified a range of subjects as follows: Chemistry and Physics joint

honours, General Science, History (two teachers), senior science technician working with Chemistry

and Physics, Special Educational Needs.

Of the 40 teachers, 25 taught physics at the time of responding to the survey and 15 did not. Table 3

shows how many of the teachers who taught physics did so at the different levels.

Table 3: Number/percentage of respondents teaching physics at different levels

Please note that the percentages total in Table 3 is more than 100 because respondents ticked all that applied.

Volunteer survey

All volunteers received a request to complete a survey to evaluate different aspects of their

experience in the Lab at the end of the school term during which they had volunteered. If no

response from the school was received within two weeks of the original invitation, a reminder email

was sent. The volunteer responses were tracked so that those who had completed the survey once

did not get the survey invitation again.

In total 191 volunteers were invited to complete the online survey and of these, 114 responded

giving a response rate of 60%.

The only background information collected on the volunteers who completed the survey was

whether they were a new or returning volunteer. Respondents were split between those who were

first-time volunteers (57%) and those who were returning volunteers (43%) at the time of completing

the survey.

Level physics taught at n %

KS3 24 96

KS4 18 72

KS5 12 48


Page 13

Telephone interviews

Telephone interviews were undertaken with a sample of teachers and volunteers who had

completed the relevant online survey and agreed to be contacted by a researcher about a follow-up

interview. The purpose of the interviews was to gain a broader and deeper range of qualitative data

than could be collected via a survey to explore the role of volunteers in the programme and LIAL visit

outcomes for science teachers and the wider school.

Teacher interviews

Twenty-three of the 40 teachers who completed the teacher online survey expressed, in the final

section, willingness to be contacted by a researcher from the project team and to take part in an

interview. All 23 were contacted within two weeks of completing the survey to ask whether they

were still happy to participate and if yes, when they would be available. If the person did not respond

to the first email within a week, a second short email was sent to encourage a response. A total of 14

teachers responded and said they were happy to be interviewed. However, in the end, only nine

people made themselves available for interview.

Table 4 below details the roles of the people interviewed. All interviewees had been the main

contact for the LIAL visit.

Table 4: Interviewed staff members’ role at their school

Role Number

Head of Science 3

Head of Physics 1

Teacher of Physics 1

Head of Biology 1

Teacher of Biology 1

Teacher of Chemistry 1

Senior Science Technician 1

The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview schedule. The interviewer read the

interviewee’s responses to the teacher online survey in advance of the interview. This allowed the

interviewer to expand on the responses given as well as to explore developments since they

completed the survey. Each interview lasted between 15 and 20 minutes, and was undertaken within

four to six weeks after the Lab visit.

Volunteer interviews

Of the 64 new volunteers who responded to the volunteer online survey, 17 said that they would be

happy to be contacted by a researcher from the evaluation team to take part in an interview.

Although none of the 49 returning volunteers indicated in their survey response that they would be

happy to be contacted about an interview, 14 agreed when they were contacted directly via email.

The plan was to interview seven new volunteers twice (counting as 14 interviews) and six returning

volunteers once. This would involve interviewing seven new volunteers for the first as soon as

possible after they had completed the volunteer survey. The new volunteers would be interviewed

again six months after the first interview. The purpose of interviewing the same people twice was to

get a sense of their ‘volunteer journey’ i.e. to establish to what extent the volunteer scientists and


Page 14

engineers had volunteered again in the Lab and/or become involved in other science engagement

and outreach activities (e.g. as STEM Ambassadors).

The seven new volunteers were selected from among the 17 who were willing to participate, by

using the following criteria, as far as possible, to create a diverse sample:

• Volunteer background – to include people with different professional backgrounds

• Gender – to include female and male volunteers in roughly equal proportion

• Age of the volunteer (if available) – to include people in different stages of their life

• STEM Ambassador status – to include some people who were and some who were not STEM

Ambassadors at the time of the Lab event for which they completed the survey

The same criteria were used to select the six returning volunteers.

Seven new volunteer first interviews were undertaken and all seven agreed to take part in a follow-

up interview six months later. However, only four follow-up interviews were undertaken due to the

three other new volunteers not having responded to several emails requesting their participation.

The selected six returning volunteers were interviewed as planned.

The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview schedule. The interviewer read the

volunteer survey in advance of the first (or only) interview. This allowed the interviewer to expand

on the responses given in the survey in addition to asking about developments since they completed

the survey. The volunteer interviews lasted between 15 and 25 minutes.

Case study research

The inclusion of a single case study in the evaluation was agreed half way through the evaluation

process. As it emerged that it was challenging to get teachers to find the time to participate in a

phone interview, the idea came up of including a single school case study, including some face-to-

face interviews, in the mix of data collection.

The two key benefits of including a case study are (a) gaining access to more teachers and (b)

collecting richer/deeper data than the teacher survey and interview with a single teacher at any one

school could provide. The teacher survey collected data on initial outcomes relating to the Lab visit

that the school received during the Welsh tour 2015-2017. The telephone interviews with teachers

focused on collecting data on fairly short term outcomes, including confirming and expanding on the

initial outcomes reported in the survey. This was all that could be achieved regarding schools that

received a Lab visit for the first time.

The LIAL programme hopes to trigger a change of practice at the school, at least at individual teacher

level and possibly at science departmental level. It appears reasonable to suggest that any such

change is more likely to occur when the school gets more than a single ‘dose’ of the intervention and

has taken up other STEM enhancement opportunities following the first visit. It was agreed that an

effective way to evidence whether the LIAL ‘intervention’ has had any effect on departmental

practice, including classroom teaching and learning, would be to collect data from a number of

teachers at a school that has received two Lab visits.


Page 15

A single case study strategy to data collection was chosen to explore the question: To what extent

have the intended outcomes been achieved in one school that has had two visits from the LIAL?

The single case study is used to give a tentative, illustrative account of the kind of change the LIAL

intervention might trigger. A school, in which the LIAL programme team and the evaluators thought a

repeat visit would be most likely to have a positive effect, was chosen as the case study school. This

is because the purpose of the case study was to explore what positive change might look like at its

best.

The case study data collection included face-to-face interviews with the head of science and a

teacher of science during the second Lab visit to the school. The purpose of the face-to-face

interviews was to explore the impact of the first Lab visit, and hopes or expectations and potential

barriers to achieving desired outcomes following the second visit. Both people had worked at the

school during the first Lab visit 20 months earlier.

The intention was to interview the teacher of science who had organised both Lab visits and the head

of physics approximately six weeks after the second Lab visit. The teacher of science was interviewed

by phone six weeks after the visit. The teacher survey response from the head of physics was used as

an additional source of data, as he/she was not available for an interview at that point.

Pupil survey

The pupils’ survey was conducted by pinning a large grid on the Lab wall containing two or three

statements to which pupils indicated whether they agreed or disagreed by placing a mark against the

relevant response.

This survey was conducted at 34 Lab sessions across 17 different schools. The majority of sessions

involved pupils from years 7, 8 or 9 but there was one session with year 6 and one with year 10

pupils where the pupil survey was conducted. More than 500 pupils were involved in the sessions

where a pupil survey was conducted and the maximum number of responses to any one survey

question was 536.


Page 16

Evaluation findings: Volunteers This chapter reports on findings regarding the role of volunteers in the LIAL programme and how

volunteer involvement in the programme is valuable to the volunteers and the programme.

Volunteers’ experiences and perceptions

The online survey of volunteers gathered information on a range of aspects of the experiences of

volunteering in the Lab as well as volunteers’ overall perceptions of the event.

Initial awareness and reasons for volunteering

Almost half of respondents said that they had first heard about the opportunity to volunteer in the

Lab via the STEM Ambassador Scheme (Table 5). Volunteers’ employers and people who had

previously volunteered were the next most frequently cited sources, by 18 and 11 respondents

respectively. Those who ticked ‘other’ were asked to specify the source and most indicated that a

web search or specific websites had brought the Lab to their attention.

Table 5: Where did you first hear about Lab in a Lorry?

n %

STEM Ambassador scheme 53 46

My employer 18 16

Previous volunteer 11 10

Other 9 8

Word of mouth 7 6

IOP member communications 6 5

Volunteering centre 5 4

University careers or volunteering service 3 3

University department 2 2

Total 114 100

Three-quarters of respondents said that a reason for volunteering in the Lab was to encourage young

people to take on a STEM career, and just over a third volunteered to engage with school-aged

audiences (Table 6). Personal and professional development reasons were also cited, for example, a

quarter of volunteers said that they volunteered so that they could improve their communication

and presentation skills and nearly one in five wanted to gain new physics knowledge. Among the

‘other’ reasons specified were because they thought they would enjoy volunteering, to network with

others and to share their enthusiasm for science.


Page 17

Table 6: Reasons for volunteering with Lab in a Lorry

n %*

To encourage young people to take on a STEM career 87 76

The opportunity to engage with school-aged audiences 45 39

To improve my communication and presentation skills 29 25

To gain new physics knowledge 19 17

To improve my teaching skills 16 14

To enhance my CV 16 14

Other 14 12

To fulfil my employer's volunteering requirement 10 9

To gain free IOP membership for a year 1 1

*Base for % = 114 (the number who answered the question). Percentages do not total 100 because respondents were asked to tick all that apply.

Pre-event information

As Figure 2 shows, a large majority of respondents were ‘very satisfied’ with the different aspects of

the pre-arrival information evaluated. The aspect most likely to be positively rated was the timing of

receipt of the pre-event information (92% ‘very satisfied’) and the least likely was the clarity of pre-

event information (83% ‘very satisfied’).

Figure 2: Satisfaction with aspects of the pre-event information

Very few respondents were dissatisfied with any aspects of the pre-event information. Only one

person explained why they were ‘fairly dissatisfied’ with the amount of detail and the clarity of the

pre-event information. They said that the various emails received had led them to become confused

about the dates and venues. Table 7 shows a summary of issues raised in respondents’ free text

comments on the pre-arrival information.

83

88

89

92

15

10

9

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Clarity (n=113)

Amount of detail (n=113)

Usefulness (n=113)

Timing of receipt (n=112)

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied


Page 18

Table 7: Summary of issues raised in the comments on the pre-event information

n %*

All information was clear and useful 20 56

Praise for role of the LIAL Senior Operations Coordinator 6 17

The experiments and how to convey these to young people were very well explained

3 8

Could provide more information on the experiments at an earlier stage

3 8

Some information on the experiments was out of date 3 8

Large volume of emails caused some confusion 1 3

A video of how to do the experiments would have been useful

1 3

*Base for percentages is the number of respondents who made a comment (n=36). Percentages do not total 100 because some respondents mentioned more than one issue.

The majority of comments on the information received prior to the event were of a positive nature

and praised the clarity and usefulness of the information provided. Just over half of those who

commented gave general praise to all information and communications they received, whereas six

respondents directed their praise at the Lab in a Lorry Senior Operations Coordinator and how

helpful and supportive he had been in the run-up to the event. Three respondents described how

well explained the experiments were in the pre-event information.

Some respondents made suggestions as to how the pre-event information could be improved. Three

respondents asked that the information on the experiments is provided a little earlier to allow

adequate time for preparing for the event. A further three said that the information on the

experiments was sometimes out of date i.e. there had been changes to the experiments and/or the

equipment used, but the guidance documents had not been updated to reflect this. One person

suggested that videos of the ‘professionals’ undertaking the experiments would be helpful in

showing how they should be presented.

On-site training and support

When asked whether they had received sufficient on-site training and support on the day, just three

respondents said ‘no’, 110 said ‘yes’ and one did not answer. A follow-up question invited volunteers

to comment on any aspect of on-site training and support, Table 8 summarises the foci of their

comments.


Page 19

Table 8: Summary of issues raised in the comments on on-site training and support

n %*

On-site support and training was good 19 35

Praise for support and guidance offered by the LIAL Senior Operations Coordinator

16 29

Not applicable/not needed (e.g. because they are a returning volunteer)

5 9

Would like more time set aside for on-site training 4 7

More support needed during sessions for badly behaved pupils

3 5

Pre-event information enabled adequate preparation before the day

3 5

Volunteers might benefit from prompts (e.g. bullet points of key issues) and answers to FAQs being provided

3 5

Some experiments should be reviewed with regard to ease of presentation

2 4

Clearer guidance needed on the proportion of the session to use for talking and the proportion for practical work

1 2

Assumption of prior knowledge of concepts, which might not always be the case

1 2

First-time volunteers should be paired with returning volunteers for support

1 2


The majority of respondents who made a comment about the on-site training and support provided

were extremely positive about the offering: just over a third of those who commented generally

praised the training and support offered and just under third singled out the LIAL Senior Operations

Coordinator for praise due to the level of support and guidance he offered. Three people commented

that the pre-event information was an important element of the training and that the on-site training

could only be effective if volunteers had familiarised themselves with the guidance sent out prior to

the event. A further three volunteers relayed concerns about an apparent lack of support when

pupils were badly behaved during the sessions. It was felt that both a better briefing beforehand on

the appropriate way to deal with this and intervention and support when such situations arose were

needed.

Three respondents felt that they would have benefitted from prompts (e.g. laminated lists of bullet

points as reminders of the key points to cover, and perhaps to include answers to FAQs) to help with

the smooth-running of the sessions and ensure that everything is covered.

There were two suggestions that some experiments could be difficult to demonstrate successfully

and it was suggested that there should be a review of ease of presentation. Only one of these

respondents detailed the experiment they were referring to and this was the resonance experiment.


Page 20

Overall perceptions

When asked how much they enjoyed their Lab experience, 84% of respondents said ‘a great deal’

(Table 9). Just one respondent said: ‘a little’ and no one selected ‘not at all’. The volunteer who said:

‘a little’, mentioned in their comments an incident with a pupil behaving badly and the perceived lack

of support they had in dealing with the incident. It is likely that this incident tainted this volunteer’s

perceptions of the event.

Table 9: Extent to which volunteers enjoyed their LIAL experience

n %

A great deal 95 84

A fair amount 17 15

A little 1 1

Not at all 0 0

Total 113 100

When asked what they liked best about their day as a volunteer in the Lab, the most frequently cited

aspects related to engaging with the pupils and seeing them react positively during the session, and

developing both their knowledge and understanding of physics concepts as well as their interest in

and enthusiasm for science (Table 10).

The opportunities to meet and network with other volunteers and with teachers at the schools were

also a highlight for respondents and three volunteers mentioned working with the LIAL Senior

Operations Coordinator as a particularly positive aspect of the experience.

Ten volunteers said that their own knowledge of and interest in physics had developed as part of the

experience and a further nine said that their presentation and teaching skills had improved.

Six volunteers felt that a particular strength of the Lab was the outreach nature in terms of bringing

the facilities and equipment to the pupils, and providing hands-on experiences that they might

otherwise not have been exposed to.


Page 21

Table 10: Summary of issues raised in the comments on what volunteers liked best about the day

n %*

Engaging with the pupils 35 32

Getting pupils interested in/excited about science (enthusiasm)

33 31

Seeing the positive reactions of pupils 23 21

Seeing the pupils learn from what they are doing/showing them something new

15 14

Meeting other volunteers 12 11

Developing their own physics knowledge/interests 10 9

Developing presentation/teaching skills 9 8

Meeting teachers 6 6

The outreach and practical nature of LIAL 6 6

The structure/organisation of the event 4 4

Working with the Senior Operations Coordinator 3 3

School lunch 2 2

Promoting physics/STEM 2 2

It was enjoyable/fun 2 2

Opportunity to use IOP equipment 1 1

The flexible nature of the activities (e.g. no set order or script)

1 1


A free text response question in the volunteer survey asked respondents how the day could be

improved. Volunteers’ suggestions are summarised in Table 11. A large number of comments were to

the effect that nothing needed improving, but aside from that, the most frequently made suggestion

(raised by 14 respondents) was that the sessions in the Lab should be longer to allow pupils to access

more experiments and get the most from the experience. In a related matter there were seven

comments suggesting that more efficient use of time should be made on the day; most of the

comments on this related to the late start for many sessions due to inefficient changeovers, and one

person suggested that there was too much waiting around on the part of volunteers when they could

be engaging with more pupils.

There were seven suggestions that there should be more or new experiments on offer. In most cases

these were general requests, but some respondents gave specific ideas including outdoor

experiments and experiments involving sustainable energy. Six respondents commented that the

provision should be extended for example by arranging more LIAL visits to schools, promoting LIAL

more, and having more lorries. Also, the equipment was felt to be in need of updating or better

maintenance by four respondents.

Other suggestions summarised in Table 11 were mentioned by only one or two respondents each.


Page 22

Table 11: Summary of suggestions made by volunteers in their survey responses

Suggested improvement n %*

No improvement needed 27 32

Make each session longer 14 16

Ensure efficient use of time (e.g. sessions start on time/ make the changeover more efficient)

7 8

More/new experiments 7 8

Visit more schools /promote LIAL more/have more lorries 6 7

Provide more or better equipment (e.g. more up to date, ensure it all works) 4 5

Give the pupils something to take away to remember the experience 2 2

Give the pupils suggestions as to what they could do next to sustain their interest 2 2

Improve the introduction (e.g. don't ask if anyone hates science) 2 2

Location of events often remote/less travelling distance for volunteers 2 2

More assistance in dealing with pupils behaving badly 2 2

More assistance with orientation/navigation at the school 2 2

Provide videos or more detailed information on the experiments to allow for pre-event preparation

2 2

Tailor the experiments/sessions more (e.g. to interests of the older pupils, to what the school wants to teach)

2 2

Ensure the talking doesn’t impinge on the hands-on time 1 1

Factor in more of a break between sessions 1 1

Get teachers to participate 1 1

Highlight real-world applications of what they are learning 1 1

Make it easier for pupils to succeed 1 1

More structured/better defined role of volunteers 1 1

More time to familiarise volunteers with equipment 1 1

More volunteers 1 1

Offer to post-KS3 pupils 1 1

Offer to primary aged pupils (as well as secondary) 1 1

Offer to secondary aged pupils only (not primary) 1 1

Pair up new volunteers with more experienced volunteers 1 1

Provide pre-event information earlier 1 1

Share the teacher guidance with volunteers 1 1

Smaller group sizes 1 1


The final survey question asked volunteers to provide any further comments on their experiences as

a Lab volunteer. Table 12 summarises the topics raised in these comments and they were

predominantly of a positive nature. Volunteers described how rewarding and worthwhile the

experience had been and several were keen to volunteer in the Lab again. Just under a third of those

who commented praised the project itself and stated that it should be more widely available (both

within Wales and in England) and better promoted.


Page 23

Table 12: Summary of topics raised in respondents’ ‘further comments’

n %*

General positive comment on the experience 20 31

Praise for the initiative itself/should be available to more schools

19 30

Will volunteer in the Lab again 9 14

Suggested improvements 6 9

Worthwhile experience in terms of personal and professional development

5 8

Good opportunity to promote STEM careers/studying STEM at higher levels

3 5

More rewarding than other volunteering roles 3 5

Praise for the Senior Operations Coordinator 3 5

Good networking opportunity (e.g. with other volunteers) 2 3

Very tiring 2 3

Volunteers increased physics knowledge 2 3

Encouraged to sign up as a STEM Ambassador 1 2


Volunteers’ skills and personal development

A set of survey questions explored the extent to which the volunteering experience had enabled

respondents to develop personally and enhance their skills.

Communication skills

As Table 13 shows, respondents’ views were mixed on the extent to which their communication skills

had improved following their experiences in the Lab: just over a quarter said: ‘a great deal’, around a

third said: ‘a fair amount’ and a similar proportion felt their communication skills had improved ‘a

little’. Just five respondents indicated that their communication skills had not improved at all.

Table 13: Extent to which volunteers’ communication skills have improved

n %

A great deal 30 27

A fair amount 38 34

A little 39 35

Not at all 5 4

Total 112 100

A follow-up question was presented to those who indicated that their communication skills had

improved which asked them to explain in what ways these skills had been enhanced by the

experience. Table 14 summarises their responses.


Page 24

Table 14: Summary of ways in which respondents’ communication skills had improved

n %*

Different audience to what they are used to (e.g. children rather than adults, pupils of a different age range)

27 30

Adapting what is said based on levels of interest, knowledge or engagement

19 21

General improvement in communication skills (non-specific) 7 8

Keeping the message clear and concise 7 8

Explanatory skills have improved 6 7

More confident in speaking to groups of people 6 7

Enabling pupils to get involved/lead the session 4 4

Improved question-answering skills/thinking on your feet 4 4

Better knowledge of the topics (gained from supporting resources and experience) helped aid better communication of concepts

3 3

Better use of interaction e.g. asking pupils questions 3 3

Communicating/negotiating with other volunteers (e.g. dividing roles/tasks in pairs)

3 3

Learned to present information at a slower pace to allow time for information to be absorbed

3 3

Use of appropriate specialist vocabulary/terminology 3 3

Using relating content to real life 3 3

Better at coping with a variety of challenges/unpredictable nature of the sessions

2 2

Improving non-verbal cues such as body language 2 2

Coaxing rather than instructing 1 1

Improved listening skills 1 1

Managing the time well e.g. time for presenting and then time for doing experiments with the pupils

1 1

Refreshed Welsh language skills 1 1


Nearly a third of the 89 respondents who commented on how their communication skills had

improved explained that the experience had helped them develop skills in communicating with

younger people. In most instances this represented a different demographic to the type of audience

they were used to communicating with. Around a fifth of those who commented said that they had

become more skilled at adapting what they say and how they say it based on levels of interest,

knowledge or engagement demonstrated by the pupils.

Other improvements to communications that were mentioned by a small number of respondents

each included learning to keep the message clear and concise to retain the pupils’ attention,

developing better explanatory skills and generally feeling more confident when speaking to groups of

people as a result of the LIAL experience.


Page 25

Team working skills

Volunteers were slightly less likely to say that there had been a significant improvement in their team

working skills than they were for their communication skills but 86% said there had been an

improvement of some degree (Table 15).

Table 15: Extent to which volunteers’ team working skills had improved

n %

A great deal 14 13

A fair amount 39 35

A little 42 38

Not at all 16 14

Total 111 100

A wide range of ways in which their team working skills had been enhanced was described by

volunteers. These are summarised in Table 16. Nearly a third of those who described the ways their

team working skills had developed commented that this was through working with people they did

not know and who were often very different in terms of experience, expertise and approach, from

those that they would usually work with. Around one in five of the comments referred to the

development of skills relating to sharing and negotiating tasks and workloads to ensure that the

event ran as smoothly as possible.

While most of the comments on team work referred to the experiences of working with other

volunteers and members of the IOP, there were eight comments explaining that facilitating team

work among the pupils had helped them to develop their own team working skills.

Eight volunteers described how the need to support other people in their roles had been a valuable

developmental opportunity and the same number explained that they had learned a great deal from

working with other team members and had been able to share good practice.

Six volunteers commented that the experience had helped them to understand the different

strengths, weaknesses and abilities of others and adapt accordingly (here they referred mainly to

other volunteers). On a similar topic, there were five mentions of learning to adapt to different team

members’ styles and ways of working in order to present a more unified experience for the pupils.


Page 26

Table 16: Summary of ways in which respondents’ team working skills had improved

n %*

Working with different people/people they do not know very well 20 29

Sharing and negotiating tasks/workloads effectively 13 19

Facilitating group/team work among the pupils 8 12

Learning from each other/sharing good practice 8 12

Supporting other people in their roles (e.g. undertaking preparation work for other volunteers)

8 12

Understanding different strengths, weaknesses and abilities in other people

6 9

Adapting to different team members' styles and ways of working 5 7

Improving team work skills generally (non-specific) 3 4

Providing encouragement and feedback to other team members 3 4

Communicating different tasks 2 3

Developing confidence/assertiveness when dealing with and coordinating groups

2 3

Encouraging oneself to listen to others 2 3

Allowing pupils to take the lead 1 1

Asking for help 1 1

Being flexible/willing to make changes 1 1


Other skills

When asked whether they had developed any other new skills (aside from communications and team

working) just over a third of volunteers said that they had (Table 17).

Table 17: Whether volunteers developed other new skills as a result of their Lab experience

n %

Yes 41 37

No 34 30

Don't know 37 33

Total 112 100

Those who had developed other skills were asked to explain what these were. Respondents listed 20

different new skills that the volunteering experience had helped them to develop and these are

summarised in Table 18. The two most frequently cited skills (both mentioned by six respondents)

were the development of new or refreshing of existing physics knowledge, and the development of

practical skills in terms of conducting and demonstrating experiments.

Three volunteers who were used to presenting physics concepts to an older and more advanced

audience were appreciative of the opportunity to develop skills in terms of teaching physics at a

more basic level. A further three stated that their presentation skills had been enhanced by the

experience.

Table 18: Summary of other skills developed by volunteers during the Lab experience

n %*


Page 27

New or refreshed physics knowledge 6 18

Practical skills (e.g. ways of doing/facilitating the experiments) 6 18

Going back to 'basic' physics and teaching it to others 3 9

Presentation skills 3 9

Anticipating the needs of pupils and adapting accordingly 2 6

General communication and teaching skills 2 6

General improved interaction skills with young people 2 6

Greater confidence 2 6

How to encourage pupils to get involved 2 6

Working in less than ideal conditions (e.g. confined space) 2 6

Delivering information at the appropriate pace 1 3

Facilitation skills 1 3

Flexibility 1 3

Insight/understanding of issues affecting STEM take-up 1 3

Learning to check pupils' understanding before continuing 1 3

Learning from other volunteers 1 3

Learning from the pupils 1 3

Learning quickly (i.e. being shown the experiments on the day and then demonstrating and facilitating the same day)

1 3

Learning to 'think on your feet' 1 3

Patience 1 3


Volunteers’ perceptions of personal gains

When asked to describe what they had gained personally from the volunteering experience,

respondents said the most frequently cited area in which they had developed was in improving their

presentation and/or teaching skills. Twenty-four respondents said that they had developed in this

area (Table 19). Some of these explained that they were quite comfortable presenting to an adult

audience but had found the experience of presenting to young people a particularly helpful

development opportunity.

Fifteen volunteers described the rewards in seeing pupils engage with the topics and become

interested in and excited about science. For 14 respondents, a key benefit of the experience was the

opportunity to learn something new themselves and to refresh or further develop their knowledge of

physics. A further 14 volunteers said that the experience had enhanced their confidence, and some

of these admitted that the activities and requirements of the role were outside of their comfort zone

but that they had felt a great sense of achievement and gained in confidence through the experience.

Being able to promote STEM among pupils and potentially influence the future of some of the young

people by encouraging STEM careers was a key benefit for 12 respondents and a further 12 said their

communication skills had developed – particularly with regard to communicating difficult concepts to

young people.

The opportunity to meet and network with other people was specified as a gain by 12 respondents

and while most referred to the interactions with other volunteers, some had also benefitted from

meeting teachers and staff from the IOP. For 11 volunteers, the main gain from the experience was


Page 28

in the general sense of achievement and satisfaction they got at the end of the day knowing that

they had helped pupils engage with physics, and in a similar vein, six volunteers stated that the

chance to ‘give something back’ had been the most beneficial element of the experience (in some

cases the respondents were retirees from STEM careers).

Ten respondents said that being able to engage with pupils was a positive aspect of the experience

and a further eight volunteers explained that the experience had been fun and enjoyable. Among the

six respondents who highlighted the career relevance and CV-enhancing opportunities as a major

gain of the experience, there were three respondents who indicated that it had confirmed for them

that they wished to pursue a career in teaching science. Six volunteers described how the experience

had given them an insight into what pupils know about physics and science more generally.

Table 19: Summary of what respondents had gained personally from the volunteering experience

n %*

Improved presentation/teaching skills 24 24

Pleasure/reward in seeing pupils engage and become interested/excited about science

15 15

Developed physics knowledge 14 14

Enhanced confidence 14 14

Encouraging/promoting STEM careers, potentially influencing young people's futures

12 12

Improved communication skills 12 12

Meeting/networking with others 12 12

General sense of achievement/satisfaction 11 11

Engaging with pupils 10 10

Sense of enjoyment/having fun 8 8

Feeling of 'giving something back' 6 6

Provided good experience for volunteers' next career move/CV enhancement 6 6

Understanding of children's science knowledge 6 6

Practical experience/skills development 3 3

Better understanding of secondary education and the teacher's role 1 1

Experience has encouraged them to volunteer in other roles 1 1

Made aware of IOP affiliate membership 1 1

Travelling/seeing parts of Wales not seen before 1 1

Understanding of learning techniques e.g. learning from doing and sometimes failing

1 1


Working with pupils

When asked what they thought the pupils had gained from their experiences in the Lab, nearly a

quarter of those who commented said that it had appeared to ignite their interest in and/or

excitement about physics and STEM subjects more generally (Table 20). Many who commented

described the changes they witnessed in some pupils’ approaches and attitudes as the session


Page 29

progressed. Similarly, just over a fifth of volunteers who commented said that pupils had realised

that physics or science can be enjoyable and fun.

Another key benefit noted by 21 volunteers was that the Lab gave pupils the opportunity to see and

try for themselves experiments that they would not normally be exposed to in the classroom (for

example, because schools rarely have the required equipment for some of the experiments).

The way in which the time in the Lab helped to relate physics to everyday life was also seen as

beneficial to the pupils. Eighteen volunteers mentioned this and described how the nature of the

experiments and their grounding in everyday life had helped pupils to engage with the concepts.

Thirteen volunteers said that they felt the experience had increased pupils’ knowledge of physics and

a further 12 volunteers said it had made pupils consider STEM careers.

Seven volunteers noticed a general change in pupils’ perceptions of physics and STEM subjects more

generally throughout the session and six respondents described how they witnessed pupils becoming

more confident in their knowledge and abilities throughout the session – often surprising themselves

by being able to answer questions or successfully carry out an experiment.

Table 20: Summary of what volunteers felt pupils had gained from the Lab experience

n %*

Interest in or excitement about physics/STEM 27 26

Finding physics/science enjoyable/fun 23 22

Experiencing experiments that they would not normally seen in the classroom

21 20

An insight into how physics relates to everyday life 18 17

Better physics knowledge 13 13

A desire to follow a STEM career 12 12

Changed perceptions of physics/STEM (more positive) 7 7

Confidence in their knowledge/abilities 6 6

Better understanding of the relevance of STEM 5 5

Working as a group/team working skills 4 4


The volunteers were asked to describe any memorable moments they have from their experience of

guiding the pupils through the experiments in the Lab. The comments made by volunteers who

responded to that survey question are reproduced in full in Appendix 1.

Volunteering in the future

A small number of questions sought information on respondents’ propensity to volunteer in the Lab

again in future and on their situation with regard to the STEM Ambassador status.

All but two respondents said that they would volunteer in the Lab again in future. The two

respondents who indicated that they would not volunteer again were offered the chance to explain

why this is the case. In one instance this was because of the distance they would have to travel to

attend the events, but the other volunteer had been deterred from returning as a volunteer because

of the lack of support during a session when a pupil became disruptive.


Page 30

More than half of respondents indicated that they already were STEM Ambassadors before

volunteering in the Lab, while a quarter said that they have signed up to the scheme as a result of

their involvement in the Lab (Table 21).

Table 21: Whether respondents signed up to the STEM Ambassador scheme as a result of the LIAL programme

n %

Yes 28 25

No 20 18

Already a STEM Ambassador 63 57

Total 111 100

Those who were already a STEM Ambassador at the time of volunteering were asked whether they

had mentioned what they could offer in their role as STEM Ambassador to the teachers at the

schools they visited. As Table 22 shows, just over a third said that they had and around half had not

done so.

Table 22: Whether respondents mentioned the STEM Ambassador role to teachers at the schools

n %

Yes 23 37

No 32 51

Don’t know 8 13

Total 63 100

New volunteer experiences

This section presents the data gathered during the interviews with a sample of people who

volunteered for the first time in the Lab and completed the evaluation survey. Seven new volunteers

were interviewed shortly after their first volunteering experience, and four of these were

interviewed again five to six months later to obtain follow-up information on the impact of their

experiences. This section presents a summary of the one-off interview findings, and then reports the

findings from the four interviews where a follow-up was conducted and hence where a longer-term

picture of the volunteer ‘journey’ can be constructed.

Findings from one-off interviews with new volunteers

Three volunteers were interviewed shortly after their first experience of volunteering in the Lab.

These volunteers had completed the online survey and indicated in their response to this that they

were willing to be interviewed. The intention was to re-interview these people approximately six

months after the first interview, and while all initially agreed to further contact, these three

volunteers were not available to undergo a further interview.

The information gathered during the interview, combined with information gathered in the new

volunteers’ responses to the survey are summarised in Table 23 on a case by case basis, based on

their experiences in five key areas of interest to this evaluation.


Page 31

Table 23: Summary of new volunteers’ experiences and perceptions based on their survey and interview responses

Background

(career/qualifications)

Becoming a

volunteer

The volunteering

experience

Benefits of

volunteering

Would they

volunteer again?

New volunteer 1

• Engineering

degree; range of

jobs throughout

career.

• Already an

active

volunteer in

other fields.

• Heard about

the Lab via a

volunteer

centre

• Decided to

volunteer to

engage with

and enthuse a

young

audience about

science.

• A worthwhile

and rewarding

experience.

• Challenge: pupil

discipline

problems,

which she felt

required better

preparation for

and support

with.

• Communication

and team

working skills

were already

highly

developed due

to previous work

and

volunteering

experience.

• Communication

skills were

further

developed

through learning

to adapt

presentation to

the needs of the

young audience.

• Has not

volunteered in

the Lab again

yet because of

personal

circumstances

but intends to.

• Has

recommended

the experience

to friends with

relevant

backgrounds.

• Has not joined

IOP or become

a STEM

Ambassador

but intends to.

New volunteer 2

• Previous career

in armed forces

and currently a

civil servant.

• Career has

involved a great

deal of science

and engineering.

• Heard about

the

opportunity via

his employer’s

volunteering

scheme.

• Keen to

volunteer as it

seemed to

offer a new

and interesting

opportunity.

• The experience

was highly

positive.

• Everything ran

smoothly.

• Found it very

rewarding to

see the pupils

becoming

enthused and

excited about

physics/science.

• Did not

experience any

specific

challenges on

the day.

• Team working

skills were

enhanced due to

the need to be

‘up and running’

quickly with a

team of

strangers.

• Communication

skills were

enhanced by the

need to deliver

information

quickly and

concisely.

• Has used new

communication

skills to develop

‘bitesize’

training sessions

for colleagues at

work.

• Would

definitely

volunteer

again, but has

not yet done so

due to a lack of

time.

• Has

recommended

the experience

to others.

• Has not yet

signed up to

the STEM

Ambassador or

the IOP free

membership

but intends to

do so.


Page 32

Background


Becoming a

volunteer

The volunteering

experience

Benefits of

volunteering

Would they

volunteer again?

New volunteer 3

• Retired but an

industrial

chemist by

training.

• Initially made

aware of the

Lab via the

STEM

Ambassador

scheme.

• Keen to get

involved in

order to

encourage

young people

to consider a

STEM career.

• The event was a

highly positive

and worthwhile

experience.

• Enjoyed seeing

pupils enthused

by science and

the potential of

STEM careers.

• Challenge:

becoming

familiar with

the experiments

at short notice.

• Communication

skills were

enhanced by the

experience of

addressing a

young audience.

Learned to

adjust both the

tone and

content to suit

the audience

and to hold their

interest.

• Yes, booked

another Lab

session and

would

recommend to

others.

• Also volunteers

in secondary

schools as a

STEM

Ambassador.

• Did not take up

free IOP

membership

but will

probably do so.

New volunteer case studies

Four new volunteers took part in both an initial telephone interview shortly after their first

experience of volunteering in the Lab, and then a follow-up interview five to six months later (as well

as completing the initial online survey). A summary of the key findings from the interviews and

survey responses from these volunteers is presented, followed by a more detailed description of

each new volunteer’s ‘journey’ over the period of their involvement in the evaluation activities.

The key points of interest for this evaluation based on these case studies are as follows:

• All four case study volunteers had been motivated to volunteer in the Lab in order to encourage

young people to consider STEM careers and three of the four also specified that they were keen

to engage with school-aged audiences about STEM.

• All four volunteers were extremely positive about the experience in the Lab, both in terms of

how well organised and smooth running it was and in terms of the enjoyment and fulfilment they

achieved by volunteering.

• The only challenges these volunteers had encountered in their experiences as a Lab volunteer

were in familiarising (or re-familiarising) themselves with the fundamentals of physics that form

the basis of the experiments (two of the four case study volunteers mentioned this but neither

felt it had presented a particular problem) and one volunteer mentioned that engaging the less

interested pupils had been an initial challenge but that this was overcome by simple adjustments

to the presentation techniques.

• Three of the four case study volunteers said that their communication skills had been enhanced

as a result of volunteering in the Lab, two said that their confidence had been boosted (and in

one instance this had helped give someone who was on a career break the confidence to start

considering a return to work in the STEM field), and one person said their team working skills had

improved as a result of the volunteering experience.

• The interviews indicated that volunteering for LIAL was also leading to other STEM-related

volunteering. Three of the four volunteers had continued to volunteer in the Lab (the one who


Page 33

had not explained that this was for personal reasons rather than any dissatisfaction with previous

volunteering experiences).

• Two of the four case study volunteers were already STEM Ambassadors and had heard about

LIAL via that scheme, and both were continuing to volunteer both via the STEM Ambassador

scheme and in the Lab. The remaining two had both signed up to the STEM Ambassador scheme

as a result of their experience in the Lab and while one had undertaken volunteering activities in

this new role, the other had been unable to undertake the induction activities due to personal

circumstances.

The following write-ups describe the volunteers’ journeys based on their survey responses and the

two interviews conducted with each.

Case study 1

In her survey responses, this person indicated that she had been keen to volunteer in order to

encourage young people to take up a STEM career and so that she could talk about physics again

following a career break. Her responses to most survey questions were highly positive, and she

indicated in both the survey and during the interviews that she had enjoyed the experience.

Although she indicated that she had developed her communication skills as a result of volunteering

(mainly due to communicating with a younger age range than she had been used to), the

development of other skills as a result of volunteering had been fairly minimal. The main gain

identified by this person was in boosting her confidence in talking about the basics of physics. The

main challenge presented on the day was that one of the experiments related to a topic that was

outside of her expertise; however, this was resolved by another volunteer undertaking that one,

leaving her with an experiment that she was comfortable presenting.

At the point of completing the survey and during the first interview this person said that she would

volunteer for the Lab again because she had enjoyed it and found it helped to boost her confidence,

but that she had not signed up to be a STEM Ambassador and had not taken up the free membership

of the IOP (although during the first interview she said she was keen to do both). At the second

interview she had signed up to be a STEM Ambassador but had not been able to attend the induction

events due to family commitments, but she still had not taken up the free IOP membership (although

was still interested in doing so). Travelling is difficult for this person therefore she said that while she

is very keen to volunteer in the Lab again, she could only do so if it was at a local school.

At the time of the first interview she was looking to step back on to her career ladder but on a part-

time basis. The volunteering experience has given her confidence a boost in terms of returning to

work; however, she feels the issue of a lack of family-friendly employment in the STEM area is a

major barrier. At the second interview, she had started applying for jobs, but was still experiencing

problems in finding suitable part-time positions. The LIAL volunteering experience has given her the

encouragement she needed to attempt to return to work and has reminded her that she is good at

what she does and able to communicate physics to others.

Case study 2

This person first heard about the opportunity to volunteer in the Lab via his employer and indicated

in both his survey and interview responses that he was motivated to volunteer mainly to encourage

young people to take on a STEM career and was keen to enlighten young people as to how


Page 34

interesting, varied and rewarding a STEM career can be. At the time of the first interview he had

volunteered twice in the Lab (although the survey was completed shortly after his first experience).

He was highly positive about his experiences and felt that they had given him a greater appreciation

of the knowledge and capabilities of pupils in years 7, 8 and 9 in terms of physics and science more

generally. A key benefit discussed at the first interview was the extent to which the experience in the

Lab had prepared this person for volunteering in other capacities, in terms of enhancing his

confidence and showing how to run and resource successful STEM events for young people. During

the first interview, this person said that he had signed up to become a STEM Ambassador and

undertaken the induction. By the second interview he had volunteered for two more days in the Lab,

and undertaken two STEM volunteering events as part of his STEM Ambassador role. These latter

experiences had been facilitated by his experiences of volunteering in the Lab as they had set a

benchmark for him in terms of dealing with groups of young people and preparing materials and

resources for STEM events. The only challenge identified relating to the Lab experience was that

technically he is an engineer therefore he initially found it something of a stretch to return to the

fundamentals of physics in order to present the topics at the required level, however, once he had

done this for this first Lab it became less problematic.

Case study 3

As an existing STEM Ambassador this person volunteered for the Lab after being made aware of the

opportunity via the STEM Ambassador scheme. She was keen to volunteer in order to engage with

school-aged audiences and to encourage young people (particularly girls) to take up a STEM career.

At the time of the interview she had volunteered twice, although the second occasion was a matter

of days before the interview. She felt her communication skills had improved as a result of

volunteering because it refreshed her skills in talking to younger people of differing abilities and

levels of knowledge and understanding. Her team working skills had also improved due to the need

to present in pairs with someone she had never met before. This necessitated the prompt building of

a rapport with the co-presenter so that the presentation ran smoothly and coherently. At the time of

the second interview this person had been a volunteer for four Lab days in total and had booked a

further two. Provided the location is within easy reach for her she is willing to continue to volunteer

in the Lab. She had also undertaken STEM Ambassador activities between the first and second

interview. She has not taken up the free IOP membership but this is because as a retiree she does

not feel she would particularly benefit, although if she were still in work or a student she definitely

would have taken up membership.

Case study 4

This person first heard about the opportunity to volunteer in the Lab via the STEM Ambassador

scheme and decided to volunteer in order to engage with young people and to try and get them

enthused about a STEM career. He was keen to relay to pupils the wide range of pathways open to

those who study STEM subjects, and while this was possible to a degree, he felt that perhaps a little

more time could be set aside for this sort of discussion at some point during the session. At the time

of the first interview, he had volunteered twice and had very positive perceptions of the experiences,

and at the second interview, he had spent a third day in the Lab and was due to go for a fourth time

two weeks after the interview. As a STEM Ambassador he tries to volunteer in some capacity at least

once a month and undertakes LIAL volunteering in addition to this. He has recommended

volunteering in the Lab to others with relevant backgrounds and has also highlighted the scheme to


Page 35

relevant organisations. He has emphasised to those he has spoken to how it provides a good

opportunity to develop communication, presentation and team working skills in a relatively ‘safe’

environment (i.e. not in the workplace, and not being scrutinised or assessed).

Returning volunteer experiences

Six volunteers who had volunteered previously and completed the online evaluation survey were

interviewed to find out more about their experiences of and motivations for volunteering. The

findings from both their survey responses and the interviews are summarised in this section on a

case by case basis in a table summarising the key points of relevance to this evaluation (Table 24).

Table 24: Summary of returning volunteers’ experiences and perceptions based on their survey and interview responses

Background


Becoming a volunteer The volunteering

experience

Benefits of volunteering Will they continue

to volunteer?

Returning volunteer 1

• IT and

engineering

qualifications

and career.

• First volunteered

in the Lab 2014.

• Has volunteered

in the Lab 25-30

times.

• Volunteering

in the Lab

was very

rewarding

and

worthwhile.

• Has always

felt well

supported in

the

volunteering

role.

• Challenge:

sometimes

hard work

when there

were not

enough

volunteers

for a

session.

• Communication skills

were developed,

especially

presentation/teaching

skills.

• Refreshed Welsh

language skills by

volunteering at

Welsh-speaking

schools.

• Confidence was

developed in teaching

young people.

• Keen to re-train as a

teacher; the Lab has

provided valuable

experience.

• Will continue

to volunteer in

the Lab.

• Has

recommended

the Lab to

others.

• A STEM

Ambassador

and regularly

works in

schools in this

capacity.

• A member of

the IOP.


Page 36

Background



experience


to volunteer?


• Medical science

background.

• Originally heard

about the Lab at

a National

Eisteddfod

event.

• Keen to inspire

and enthuse

young people

about STEM.

• First volunteered

in 2013 and

since then has

volunteered five

or six times a

year.

• Enjoys

volunteering

in the Lab

and feels

that her

contribution

is valued.

• Challenge:

sometimes

tactfully

persuading

teachers to

allow the

pupils to

have fun,

while

maintaining

appropriate

boundaries

and safe use

of the

equipment.

• Communication and

team work skills have

improved due to the

need to negotiate

tasks with other

volunteers and staff

at the events.

• Will continue

to volunteer

and has

recommended

the Lab to

others.

• A STEM

Ambassador

but volunteers

for these

activities less

frequently

because travel

costs are not

reimbursed.

• Took up the

one year free

IOP

membership

but did not

renew (not

relevant to her

career).


• Retired.

Qualifications in

earth sciences.

• Volunteering in

the Lab was

recommended

by a family

member and has

been a volunteer

since 2013.

• Has volunteered

six times and has

a seventh event

booked.

• Volunteering

in the Lab

extremely

enjoyable

and

rewarding

and always

feels well

supported.

• Enjoys

seeing the

pupils

becoming

interested

and

enthusiastic.

• Enjoys

networking

with a wide

range of

other

volunteers.


have developed

through addressing a

teenage audience e.g.

learning to engage

more reticent pupils.

• Team working skills

improved through

working with

different teams of

people.

• Confidence to

volunteer in other

science-based roles

has also developed.

• Will continue

to volunteer

for Lab events

within a

reasonable

travelling

distance.

• Has

recommended

the Lab to

others.

• Has also

undertaken

volunteering

as a STEM

Ambassador.


Page 37

Background



experience


to volunteer?


• Physics degree

and works in a

STEM career.

• Existing IOP

member made

aware of the Lab

via the IOP

website.

• Volunteered to

hone her

presentation

skills and to get

young people

interested in

physics.

• Has been

volunteering

since 2012.

• Volunteered

four times in

total.

• Volunteering

in the Lab is

very

rewarding.

• Gives her a

sense of

satisfaction

that the

pupils

always seem

to enjoy it so

much.

• Presentation skills

have improved

through presenting

experiments in the

Lab.


have improved

through interacting

with young people.

• Will continue

to volunteer.

• Recommended

it to

colleagues.

• Is a STEM

Ambassador

but has not

yet

undertaken

any activities

due to amount

of preparatory

work.


• IT / engineering

qualifications

and career.

• Heard about the

Lab via the STEM

Ambassador

scheme.

• A volunteer

since 2010;

volunteers

between five

and ten times a

year.

• Volunteered so

that he could

highlight the

possibility of a

STEM career to

young people.

• Volunteering

in the Lab is

very

rewarding

e.g. seeing

the pupils

becoming

engaged and

excited

• Challenges:

offering the

best possible

experience

to the pupils

in a short

space of

time e.g. by

dealing

effectively

with

disruptive

pupils or

with overly

enthusiastic

teachers.


have improved

through presenting

the experiments and

interacting with

pupils.

• Team working skills

have improved by

working with and

supporting teams of

volunteers.

• Will continue

to volunteer.

• He is also a

STEM

Ambassador

and

undertakes

activities

approximately

five to eight

times a year in

that role.

• He is a

member of the

IOP.


Page 38

Background



experience


to volunteer?


• Retired chemical

engineer.

• First heard

about the Lab

via the STEM

Ambassador

scheme.

• Lab volunteer

since 2011;

volunteers two

to three times a

year.

• Volunteered to

encourage

young people to

take up STEM

subjects/careers.

• Very

positive

about

volunteering

in the Lab.

• Suggested

that some of

the Lab

equipment

might need

renewing or

updating.

• Gains a sense of

satisfaction from

seeing the pupils

engage with the

experiments and with

science.

• Enjoys meeting

volunteers from a

wide range of

backgrounds.

• Will continue

to volunteer.

• Has

recommended

volunteering

in the Lab to

others.

• Is a STEM

Ambassador

but

undertakes

activities less

frequently

(two or three

times a year).


Page 39

Evaluation findings: Teachers and the wider school This chapter addresses the following two evaluation question:

• To what extent has the LIAL visit encouraged/ inspired science teachers to introduce LIAL



• To what extent do the LIAL visits increase science teachers’ awareness of other STEM

enhancement and enrichment activities / opportunities, including STEM Ambassadors’

‘offer’, and take-up of IOP membership?

The findings presented here are based on teacher interviews and teacher online survey data.

Teachers’ perceptions of gains

In the interviews, the nine teachers were asked what they gained from the Lab visit in their role as a

science teacher. Seven of them had spent one or more sessions in the Lab and felt able to comment

on the question. Two teachers appreciated the opportunity to broaden their pupils’ experience of

science by exposing them to experiments that they could not do in school. Two other teachers took

away ideas for science experiments they could implement in class. One mentioned light scattering

and the other had bought and used an endoscope kit in class after the visit. One teacher enjoyed

seeing how the volunteers linked abstract concepts to the real world. Another teacher had

appreciated making contact with some volunteers with a view to them coming and running science

sessions at the school. The seventh teacher said that while he/she knew the science behind the Lab

experiments and thus did not gain anything personally, a couple of his/her non-science teacher

colleagues had said that they had learned something new when accompanying pupils in the Lab.

Use of post-visit experiment sheets

The teacher online survey included two questions on the Lab in a Lorry post-visit experiment sheets.

The teachers were asked whether they had received the post-visit experiment sheets and whether

they had used or were planning to use the sheets in class with pupils. A total of 33 teachers said that

they had received the sheets and five said that they had not. Two further teachers did not respond to

this question. Of the 33 teachers who had received the sheets, 28 said that they had used or were

planning to use them.

In the telephone interviews, teachers were asked:

• Have you had a look at the sheets? [If yes] What did you think about them?

• Have you used any of the post-visit experiment sheets in class with your pupils? [If yes]

Which ones and why (unless they had used them all)?

• How did your pupils respond to those activities?

Eight of the nine people interviewed reported having received the sheets. Five of the eight teachers

had had a look at the sheets. Two teachers were impressed by them and were planning to add them

to their schemes of work when it became topical. Two other teachers thought that all experiments

looked useful. One had had a look but not considered the sheets, as he/she teaches GCSE and A-level

physics and was concerned with getting through the syllabus to prepare students for exams.


Page 40

Three teachers had used one of the sheets in class. One had facilitated the resonance experiment

with a class that had not got to visit the Lab and a fibre optics-related experiment with another class.

Having purchased the kit to go with it, another teacher had used the endoscopy sheet with year 9. A

third teacher had bought a fibre optics light and undertaken the fibre optics activity in class.

Impact on teaching practice

As reported above, some teachers had been inspired by the Lab experience and the post-visit

experiment sheets, and undertaken similar experiments in class with their pupils. For all these

teachers LIAL style open-ended, hands-on science activities were something they were already doing

before the Lab visit took place. Of the nine teachers interviewed, four said that they already used

LIAL style activities as much as possible, two said that they undertook such activities to some extent,

one said that they were an exception rather than rule, and two did not take such an approach to

science teaching.

To establish whether the LIAL visit encouraged/inspired science teachers to introduce (more) LIAL

style open-ended, experimental activities in the science classroom, the teachers were asked in the

interview how likely they were to introduce such activities in the future. One teacher responded that

they were more likely to do that than before the Lab visit, including linking science practicals to real-

world applications. Another teacher had already incorporated such activities into the scheme of work

for this year. A third said they were likely to do so and planning to include at least a light scattering

experiment, although doing more than that would depend on available time and money. Two

teachers commented that they were going to continue using open-ended, experimental activities in

the science classroom at the same level as before. The rest, i.e. four teachers, said that they were not

likely to do so. One commented that all teachers would like to undertake more practical activities in

class but were constrained by time, equipment and pupil behaviour-related challenges.


In the online survey teachers were asked to consider the following statements (the answer options

are given in brackets):

• The Lab in a Lorry visit has increased my awareness of other STEM enhancement and

enrichment activities or opportunities [No, Yes, Already aware]

• The Lab in a Lorry visit has prompted me to contact a local STEM Ambassador to arrange

them to come and run an activity with my science pupils [No, Yes, Already done in the past]

• The Lab in a Lorry visit has prompted me (as an individual teacher) to find out about and/or

consider taking-up IOP membership [No, Yes, Already a member]

• The Lab in a Lorry visit has prompted my school to find out about and/or consider joining IOP

as an Affiliated School [No, Yes, Already an Affiliated School]

Figure 3 below shows the teachers’ responses. The Lab visit had increased just over half the science

teachers’ awareness of other STEM enhancement and enrichment activities/opportunities. It had

prompted one third of teachers to contact a local STEM Ambassador to arrange for them to come

and run an activity with their science pupils. Just under one third had become motivated to find out

about and/or consider taking up IOP membership following the Lab visit. Also, nearly half the


Page 41

teachers reported that the visit had prompted their school to find out about and/or consider joining

IOP as an Affiliated School.

* The exact response options for the 'already' category varied according to the statements as follows (in the order they

appear on the chart): already aware / already done in the past / already a member / already an Affiliated School.

In the interviews undertaken with nine teachers, they were asked whether they had arranged any

STEM enhancement and enrichment activities since the Lab visit, and if yes, what type of STEM

activities? The teachers were also asked specifically whether the activities had involved any STEM

Ambassadors. Five of the nine teachers had arranged at least one STEM enhancement and

enrichment activity since the Lab had been to the school.

These were the five teachers’ responses on what type of STEM activities they had organised and

whether they involved STEM Ambassadors:

• A Lab volunteer, who is a physicist, will be coming to school soon to run a session on

radioactivity.

• Scientists from the local university physics and maths department have come to the school

to run an event with pupils. There are no STEM Ambassadors in the area.

• The Royal Air Force is coming to the school soon to facilitate a light experiment with pupils.

Also, See Science will be visiting the school to work with year 8 more able and talented

(MAT) pupils.

• The school is participating in a Crest Awards pilot run by a STEM Ambassador.

• Someone is coming in to the school to run hands on activities with energy resources.

38

55

33

5

46

29

31

53

16

16

36

43

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

...prompted my school to find out about and/or considerjoining IOP as an Affiliated School (n=37)

...prompted me (as an individual teacher) to find outabout and/or consider taking up IOP membership (n=38)

...prompted me to contact a local STEM Ambassador toarrange them to come and run an activity with my…

...increased my awareness of other STEM enhancementand enrichment activities or opportunities (n=40)

The Lab in a Lorry visit has...

No Yes Already*

Figure 3: Lab visit outcomes for wider school


Page 42

Evaluation findings: Pupils Two evaluation questions focused on exploring the effect of LIAL experience on pupils. These

questions were:

• To what extent has the Lab visit and any follow-up activities organised by their science


• To what extent has the LIAL experience encouraged pupils to consider studying STEM


The findings in this section draw on teacher survey data, teacher interview data and the pupil exit

survey. While the emphasis will be on answering the two questions above, the section also reports

on teachers’ perceptions of the pupils’ experience of the Lab session and their reactions after the Lab

visit.

Pupils’ experience during the Lab session

Of the 40 teachers who responded to the survey, 35 reported having observed at least one session in

the Lab. Those 35 teachers were asked about their perceptions of pupils’ experience in the Lab. As

shown in Figure 4, three quarters strongly agreed that pupils were engaged in the activities, and only

1 respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. Three quarters also strongly agreed that the pupils found

the activities interesting and enjoyable, and the rest agreed. Just over half the teachers strongly

agreed that the activities enhanced pupils' understanding of science in the real world and only one

teacher disagreed.

Figure 4: Teachers’ perceptions of student experience in the Lab

Teachers were asked what influence, if any, the volunteers’ facilitating sessions in the Lab had had on

the pupils. A total of 31 teachers responded. Ten of them said that the volunteers had talked to

pupils about their science jobs and specialist fields and opened pupils’ eyes to careers in science that

pupils had not known about before. A few teachers also commented that the volunteers had helped

pupils to realise that there are alternative routes to such careers beyond studying a science subject

at the university. One teacher said: ‘It was useful for pupils to see that scientists exist in the real

world beyond science teachers.’ Three teachers reported that the volunteers had enthused pupils

about science with their own enthusiasm. One of them specifically mentioned the value of female

volunteers to inspiring their MAT girls. Another three teachers said that the volunteers got students

54

74

74

40

26

23

3

3

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

The activities enhanced pupils' understanding of science inthe real world (n=35)

The pupils found the activities interesting and enjoyable(n=35)

The pupils were engaged in the activities (n=35)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree


Page 43

thinking about the applications of science in the real world, including relevance of science to their

own lives.

The rest of the responses evaluated the quality of volunteer interaction and communication with

pupils rather than commenting directly on what influence, if any, the volunteers had had on the

pupils. A total of 11 teachers thought that the volunteers had interacted well or very well with the

pupils and five found some scope for improvement. With a view to supporting the LIAL to offer even

more to pupils, the suggestions for improvement are listed below. It should be noted that most of

the comments referred to one or two volunteers only.

It would be good if some volunteers:

• pitched their workshops a bit lower and used fewer big scientific words that pupils are not

familiar with

• were less quiet and increased the pace of the sessions to extend the pupils’ thinking and

experience

• developed more natural rapport with pupils

• were given a briefing at the start of the day as to what kind of pupils to expect, especially if

there were going to be some challenging pupils

• were helped in preparing to interact confidently with pupils who speak English as an

additional language, to make the presentations more accessible

Pupils’ reactions immediately after the Lab session

A total of 39 teachers responded to the question ‘What was the pupils’ reaction immediately after

leaving the Lab on the day?’ in the online survey. The teachers’ responses are summarised in Table

25.

A large majority of teachers reported that pupils had been happy and excited, and had expressed, in

their different ways, that they had found the experience interesting and enjoyable. The words some

pupils had used to describe their Lab experience were 'brilliant' and 'amazing'. One teacher reported

that many pupils had been shocked at how good it was and how much they enjoyed it, and that one

pupil had said: ‘Miss, that was dead good, I want to do it again and the one we didn't do!’ Two

teachers confirmed that even students who were unenthusiastic about science had expressed their

enjoyment of the experience.

Five teachers said that their pupils had been very keen to tell them and/or each other what they had

done in the Lab, what they enjoyed the most and what they had learned. According to two teachers,

many pupils had been keen to find out more about the activities and the topics covered in the Lab.

Another two teachers reported that students had compared the Lab experience to their normal

science lessons and commented that science was much better in the lorry. One teacher said that

pupils were asking if the Lab would be able to come again and wanted to know if there were similar

events available. Another teacher reported that immediately after the Lab visit pupils treated physics

as more than just a mere subject on the timetable but a real-life activity to be engaged with. A third

teacher, whose pupils visited the Lab as part of the hub event at a local university, said that

immediately after leaving the Lab on the day a lot of pupils were very interested in university,

including asking questions about courses.


Page 44

Table 25: Summary of pupil reactions immediately after the Lab session as reported by teachers

n %*

Happy and excited; expressed having found experience interesting and enjoyable

26 67

Keen to discuss what they had enjoyed most and learned 5 13

Pupils usually unenthusiastic about science expressed enjoyment 2 5

Keen to find out more about activities and topics covered 2 5

Commented that science was much better in Lab than in class 1 2.5

Asked when the Lab would come again 1 2.5

Perceived physics as a ‘real-life activity’, not mere school subject 1 2.5

Expressed interest in university study 1 2.5

*Base for percentages is the number of respondents who made a comment (n=39).

Pupils’ responses during the days following the Lab session

Teachers were asked in the online survey ‘Have the pupils discussed the Lab (and what they did)

during the days following the visit? If yes, what type of things have they said?’ A total of 37 teachers

responded, and of those 29 said that they had witnessed pupils discuss the Lab experience.

Seven teachers reported that students had talked about specific experiments or aspects of them that

they liked the best: endoscopes got two mentions and the following one mention each: light and

sound, the fan, resonating wine class, blue sky. One of the teachers said: ‘They have discussed what

they liked best. This seems to be fairly evenly split between the experiment with the glass, the infra-

red imaging and the experiment with the Dettol.’ Pupils from five different schools had talked about

the experiments, said that they would like to replicate the experiments and asked what further

experiments they could see. One pupil was reported to have said: ‘I hope there will be more of these

activities coming soon to strengthen our scientific knowledge’.

At one school the Lab had been discussed in the following science lesson using a video taken of one

group of pupils visiting the Lab. MAT pupils from another school had gone home and showed their

parents and discussed with them some of the things they had learned in the Lab. At a third school,

pupils had told those pupils who did not take part all about the Lab, explained what they did and told

their peers they should have done it. Pupils from a fourth school had talked about meeting the

volunteers and expressed their enjoyment of seeing how science was related to actual careers. A

teacher from a fifth school reported that several of their MAT pupils had expressed that the activities

were pitched towards lower ability pupils and would have appreciated the opportunity to interact

more deeply with the experiments. At a sixth school, a group of 10 pupils contributed to the school

Newsletter about the Lab visit soon after it had taken place.

In the interviews undertaken with a sample of nine teachers four to six weeks after the Lab visit the

teachers were asked whether pupils still talk about the Lab visit, and if yes, which experiments. Of

the nine teachers interviewed, five responded unequivocally yes, one said no, not anymore, and

three responded that they do not know as they do not teach the relevant year group. At the five

schools, pupils were still talking about: the resonance experiment; fibre optics; both resonance and

fibre optics; resonance and UV light; light scattering and UV light.


Page 45

The comments made by teachers on pupils’ responses during the days following the Lab session are

reproduced verbatim in Appendix 2.

Teachers’ perceptions of what pupils gained

When asked what they thought the pupils had gained from the Lab experience, three teachers said

that students had gained an enhanced understanding of how the world works and how science is

connected to the real world. Having contact with knowledgeable people with a science background,

i.e. the Lab volunteers, was reported as the main thing students had gained by another three

teachers. One teacher said that one volunteer had opened their year 9 pupils’ eyes to the fact that

they do not need to be A and A* students to be able to pursue a career in science. The other things

some teachers thought the students had gained was seeing and experiencing something they had not

experienced before and getting a chance to use science equipment they do not have access to at

school.

In the online survey as well as the interview, teachers were asked whether, in their view, any specific

types of pupil had gained more from the Lab experience than others. A total of 37 teachers

responded to the question of whom 21 thought that all types of pupil had gained roughly equally,

even if often in different ways, from the experience. As shown in Table 25, six teachers thought that

lower ability pupils had gained more than others and three thought that higher achieving

pupils/those already engaged in science had gained most.

Table 26: Teachers’ views on what types of pupil gained most from the Lab visit

Types of pupil gained most from Lab visit Number of teachers mentioned

Lower achieving pupils 6

Higher achieving pupils / those already engaged in science

3

Pupils from more deprived backgrounds (FSM pupils)

2

Special needs pupils 2

Girls 1

Boys 1

Younger pupils (year 7) 1

Effect on pupils’ attitude to science/STEM subjects

The nine teachers interviewed were asked the following three questions:

• In your view, did the experience in the Lab have any direct influence on any pupils’ attitude

to science? If yes, what kind of influence?

• Has the Lab in a Lorry experience encouraged any of your pupils to consider studying STEM

subjects at GCSE level (and beyond)?

• Has the Lab in a Lorry experience encouraged any of your pupils to consider a STEM-based

career?

All five teachers who felt able to comment on the first question thought that the experience had had

a direct, positive influence on at least some pupils’ attitude to science. Two thought that the


Page 46

experience had increased pupils’ general interest in science. One thought that girls were more

enthused about science than before, another said that less enthusiastic students were now

enthused, and a third that quieter pupils had become more motivated to keep working at their

science.

The interviewed teachers found it hard to respond to the other two questions either because they

thought it was too early to say or because they had not had contact with the students in question.

As to whether the experience encouraged their pupils to consider studying STEM subjects, three

teachers said that they expected the Lab experience to be a source of inspiration and one piece of a

larger jigsaw encouraging their students to consider studying STEM subject at GCSE level (and

beyond). One teacher thought that a one-off experience in year 7 or 8 would not have such an

impact.

Three teachers commented on the question of whether the experience encouraged any pupils to

consider a STEM-based career. One said that the fibre optic experiment had supported one year 7

pupil to considering a career in medicine. Another thought that the combination of the Lab visit and

the exposure to the sciences at the local university as part of a hub event had. A third teacher said

that it was too early to say regarding year 7 and 8 pupils.

Pupil exit survey outcomes

At the end of a session in the Lab (when logistically possible for the LIAL Senior Operations

Coordinator to arrange), pupils were asked to indicate by placing a mark on a large grid pinned to the

Lab wall whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statements:

• Understood something new about the real world

• Met someone with a science job before today

• I would imagine doing a science job in the future*

*Note that the third statement was only presented in 17 of the 34 schools, where the pupil exit survey was undertaken.

Figure 5 shows the proportion of responses given by pupils to each statement. In some schools the

response options given were ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and in others it was ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’, and not all schools

offered a ‘not sure’ option. (This was a result of the decision to experiment to find out what might

work early on in the evaluation process.) A large majority of pupils (98%) said that they had

understood something new about the real world and 17% said that they had not met someone with a

science job (other than their teachers) before participating in the Lab. Opinions were mixed as to

whether pupils could imagine themselves doing a STEM job in the future but 43% agreed with this,

and 30% disagreed, with the remainder being undecided.


Page 47

For 91 pupils the Lab experience provided the first opportunity to meet people in science jobs. It is

not possible to find out whether those encounters made a difference, or will make difference in the

future, to individual pupils in this group of 91. However, based on findings from the teacher survey,

the Lab volunteers had inspired some lower achieving pupils especially to consider studying STEM

subject and to think about a STEM career.

43

76

98

27

7

30

17

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I would imagine doing a sciencejob in the future (n=286)

Met someone with a science jobbefore today (n=536)

Understood something newabout the real world (n=535)

Agree / yes Not sure Disagree / no

Figure 5: Pupils’ responses to statements about the impact of the Lab


Page 48

Evaluation findings: A repeat Lab visit A key aim of the LIAL project is to contribute to change of practice at visited schools, at least at

individual teacher level and possibly also at science departmental level. It appears reasonable to

suggest that any such change is more likely to occur when the school gets more than a single ‘dose’

of the intervention and has taken up other STEM enhancement opportunities following the Lab’s first

visit. It was agreed that the most effective way to evidence whether the LIAL ‘intervention’ has had

any effect on departmental practice, and classroom teaching and learning in particular, would be to

collect data from several teachers at the same school. A single case study school was selected to

explore the question: To what extent have the intended outcomes been achieved in one school that

has had two visits from the LIAL?

Here the intended outcomes are:

• Introduction of LIAL style open-ended, experimental activities in the science classroom

• Increase in science teachers’ awareness of other STEM enhancement and enrichment

activities / opportunities, including STEM Ambassadors’ ‘offer’, and take-up of IOP

membership

There were 20 months between the first and second Lab visit to the selected case study school. As

outlined in Chapter 2 of this report, the head of science and a teacher of science were interviewed

during the Lab visit and the same teacher of science was interviewed again six weeks later. The

teacher survey response from the head of physics has been used as an additional source of data, as

he/she was not available for an interview.

The head of science and the teacher of science had both worked at the school when the first Lab visit

took place 20 months earlier. The teacher of science had organised both visits. When asked about

their memories of the first visit, both talked about how enthusiastic the pupils had been and had

enjoyed seeing real-world applications of science. They also reported that the opportunity to speak

with Lab volunteers had encouraged pupils to begin envisaging a career in science, including pupils in

lower sets, who had previously thought that such a career would be beyond their reach.

The teacher of science had received the post-visit experiment sheets after the first Lab visit. He/she

said that they, as a department, had not used the sheets as much as they would have liked due to

time pressures. The head of science had been inspired by the light scattering experiment in the Lab

and integrated it in her teaching. Also, some colleagues had used the sheets in Science Club. In the

interviewees’ assessment, undertaking LIAL style science activities in class since the first lab visit had

been an exception rather than rule as they often do not have the equipment or are unable to take

the time needed to do them.

The Lab visit 20 months earlier had increased the two interviewees’ and the whole department’s

awareness of STEM activities. The teacher of science remembered having received follow-up emails

from the LIAL Senior Operations Coordinator and several of the volunteers about what they could

offer the department. The science department had had more STEM Ambassadors than before the

first Lab visit come and run sessions with pupils at the school. Also, some science specialists from the

local universities had come to work with pupils in Science Club. In addition, several groups of MAT


Page 49

pupils had participated in science activities at the universities, and the department had become

involved with the Engineering Education Scheme for Wales.

When asked to evaluate the impact of these STEM activities on teaching practice in the department,

the interviewees thought that they enhanced what the teaching staff had to offer especially by

putting science in a real-world context. The science department would have liked to arrange a whole

school ‘off-curriculum day’ to implement the ideas for STEM activities that followed the first Lab visit,

but the school senior leadership team (SLT) did not feel able to allocate time for it. The SLT were also

unwilling to give curriculum time to STEM projects that would take time to develop/implement.

The first Lab visit had brought the possibility of individual and Affiliate School membership of the IOP

to the interviewees’ attention. They reported that the head of physics was already a member of the

IOP and that they had not considered membership as neither was a physics specialist. The head of

science had not considered pursuing the IOP Affiliate School membership, in part because the annual

science budget was quite small.

The head of science and teacher of science were asked what they hoped the pupils, teachers and/or

the wider department would gain from the second Lab visit that was underway at the time of the

interview. Their hopes regarding the year 9 pupils, who were visiting the Lab, were that the

experience would increase pupils’ enthusiasm for science, including enthusiasm for applications of

science, and that this would encourage more pupils to choose triple science at GCSE. They also

hoped that it would widen pupils’ horizons and increase pupils’ interest in science careers. In

addition, they would like these year 9 pupils to realise that science careers are open to all and not

only A and A* students, as year 9 pupils had 20 months earlier. As to hopes regarding teachers of

science, they expected teachers to benefit from contact with volunteers and be inspired to include

more real-world applications of science in their teaching. They said that most teachers of science

would be spending at least one session in the Lab.

When asked whether they would envisage any barriers to these hopes and expectations being met

the two interviewees cited stereotypical beliefs about science being only for high achieving students

and competing interests regarding future careers choices. Also, one of them reported that literacy

and numeracy get priority when school resources and curriculum time are allocated and thus

teachers would, still, find it difficult to engage pupils in LIAL style science experiments.

In the follow-up interview six weeks after the Lab visit the teacher of science reported that when

pupils had learned that the Lab was coming again, those who had visited 20 months earlier still

remembered it well and talked enthusiastically about the specific experiments. During the six weeks

since the visit pupils had said several times: ‘oh, this is like the thing in the lorry’ referring to light

scattering and UV light when they had done work on light and energy in class. In the view of the head

of physics and the teacher, the experience had increased pupils’ enthusiasm for science, including

enthusiasm for applications of science. It was too early to say whether it had encouraged more pupils

to choose triple science at GCSE. However, it had helped lower- to middle-achieving year 9 pupils to

realise that science careers are open to all and not only A and A* students. Both the head of physics

and the teacher of science thought that middle ability and lower ability pupils with low science


Page 50

engagement gained most from the experience as they saw application of a lot of different aspects of

physics.

The teacher of science reported that he/she had received the post-visit experiment sheets and

passed them onto the physics teaching team as he/she did not teach physics beyond KS3. However,

he/she did not know whether the teachers of physics had used them. The head of physics’ survey

response indicated that he/she had not received the sheets at the point of completing the survey. In

the teacher of physics’ view, the school would not be any more likely to include LIAL style activities in

class than after the first Lab visits. The reason given was that while all teachers would like to

undertake more practical experiments in class, they were held back by lack of time, lack of the right

equipment and pupil behaviour-related challenges. Nevertheless, the teacher of science was working

on re-introducing ‘skills days’ for pupils, where the science department would organise a science day

using IOP resources, including those made available by the LIAL Senior Operations Coordinator.

The second Lab visit had further increased science teachers’ awareness of other STEM enhancement

and enrichment activities and opportunities in that they had made new contacts with volunteers, a

physicist and a chemist. As far as the teacher of science knew, no teacher had subsequently taken up

individual IOP membership and the department was not considering joining the IOP as an Affiliate

School.

Overall, the teacher of science thought that both the first and the second Lab visit had been very well

organised and made as easy as possible for the organising teacher. They would like LIAL to visit them

more often and would like it at the school for a whole week to allow time for all of year 7, year 8 and

year 9 pupils to experience it.


Page 51

Event evaluation outcomes For overall event evaluation and monitoring purposes, teachers were asked to assess five aspects of

the event in the online survey. These aspects are:

• Quality of liaison and advance planning

• Quality of presentation given by volunteers

• Adequacy of time given to pupils to practise experiment

• Quality of Lab in a Lorry facilities

• Overall perception of this event

The teachers were asked to rate each aspect on a four-point scale: excellent; good; fair; poor. Figure

6 shows the results. A large majority (84%) of teachers thought that the quality of liaison and

advance planning they had engaged in with the Lab Senior Operations Coordinator had been

excellent and the rest thought that it has been good. Half the teachers rated the quality of

presentation given by volunteers as excellent, just under half rated this as good and only one person

thought that it had been poor. The responses on the aspect ‘adequacy of time given to pupils to

practise experiment’ were more varied, where two fifths rated it as excellent, another two fifths as

good and one fifth as fair. Teachers expressed satisfaction with the quality of the Lab facilities in that

two thirds thought it was excellent and one third thought it was good. In terms of teachers’

assessment of the overall quality of the event, nearly three quarters rated it as excellent, one quarter

rated it as good, and one person each thought that it had been fair or poor.

When teachers were asked in the survey and the interview whether they would envisage requesting

a LIAL visit in the future, all said yes. They were also asked if they had any other thoughts or

comments about any aspect of the LIAL visit. Twenty-six teachers used the opportunity and all their

comments were very positive. Below are five responses, which taken together capture the range of

feedback given by the 26 teachers.

• The Lab in a Lorry is an outstanding facility. It enables pupils of all ranges of ability and

understanding to engage in a positive practical experience of physics which they can directly

70

68

38

50

84

25

33

38

45

16

3

23

3

3

3

3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall perception of this event (n=40)

Quality of Lab in a Lorry facilities (n=40)

Adequacy of time given to pupils to practise experiments(n=40)

Quality of presentation given by volunteers (n=40)

Quality of liaison and advance planning (n=38)

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Figure 6: Teachers’ evaluations of different aspects of the Lab visit


Page 52

relate to their everyday lives. It provides a superb platform to engage and inspire pupils who

may not have realised physics could be such fun!

• As with the previous visit, we really valued and appreciated the Lab in a Lorry activity. Every

aspect was well planned and delivered, with high quality STEM Ambassadors involved in each

activity. Our students gained a lot from the visit and the staff also gained a lot from

participating in the experiences. We would recommend the activity to any school, and feel

strongly that the activity should continue if funding is available as it has a high impact on

pupils and their engagement with science and technology.

• The whole experience was extremely valuable and we are proud that our Year 7 students

have had the chance to experience LIAL. The arrangements by the team and the haulage

company were spot on and enabled the whole thing to run smoothly. Thank you all very

much.

• We have a large number of wheelchair users and special needs pupils, and it was wonderful

for them to be included in every aspect of a science visit. Well done! Truly inclusive. The

Senior Operations Coordinator has great organisational skills and is an asset to Lab in a Lorry.

• The experience has brought students forward and enhanced their interest in studying STEM

subjects.


Page 53

Suggestions for changes This short chapter presents the main suggestions for changes and improvements to the LIAL

programme made by teachers – based on their professional judgement – and by volunteers who took

part in the evaluation activities.

Some volunteers would like the pre-event information to be improved in the following ways:

• Provide the information on the experiments a little earlier than at present to allow adequate

time for preparing for the event.

• Update the information and guidance on the experiments as soon as any changes to the

experiments and/or the equipment have been made.

• Consider creating short videos of experienced people undertaking the three Lab experiments

to support new volunteers to get an idea of how they could be presented.

To increase the ease and enjoyment of volunteering, some volunteers requested:

• Advance guidance on how to respond to pupils displaying challenging behaviour and support

in dealing with such incident on the day.

• Laminated lists of bullet point prompts to remind them of the key points to cover in each

presentation, and perhaps also answers to FAQs.

• A review of the experiments to increase the ease of presentation.

• More efficient changeovers from one session to the next to have more time for engaging

pupils about the experiments.

Other suggestions for changes made by several volunteers were:

• Update the existing Lab equipment and improve the level of maintenance of the existing

equipment.

• Offer new experiments for pupils, including outdoor experiments and experiments involving

sustainable energy.

• Extend the LIAL provision by arranging visits to more schools, promoting the LIAL more and

having more lorries.

With a view of supporting the LIAL to offer even more to pupils, some teachers made the following

suggestions as to how volunteers could improve their interaction and communication with pupils:

• Pitch the workshops a bit lower and use fewer big scientific words that pupils are not familiar

with.

• Be more talkative and increase the pace of the sessions to extend the pupils’ thinking and

experience.

• Develop more natural rapport with pupils.

• Seek support in preparing to interact confidently with pupils who speak English as an

additional language to make the presentations more accessible to such pupils.

• Ask whether there are likely to be some challenging pupils attending sessions and request a

briefing as to what kind of pupils to expect at the start of the day.


Page 54

Appendix 1: Volunteers’ most memorable moments Comments made by volunteers who completed the survey on their most memorable moments from

their experience of facilitating a Lab session are reproduced verbatim in the table below.

Table 27: Volunteers’ most memorable moments from the Lab

First time

volunteer?

Please use the space below to describe any memorable moments you have from your

experience of guiding the pupils through the experiments in the Lab

No On seeing the sunset demo when the light appears red; a couple of "wooah" noises on different occasions and one "that's sick!"

No What happens if?..... Well just try it? What do you think will happen if? Oh, well that didn't work. But you tried it!

Yes I enjoyed seeing less able pupils excel and really engage and enjoy learning and confidently sharing ideas

No A teacher told me that particularly disruptive pupils were quiet and attentive and enjoyed the experience of the lab-in-a-lorry.

No Seeing their joy when using a rudimentary fibreoptic scope they both "spy" on their friends in the other section of the lorry trying not to be detected and also when they retrieve the batteries from the adapted CPR dummy's stomach.

No I have witnessed a Eureka moment when a child worked out for herself why sunsets are red through the course of an experiment she was thrilled and I will never forget it. I have also seen children declare they want to work in science i.e become a doctor when using the dummy and camera.

Yes When I unthinkingly let one group use the UV- fluorescent pens to write hidden messages on the walls and James and I spent a while erasing them afterwards. Fortunately none were obscene, etc. Seeing the interest of the sixth form English-language students who had lived very different lives and might not have done much science at schools in their countries of origin.

No Probably these have come from seeing other volunteer presenters and changing my presentation as a result. This is less common now as I tend to volunteer for sessions in remote parts of Wales where volunteers are thin on the ground so I often present on my own.

No Meeting people, finding the experiments fun and seeing the students enjoying them. Some groaned when they had to leave and wanted to try more.

No Finding marks on bank notes with UV light.

No A child showing sheer disbelief that a fan was still rotating because the stroboscopic light showed it was stationary.

No "don't try this at home" (re exciting/deforming a wine glass through brute static force as as against resonance )

No One girl almost fainted so I had to take her to her class. I later found out she 'fakes' things like this regularly. It reminded me that students are sneaky and you can't engage everyone. Naming the 'operation dummy' is always popular Bob is the most common suggestion). Telling the children there is possibly money in the light box + whomever is the 1st to find it gets to keep it.


Page 55

First time

volunteer?



Yes 1. After doing an experiment a male Pupil aged approx 15 walked out of the Lab and told his assembled friends "that was cool". 2. I spent a session explaining Fibre optics with two students who came to us described as "excluded from mainstream education". They both asked intelligent questions and listened to the answers. 3. Watching teams of pupils work closely together to remove objects from a "patient's" stomach.

No The experience in itself was memorable.

No as a aircraft engineer a young girl who have never thought about a career in aerospace asking me lots of questions and at the end of our chat asking where she could look at getting an apprenticeship after she left school

Yes It was super seeing the satisfaction on everyone’s face when they got the wine glasses to sing on their own. And one pupil correctly explained the whole experiment before I had even spoken, amazing brains!

Yes The whole day was a very pleasant experience really

No I was impressed with the level of interest shown by most of the children.

Yes The numerous feedback from the pupils stating how they had enjoyed the presentation and more so the "Hands on experience"

No When a girl asked whether gravity waves can set up resonance, you know you have a theoretical scientist of the future.

Yes Getting them to see the linkage between the experiments & their own everyday experiences.

Yes I enjoyed the year 6 classes reactions to the experiments, as they were wide eyed as you guided them through light scatter. My favourite moment though was when a young lad came back into my section of the lorry to get his bag & coat and he said to me "Yours was the best experiment sir, it really was" as it confirmed to me that I had got the message across in the appropriate way.

Yes When a student said infrared graffiti when she wrote on the wall then put the lamp over the writing. Another said you helped with my homework and can I come again, with a big smile on his face.

Yes Just seeing the thought process from a child’s perspective was refreshing

Yes There was one group of boys who could have easily be labelled as a "problem group". Within 5 minutes of handling ophthalmoscopes and a CPR dummy, they had organised themselves into a great working group, communicating well and achieving the goal of retrieving objects from the body cavity - they were certainly proud of what they achieved - GREAT TO SEE IT.

Yes Their excitement using the endoscopes to undertake a mock operation and remove supposedly swallowed items. Their support for one another, and willingness to take turns.

Yes There was, in general, astonishment in the degree of distortion of wine glasses at their resonant frequency viewed with strobe lighting and much disappointment at not being able to get them to shatter!


Page 56

First time

volunteer?



No My favourite experience was in mid wales talking about light and torches. One lad described using a torch to help them get to the barn to attend a lambing, I asked 'Did you use the torch to see the lambing'. He replied with delight 'No we switched the light on'

No I personally had a Eureka moment when a child worked out why sunsets are Red and this memory will stay with me forever: and no doubt the child.

Yes My memorable moment was when I was showing the children different experiments, the look they had on their faces.

Yes Seeing the children actually listening and taking in what was being said

Yes I particularly enjoyed the moment that one of the pupils tried to lead the rest of the group in a musical interlude using tuning forks.

Yes On two occasions (separate groups); the positive surprise that certain experiments fed into everyday real life.

No Moments when students "get it" and really start engaging. When students you don't expect to engage actually do enjoy themselves. When students surprise themselves by engaging.

No The amount of 'ooo's' and 'aaah;s' from the children stand out and the phrase 'thats cool miss'!

No Experiment to demonstrate sunset - several "woah", "wow", etc reactions when the light looked red/brown - including one who said "that's sick!".

No A couple of locations I volunteered at the students made a point of saying "thank you - it was a great experience understanding how things are used in the real world"

No The shear enthusiasm that comes together with the Operating Theatre Team when trying to extract the objects from 'Fred the dummy' at the end of Optoelectronics. Even the seemingly disengaged want to participate in this activity.

No It is good to see virtually all attendees enjoying the brief experience out of class

No The vast majority of the children were very enthusiastic and there were several moments when they were clearly excited by the experiments. (Some even decided to take photos on their phones - hopefully to use when telling their parents about the experience).

No Plenty of 'that's sick' comments. Which I believe means that thought something was really interesting and intriguing

Yes Nothing in particular springs to mind.

Yes the quiet lad in the back of the group being given a job in the experiment, and watching him perform that job well and come out of his shell for a while

No Some pupils who I had run an experiment with, came back at the end to tell me about the next experiment they'd done, and how much they'd enjoyed the whole session.

Yes I loved seeing the pupils doing the resonance (glass shuttering) experiments. It never failed to wow them. Also UV light torches gave them lots of fun exploring secret writings of the wall.

No My lack of a good anecdote has more to do with my having a head like a sieve than with there having been no glorious comments from thoughtful students.

No Making the wine glasses sing! Playing a tune on the tuning forks!


Page 57

First time

volunteer?



No The look of joy on a pupil’s face when a group of them experimenting with tuning forks made a tune and were asked if they could repeat the tune.

Yes Breaking the wine glass, and the reaction from the kids, especially with the strobe light.

No Getting the most shy child to operate the spectogram.

No Many pupils have complimented me on my teaching techniques and told me I'm the best :-)

No The girl who answered "unicorns" to every question during the scattering demo.

No It's always the "Wow - that is just so cool" moments that stick in my mind after a day in the Lab.

Yes The reaction of the pupils when they described things positively in their slang. The difference in visible enthusiasms between the younger and older pupils. That ounces they were engaged then the older ones also became enthusiastic.

Yes Children looking in wonder at the lab through IR and UV cameras, and realizing it was what they see on detective series on tv!

No A couple of eureka moments when they got tunes out of the wine glasses or made the fan appear to stand still

No James opening the chocolate biscuits!! No its when the kids get that spark in their eyes and you feel you've made a difference.

Yes One girl was at the back of the group at the beginning of the session and wasn't offering to carry out any of the experiments, by the end of the session she was telling me and the group facts which were relevant to the experiment and actively seeking to carry out the experiments. It was nice to see her 'grow' even in just a short time.

Yes While using the boroscope, one of the kids said really excitedly 'Science is cool', that made my day.

Yes I was impressed by the newest members of the school whose English was poor but science base was impressive. They were also polite and interested in asking questions. They appeared to actually learn from the experience. Perhaps the indigenous pupils were not as impressed with live experiments or just as I suspect hyperactive British school kids lack self- discipline.

Yes "that was awesome " as the students left

Yes kids enjoyed workshops

Yes Getting even the non-science liking pupil to like science even for just 30 mins, and hearing "Oooh Coool!!!"

Yes Smiles, laughter and thought provoking facial expressions.

Yes When 1 of my team broke the glass.

Yes none (sorry!)

No I recall three girls saying that they loved this kind of experience because it connected hands on practical experiments with the abstract theory they normally do

Yes Getting the girls to actually engage in the experiments presented was encouraging, as at the start of each session they tended to be much more reserved than the lads and less willing to get stuck in.

Yes The most memorable moments were when the lights were turned off and the students were able to see the UV-light.


Page 58

First time

volunteer?



Yes No specific memorable moments, but there was a general great feeling from seeing a bunch of surly and uninterested children at the start of the session, being totally captivated and unwilling to leave 20 minutes later!

Yes A shy girl engaging with the uv lights and spontaneously approaching me and telling me what she had seen written on the wall. The groups where the children asked a lot of questions and wanted to know the answers.

Yes Getting covered in water

Yes Had some feedback from a distant contact who said her daughter described the time as 'awesome'. There were a few really notable students who obviously enjoyed the experience and maybe one or two who showed a particular 'spark'.

Yes Seeing children who are disinterested in science, suddenly become engaged with the experiments and start to enjoy the hands-on experience. I have encountered a number of students having 'light bulb' moments during my time in the Lab, which is a magical experience for me, and keeps me motivated.

Yes The boys wanting to blow the glass up.

No The best moments are when I've lead the students to understand that the sun is white and as their conclusion they really understood the particle in atmosphere physics, and the impressed moment of the students when they see the glass vibrate.

Yes 1 group managed to work as a team are retrieve every object when doing keyhole surgery, including the Lego man.

Yes There was a particular boy aged about 8 who had so much knowledge on the International Space Station, and Space. I found it totally amazing

Yes REALISATION OF SOME STUDENTS THAT THEY HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF SOME ASPECT OF LIGHT WAVES.

Yes Seeing kids react with their sense of achievement answering questions right / helping out with the practical's is rewarding and encouraging as a volunteer.

Yes Unfortunately the most memorable was negative when I had a very badly behaved boy in my group, and despite two IOP staff being present (one learning the ropes) plus school staff, no one came to support me while the child got louder and louder and more disruptive, climbing on the desk, crawling under the bench and going in and out of the curtains into the other group.

No The excitement the kids experience of seeing the solid glass move, and occasionally breaking. The realisation that we and other animals can see differently using UV and IR radiation


Page 59

Appendix 2: Pupils’ responses following the Lab session Comments made by teachers on pupils’ responses during the days following the Lab session are reproduced verbatim in the table below.

Table 28: The types of things pupils said during the days following the Lab visit as reported by teachers

Have the pupils discussed the Lab (and what they did) during the days following the visit? If yes, what type

of things have they said?

A few pupils made comments on how much they enjoyed they day and visiting the uni. A number of pupils dis liked the session in the university with the PhD students as it was pitched to high and too much information on the PowerPoint.

Light and sound - they have asked me for clarification on the issues brought up in the lab.

A video was taken of one of the groups which allowed a class discussion in the following science lesson.

they liked the hands on, they liked meeting the volunteers, they liked seeing how science was related to actual careers

That they enjoyed it and would like to do more things like that. The other KS3 year groups were interested and wanted to know when they would get to see it.

There was lots of talk after the visit about the activities they participated in. We also had complaints from lots of pupils who, due to the timetable were not able to visit the lorry.

They remember the activities and would like to do similar things in lessons.

The students that have spoken to me thoroughly enjoyed the experience, especially the endoscope. They wanted time to complete all three stations. However.

Yes. they loved the experiences ... all of them.

Yes. Talked about the one section they missed. Talked about what they learned.

We will be discussing this week in lessons as the visit was the last day before half term

They have discussed what they liked best. This seems to be fairly evenly split between the experiment with the glass, the infra-red imaging and the experiment with the Dettol.

Yes, they have mentioned the Lab several time in class.

In general I have heard in passing them talking about the experiments, the favourite appears to be the fan!

MAT pupils were particularly enthused and even went home and showed/discussed their parents some of the things they learned. They keep asking why I isn't here today as well since they didn't get to do all 3 experiments!

yes, they wanted to replicate the experiments, asked what further experiments they could see. Linked the lab in a lorry with year 7 sound and year8 light topics.

Some have maintained a level of enquiry

Here are some of the comments our pupils made about the event it was " a great experience", "spectacular", "it was very fun", "I hope there will be more of these activities coming soon to strengthen our scientific knowledge".

They really enjoyed seeing the endoscopes and this came up in conversation on a trip to Paris last week with yr 7 too. I think it's incredibly valuable to see the real life applications of physics.

Yes. They have asked if we can do similar sorts of activities.

Yes. They told those who didn't take part all about it, explained what they did and told them they should have done it.

Pupils said they never thought science could be so fun! I know that some wanted to have a go at all three experiments.


Page 60

Have the pupils discussed the Lab (and what they did) during the days following the visit? If yes, what type

of things have they said?

Several of my MAT pupils felt that the activities were pitched towards lower ability pupils and would have appreciative of the opportunity to interact more deeply with the experiments.

Again very positive they all enjoyed the experience.

'It was awesome' 'When is it coming again?' are amongst things that they have said.

They were mainly fascinated with the resonating wine glass and classes which I came into contact with were very keen to look for similar phenomena on YouTube etc

Some pupils have discussed whether some of the information they learned was in the KS4 and 5 curriculum.

Interesting, when will it be back?

yes they have been talking about the blue sky and discussing it with other pupils

evaluation of the lab in a lorry programme · evaluation of the lab in a lorry programme: final...

Documents