‘FIFA’ in this context has nothing to do with football; rather, it is a mnemonic that helps KS3 and KS4 students from across the attainment range engage productively with calculation questions.

FIFA stands for:

**F**ormula**I**nsert values**F**ine-tune**A**nswer

From personal experience, I can say that FIFA has worked to boost physics outcomes in the schools I have worked in. What is especially gratifying, however, is that a number of fellow teaching professionals have been kind enough to share their experience of using it:

### Framing FIFA as a modular approach

Straightforward calculation questions (typically 2 or 3 marks) can be ‘unlocked’ using the original FIFA approach. More challenging questions (typically 4 or 5 marks) can often be handled using the FIFA-one-two approach.

However, what about the most challenging 5 or 6 mark questions that are targeted at Grade 8/9? Can FIFA help in solving these?

I believe it can. But before we dive into that, let’s look at a more traditional, non-FIFA, algebraic approach.

### A challenging freezing question: the traditional (non-FIFA) algebraic approach

A pdf of this question is here. A traditional algebraic approach to solving this problem would look like this:

This approach would be fine for confident students with high previous attainment in physics and mathematics. I will go further and say that it should be positively encouraged for students who possess — in Edward Gibbon’s words — that ‘happy disposition’:

But the power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous.

Edward Gibbon,The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

But what about those students who are more akin to the rest of us, and for whom the ‘power of instruction’ is not a superfluity but rather a necessity on which they depend?

### A challenging freezing question: the FIFA-1-2-3 approach

Since this question involves both cooling and freezing it seems reasonable to start with the specific heat capacity formula and then use the specific latent heat formula:

*Cold-calling students and asking them: ‘What should we write in this box?’ is, surprisingly, an effective way of engaging the class in the process. It’s good to emphasise that we write in numbers for the the values we know from the question and symbols for the ones we don’t.*

FIFA-one-two isn’t enough. We must resort to FIFA-1-2-3.

What is noteworthy here is that the third FIFA formula isn’t on the formula sheet and is not on the list of formulas that need to be memorised. Instead, it is made by the student based on their understanding of physics and a close reading of the question.

Challenging? Yes, undoubtedly. But students will have unlocked some marks (up to 4 out of 6 by my estimation).

FIFA isn’t a royal road to mathematical mastery (although it certainly is a better bet than the dreaded ‘formula triangle’ that I and many other have used in the past). FIFA is the *scaffolding*, not the finished product.

*Genuine scientific understanding is the clock tower; FIFA is simply some temporary scaffolding that helps students get there.*

We complete the FIFA-1-2-3 process as follows:

### Conclusion: FIFA fixes it

The FIFA-system was born of the despair engendered when you mark a set of mock exam papers and the majority of pages are blank: students had not even attempted the calculation skills.

In my experience, FIFA fixes that — students are much more willing to *start* a calculation question. And that means that, even when they cannot successfully navigate to a ‘full mark’ conclusion, they gain at least *some* marks, and and one does not have to be a particularly perceptive scholar of the human heart to understand that gaining ‘*some marks*‘ is more motivating than ‘*no marks*‘.

Update: Ed Southall makes a persuasive case against formula triangles in this 2016 article.