Life study - Wellcome · insufﬁcient knowledge and experience to enable them to make truly informed choices from the full range of bioscience degrees available in higher education

Life studyBiology A level in the 21st century

Recommendations and summary of research findingsMarch 2004

AcknowledgementsProject directors and authors:Peter Stagg, Regional Director, Centre forEducation and Industry, University of Warwick

Julian Stanley, Regional Director, Centre forEducation and Industry, University of Warwick

Professor Prue Huddleston, Director, Centre forEducation and Industry, University of Warwick

Peter Finegold, Senior Project Manager,Education, Wellcome Trust

Research officers:Dr Ruchira Leisten, Centre for Education andIndustry, University of Warwick

Consultants:Dr Sue Barker, Science Education, Institute ofEducation, University of Warwick

Dr Paul Elliott, Science Education, Institute ofEducation, University of Warwick

Professor Grant Lewison, Centre for InformationBehaviour and Evaluation of Research (CIBER),City University, School of Informatics, London

The Wellcome Trust has commissioned the education research on

which this summary report is based with the aim of stimulating

discussion about the future role of biology A level in schools and

its relationship to progression in life sciences through Higher

Education and beyond.

Developments in bioscience research will affect our society’s

future prosperity and health, and pose major questions for us all.

The Wellcome Trust is committed to sustaining the future of

biomedical research through its core objectives of supporting the

development of the knowledge base, supporting scientific careers

and through engaging the public in discussion about the impact of

science on society.We see school science education as

foundational in fulfilling these objectives.

Full report available atwww.wellcome.ac.uk/education/lifestudy

You can e-mail your views and comments on this report to

[email protected]

Contents

Executive summary 2

Recommendations 5

Introduction 7

Research methods 9

Research findings 11

Research conclusions 29

2

Executive summary

In the 21st century, biology will have a vitalrole in shaping the future.This presents an

important challenge to bioscience education in general, and to advanced level biology inparticular, as the gateway to higher level workand research in the subject.This report setsout to understand current views and attitudestowards GCE biology A level from a range ofstakeholders and interested parties, in orderto establish an informed basis for planningfuture biology courses, with proper regard to research priorities in the subject.

The research was carried out for the WellcomeTrust by a team from the University of Warwick,comprising education researchers, with biologybackgrounds, from the Centre for Education andIndustry, and specialist biologists from scienceeducation in the Warwick University Institute of Education.The field research was carried outbetween July 2002 and March 2003.Thepurpose of the research was to investigate:

• the response of students and teachers tocurrent biology A-level courses;

• factors which make biology a popular optionat AS and A level;

• the effectiveness of current biology A-levelcourses in preparing students for progressionin the biosciences;

• the extent to which biology A-level coursesreflect changing research priorities inbiosciences.

The research showed clearly that biology waswidely regarded as interesting and enjoyable.It was also widely regarded as an A level whichoffered good progression prospects to highereducation and employment, giving access to a range of popular career routes, includingmedical and related professions.These factorsemerged as the main motivators for students

choosing to study biology at A level.There wasa widespread belief that biology A level shouldprovide a broad foundation of knowledge andskills across the subject. However, the researchalso showed that students’ and teachers’ interestand enjoyment were not evenly spread acrossthe subject. Some topics, including human andmedical biology, were very popular, but othertopics were much less popular, notably plantbiology, food production and agriculture.Therewere also differences in the assessment ofimportance of different biology topics. A relativelack of interest in a topic did not necessarilyprevent recognition of the topic’s importance,but did tend to result in lower perception ofimportance than for very popular topics.Therewas a marked similarity in the responses of A-level students and teachers.

While there was strong support for theproposition that biology A level should provide a broad foundation across the subject, therewas also backing for more choice andopportunity to follow specialist options.This was seen as a possible response to rapidlyexpanding and advancing knowledge in thesubject. In reality the ‘choice’ was made by the school or college, based on their availableresources and expertise.

Current A-level courses seemed to besuccessful in maintaining students’ interest in thesubject, and encouraging a significant proportionto progress to higher education in bioscience.However, students seemed less well equippedto choose ‘the right course’ after A level.A majority of current biology A level students(55 per cent), and former students (nowbioscience undergraduates [73.6 per cent] andpostgraduates [74.5 per cent]) felt that biologyA level is successful in maintaining interest in thesubject, and encouraging progression to higher

level study in the subject. However, results for allthree groups of students showed less than halfwho felt that biology A level made them moresure which branch of bioscience to pursue.The evidence suggests that students haveinsufficient knowledge and experience to enablethem to make truly informed choices from thefull range of bioscience degrees available inhigher education.

Students seemed to be broadly content withcurrent biology A-level courses. All stakeholders,including the students, acknowledged the heavyfactual content of the subject. However, manyrespondents did not regard this as a seriousproblem. Indeed, a significant proportion ofstudents seemed to enjoy the descriptive, fact-based aspects of the course.There were someconcerns, however, that assessment relied tooheavily on factual recall.The factual content ofbiology A level does not prevent it from beingone of the most popular subjects at A level, andthe most popular science. It may be that somestudents who dislike dealing with a lot of factualinformation could be put off the subject, andthis may include some students with high abilityin maths and physics.

Higher education tutors and A-level teachersoften expressed concerns about some otherareas of knowledge and skills in biology A-levelstudents. In particular, deficiencies in numeracy,mathematics and chemistry can be a problem.Some were also concerned about manystudents’ lack of ability to produce extendedpieces of writing.This is not required at A level,but is regarded as important for degree levelstudies and research. Research skills of currentA-level students were good in parts, e.g. theyseemed confident in using the Internet (althoughnot always discerning about the quality ofinformation), but less skilled in using other library 3

or documentary sources. Current A-levelstudents display greater confidence in oral work,and group discussions than their predecessors.

There was considerable variation in the amountof practical work experienced by students at A level. Experienced A-level teachers reportedthat they were doing less practical work nowthan in the past. Bioscience tutors in highereducation reported that students with biology A level often have weak practical skills.Thetutors did not necessarily see this as a seriousproblem, though, as these skills can be taught.

The research highlighted concerns aboutassessment and coursework in somerepresentatives of all stakeholder groups,notably that there is now too much assessmentand that this may have reached the point whereit is taking up too much valuable teaching andlearning time. Also the nature of assessmentcame in for criticism.While a variety of viewswas expressed, 51 per cent of teachersdisagreed (24 per cent strongly) with theproposition that recent changes in assessmenthave had a positive effect. Courseworkinvestigations were also criticized for being timeconsuming, but rather artificial exercises whichdo not reflect the true nature of science as aprocess of enquiry.

It was widely agreed that biology A level shouldseek to keep up with current research prioritiesin the biosciences, and should addressimportant social and ethical questions. However,many teachers and university tutors advisedcaution in order to avoid some potential risks.These included:• potential pressure on the essential ‘core’ of

the subject;• risk that ‘trendy’ topics are given undue

weighting;

Executive summaryIn the 21st century,biology will have a vital role in shaping the future.

4

• practical difficulties and time required inimplementing changes to the specifications;

• the need for a reasonable degree of stabilityin the A-level course;

• the capacity to support biology A-levelteachers with adequate professionaldevelopment;

• quality of debate involving students whoseknowledge of the scientific background tocurrent issues is limited.

Links between teachers of biology A-level anduniversity bioscience tutors were not strong,and direct communication and understandingseemed limited.This may in turn explain whymany life science students initially choose the‘wrong’ course at undergraduate level.

Bioscience has become a highly complex field,with increasing overlaps with physical sciences,mathematics and engineering. Dialoguebetween the bioscience research communityand those responsible for biology education isimportant for planning future development.Thispresents a major challenge, since the biosciencecommunity is represented by a wide range ofdifferent groups, making it difficult to conveyclear or consistent messages about prioritieswhich are relevant to biology A level. Decisionsabout biology A-level development couldbecome over-dependent on subjectivejudgement and opinion.

Executive summaryBiology A level shouldseek to keep up withcurrent researchpriorities.

1. The development of the biology A levelcurriculum should remain responsive to the changing nature and the range of voiceswithin contemporary biological science. If itdoes not, biology A level will lose credibilitywith some biologists and communication andprogression between secondary, tertiary andhigher phases will suffer.

2. There should be a review of what isgenuinely foundational in biology A level –and what is not.This may help to clarify anddefine the essential core, which everybiology A-level student should study, and atthe same time map out the space thatremains for free or restricted option choicesthat might satisfy the appetite for flexibility.Such a review should consider to whatextent this ‘foundation’ consists of factual orconceptual knowledge and to what extent itis defined by a distinctive type of questioningand researching. Furthermore this reviewneeds to take account of actual and possiblechanges in other courses that post-16students are likely to be following.

3. Wherever possible, contemporary scienceissues and examples should be integratedinto the subject core, rather than added on as option choices.

4. Providers of bioscience courses in highereducation should be closely involved indiscussions about the essential core andoptions structure of biology A level.Theoutcome of these discussions should inform decisions on the extent to which all bioscience degree courses should include a first-year foundation programme.

5. There should be a review of the courseworkcomponent of biology A level.This shouldaim to encourage a broader range ofpractical investigations, designed to supportunderstanding through the development ofinvestigative and practical skills.The reviewcould examine the usefulness andpracticability of producing a set of cost-effective, practical investigations which couldbe delivered by any school or college, subjectto compatibility with particular assessmentrequirements, and which could bedisseminated to teachers throughprofessional development.

6. There should be investment in continuingprofessional development to support theteaching of existing topics and newer topics,such as biotechnology, so that teachers andstudents from all centres are able to tacklelearning in these areas with confidence,enthusiasm and enjoyment. In the same waythere need to be good learning resourcesand CPD to support teaching and learning in the area of ethical and social issues inbiology.There is a particular need to produceinnovative and motivating materials andactivities to support plant biology, whichmight be linked with teacher professionaldevelopment to rebuild confidence andgenerate enthusiasm for this part of biology.

7. There should be better understanding andmore collaboration between students andstaff in secondary and higher education witha view to improving progression. One strategyto achieve this might be the dissemination ofgood practice in links between biologists inschools and higher education.

5

Recommendations

8. Assessment in biology A level should bemonitored and re-evaluated. Evaluationshould include the following questions:

• Does the assessment regime test a sufficientrange of biological and scientific skills?

• Does the assessment add value to thelearning of students in biological science?

• How well matched are the styles of learningemphasized in delivery and the demands ofassessment – particularly the higher orderdemands of the synoptic papers?

• Is there too much biology A levelassessment?

9. Teachers need to deploy teaching strategiesto support and develop a wider range of learning styles over and beyond‘memorization’.This might be brought aboutthrough continuing professional developmentfor teachers of biology A level. However,opportunities for teachers to build theirsubject knowledge and understanding arecurrently lacking or difficult to access. Insome cases the development of teachers’subject understanding may provide a way of extending learning styles for students.The Science Learning Centres beingestablished in a joint initiative by theDepartment for Education and Skills and the Wellcome Trust could make a majorcontribution in this area.

10. Further research could be undertaken toexplore more thoroughly the extent towhich evidence supports the provisionalfinding that research priorities in thebiological sciences have permanently shifted,to explain these changes and to evaluatetheir significance for the biology A-levelcurriculum. As part of this research it wouldbe valuable to analyse the several changesthat the biology A-level curriculum hasundergone over the same period in order to evaluate the extent to which thiscurriculum may have responded to messages from the research community.

6

Research recommendationsThere should beinvestment incontinuing professionaldevelopment to supportthe teaching of existingtopics and newer topics.

largely unaltered, and was essentially a dilutedform of the 1960s GCE curriculum.5

Since that comment was made, new sciencecourses (e.g. Applied Science and the piloting of21st-century Science), are seeking to strengthenthe link between the science curriculum and itsapplications in the modern world. However,there remains a substantial foundation ofscience content which is regarded as essential,and this feeds through to A-level sciences,including biology.

Recent years have seen dramatic advances inbiosciences, to the extent to which some, e.g.in genetics and cell biology, have been describedas ‘revolutionary’ (National Academy of Science2002 BIO2010).6 Some of these advances areposing fundamental social and ethical challenges.Biology education and biology A level need todecide how to respond to these changes andchallenges.The pressure to increase the contentof the A level in these ‘revolutionary’ areas isstrong.The consequences, however, may be tosqueeze other ‘traditional’ areas withinbioscience. For example, aspects of taxonomy,classification and biodiversity may be strugglingto maintain their profile (House of Lords SelectCommittee on Science and Technology)7, andyet some would argue they form part of thefoundations of biological knowledge.

There are difficult choices to be made.The content of biology A level cannot continueto expand as knowledge expands.This generatesdebate about what constitutes the essential‘core’ of biology A level. Other debates focus on the balance between learning ‘facts’ andunderstanding scientific principles. Debate on these issues take place in the context ofchanges across 14–19 education, which impacton the future of A level. 7

Biology has remained a popular option forstudents at AS and A level during the past

decade.The number of candidates entered forA level in England and Wales has risen, whileentrants for chemistry and especially, physicshave fallen.1 Biology has also proved attractiveto students who choose a mixture of A levels,and do not intend to progress further inscience.Among the sciences, biology is wellreceived, especially by girls, but also is popularwith boys, since its relevance to their ownpersonal lives is easily recognized (Osborneand Collins 1999).2

While biology’s continuing popularity may begratifying for the bioscience community, it doesraise questions about whether the A level isproviding the right preparation for thebioscientists of the future who will have such an important role in society, given the growingimpact of biosciences on our lives. Many mayagree with the statement on the Salters-Nuffield Advanced Biology project website that“we have just entered a century which is likelyto be dominated by biology, and yet A-levelbiology has seen few curriculum initiatives inrecent years”.3

Biology A level must build on the foundations ofscience laid in pre-16 education, which has itselfbeen the subject of concern.The RobertsReport (2002) ‘SET for Success’: stated that:

“The (science) curriculum is overcrowded, andassessment is based too much on memorizationand recall, which is unrepresentative of howscience is used in life.” 4

Additionally, the Nuffield Foundation Report‘Beyond 2000’ (Millar and Osborne 1998)asserted that the content of the pre-16 sciencecurriculum at secondary level had remained

Introduction

8

It could be easy to be complacent aboutbiology A level, given its continuing popularity.However, rapid advances in bioscience shouldstimulate urgent debate about how biologyeducation, including the A level, and any futureequivalent, should develop so that students willcome through with appropriate knowledge, skillsand understanding, and that sufficient numberswill progress successfully into bioscienceresearch and development.

1 Statistics prepared by SIM QCA – Source:Inter Examinations Board Statistics (August 2002).

2 Osborne J and Collins S (1999) Pupils,Teachers and Parents Views on the School Science Curriculum.Kings College, London.

3 www.advancedbiology.org/course/background.asp – Salters-NuffieldAdvanced Biology website.

4 Roberts Sir Gareth (2002) ‘SET for Success – The supply of people with science, technology,engineering and mathematical skills’ The Roberts Report.

5 Millar R and Osborne J (1998) Beyond 2000:Science Education for the Future.

6 National Academy of Science (2002) BIO2010:Transforming Undergraduate Education for FutureResearch Biologists.

7 House of Lords, Select Committee on Science andTechnology 4th Report (2002–03) ‘What on Earth?The Threat to the Science Underpinning Conservation:The Government’s response and the Committee’sCommentary HL Paper 130’.

9

The research methodology was designedto collect information from a wide range

of stakeholders with interests in biology Alevel and its development. Both quantitativeand qualitative methods were used.Information was collected from:

• schools and colleges which provide biology A level courses;

• higher education institutions, in relation to progression from biology A level;

• the ‘bioscience community’, throughrepresentatives of some learned societies;

• various documentary sources.

Quantitative researchThe quantitative research was carried outthrough questionnaires. Four stakeholder groupswere surveyed (current AS/A2 students, A-levelteachers, undergraduate and postgraduatebioscience students who had taken biology Alevel). As far as possible, the questionnaires forall four groups contained identical or similarquestions covering four main areas:

• motivations for choosing to study biology A level;

• preferences for topics within biology A level,and perceptions of the social/scientificimportance of topics;

• views on the curriculum, teaching and learningin biology A level;

• views on progression and plans for the future.

In the survey of current AS and A2 students,in order to maximize response rates,preliminary letters were sent to a sample ofschools, to ask if they would be prepared toinvolve their students in the research. In total,108 schools in England were contacted, ofwhich 38 agreed to take part.This provided astudent sample which included comprehensive,

selective, state, independent, mixed and singlesex schools. In the sample, 1500 questionnaireswere sent out to schools, and 729 completedquestionnaires were returned from AS/A2biology students. A breakdown of the AS and A2 student respondents was as follows:

• 39 per cent were male and 61 per centfemale;

• 68 per cent were studying biology AS leveland 32 per cent A2 biology;

• 28 per cent were taking two other sciences at A level;

• 26 per cent were taking one other science at A level;

• 37 per cent were taking no other sciencesapart from biology.

The same set of schools was used for part of the survey of biology A-level teachers.An additional 39 schools were also contactedfor additional teacher data. In total, 57questionnaires were returned by biology A-levelteachers from 34 different schools in England.

In higher education, questionnaire surveys werecarried out with bioscience students in ninedifferent universities.These included Russellgroup, ‘new’, and other universities, and surveyedboth undergraduate and postgraduate studentsfrom a range of disciplines within the biosciences.In total, 194 questionnaires were returned fromundergraduates and 51 from postgraduates.

Qualitative researchQualitative data was collected from somestakeholder groups, through structuredindividual interviews, and through focus group interviews.

Focus group interviews were carried out with12 groups of AS/A2 students, of which five

Research methods

10

were at AS level, five at A2 level and two werea mixture of AS and A2. A total of 75 studentstook part in focus group interviews.

Individual interviews were carried out with 23 biology A level teachers. Of these teachers,11 taught in mixed comprehensive schools,seven in colleges of further education, four inindependent schools, and one in a sixth form college.

Focus group interviews were carried out withfive groups of university students.Three of thesewere with undergraduates (14 students in total)and two with postgraduates (ten students) fromthree different universities.

Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 21 university tutors whose responsibilitiesincluded subject tutoring, research supervisionand admissions. In addition, one recruitmentmanager was interviewed.These interviews tookplace in 11 different universities including Russellgroup, new and other categories.

Some information was collected from ‘learnedsocieties’ concerning their perceptions of the current and future needs in biosciences.This information was brought together throughinviting relevant professional bodies to return a structured response form. Responses werereceived from seven different organizations.

In order to explore a more objective approachtowards the choice of content in biology A level, documentary and other research wascarried out to investigate possible indicators of priorities in bioscience research.This includedusing some database searches (in the ScienceCitation Index) with assistance from the Centrefor Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research, City University, London.

11

The views of AS/A2 students

Research findings

What motivates students to study biology A level?Two main factors emerged as principalmotivators for students choosing AS/A2 biology.The first could be classified as a combination of interest, enjoyment and aptitude.Thestudents reported having enjoyed the biologycomponent of science studied at GCSE, andexpress a high level of interest, especially intopics they feel are most relevant to them (e.g.human biology). A large majority (88 per cent)of students agreed with the statement “I alwaysfound biology generally interesting”, of whom40 per cent of the total agreed strongly.

The second set of factors could be classified as career aspirations. A substantial proportion ofrespondents (54 per cent) had chosen biologyas a necessary subject for possible careers inmedical and related professions (e.g. dentistry,pharmacology, pathology, physiotherapy). Biologywas also seen as attractive as an accessiblescience qualification for those seeking a balanceof subjects offering broad career potential.

Which topics are preferred by students and what is theirperceived importance?For the purposes of the survey, the content ofbiology A level was classified into 15 main topicareas. Students were asked to express their levelof interest in each topic, and their perception of the importance of each topic as a fieldwithin bioscience.

The topics which students found mostinteresting were human and medical biology,brain and neuroscience, cell biology, and growthand reproduction. In all these topics, over 90 percent of students said they found them ‘very’ or‘quite’ interesting.There was also strong interestin genetics, with 87.7 per cent of students

finding this topic ‘very’ or ‘quite’ interesting.There does seem to be a link between careeraspirations and interest in biology topics.

The topics which students found least interestingwere food production and agriculture (41.4 percent ‘very’ or ‘quite’ interested), plant biology(55.9 per cent), and ecology (57.6 per cent).

When students were asked to express views on the importance of topics in bioscience, therewas a close match with their level of interest in the most popular topics. For example, humanbiology, which was rated as ‘very’ or ‘quite’interesting by 96.7 per cent of respondents,was also rated as ‘very’ or ‘quite’ important by97.9 per cent of respondents. Similarly, medicalbiology, neuroscience, genetics, growth andreproduction were all rated as ‘very’ or ‘quite’important by over 90 per cent of students,as well as inspiring a high level of interest.

Some of the topics in which students expressedless interest were recognized as being important,though not at such a high level as those alreadylisted. For example, food production, rated as‘very’ or ‘quite’ interesting by only 41.4 per cent,was identified as ‘very’ or ‘quite’ important by75.3 per cent of respondents. For ecology,the results were 57.6 per cent ‘very’ or ‘quite’interesting, and 72.4 per cent ‘very’ or ‘quite’important.There was a wide recognition of theimportance of environmental biology, with 90.8per cent of students rating this as ‘very’ or ‘quite’important.The level of interest in environmentalbiology, however, was lower, with 75.2 per centof students rating it as ‘very’ or ‘quite’ interesting.The topic which was rated as least importantwas plant biology, with 65.7 per cent rating it as‘very’ or ‘quite’ important. As previously stated,the level of interest in plant biology is also low,with 40.8 per cent of students rating it as ‘not

12


1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

biotechnolog y

environment al biolo gy

food produ ction

plant bi ology

ecolog y

genetic s

microbiolo gy

medical biolog y

growth an d reproductio n

brain and behaviour

animal biology

human biolog y

living o rganisms

cell biolog y

biochemistr y

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

biotechnolog y


food produ ction

plant bi ology

ecolog y

genetic s

microbiolo gy

medical biolog y


brain and behaviour

animal biology

human biolog y

living o rganisms

cell biolog y

biochemistr y

Chart 2: Perceptions of importance – A-level studentsHigher mean score corresponds to higher perception of importance on a scale of 1–3

Chart 1: Topic interest levels for A-level studentsHigher mean score corresponds to higher level of interest on a scale of 1–3

Mean scores on scale of 1–3


13


very’ or ‘not at all’ interesting.The results areshown in Charts 1 and 2.

It is not surprising that students showed a highlevel of interest in human and medical biology,given the direct relevance of these topics toevery individual, a factor which was emphasizedin focus group discussions.The high ratings forimportance given to these and related topics,reflect a natural tendency to prioritize humanwellbeing.Those topics in which studentsshowed less interest (e.g. plant biology, foodproduction) do seem to be at a disadvantage.More detailed discussion in focus group sessionsconfirmed these views. If it is accepted thatthese are part of an essential core in biology Alevel, there is a challenge in making them moreattractive in terms of choice of content, teachingand learning styles, and supportive professionaldevelopment for teachers.The lower level ofimportance which students attached to topicslike food production, ecology and environmentalbiology may be due to a perception that theseare not as closely associated with humanwellbeing.

How do students view the curriculum, teaching and learning styles?The research sought to identify students’ viewson the content of biology A level, exploring theconcern that the current A level might beoverloaded, and too reliant on memory recall.Responses indicated that they were not greatlyconcerned about this, and are broadly contentwith the volume of material and descriptivenature of the biology A-level curriculum. Justover half (51 per cent) of the students surveyedfelt that the course contains about the rightamount of material, and 58 per cent confirmedthat the amount of factual material they wereexpected to learn was ‘about right’. However,

a substantial proportion of students (29 percent) felt that the course contained too muchmaterial, although only 8 per cent agree‘strongly’ with this.

A significant majority of students (62 per cent) believed that the A level covers the most important topics in the subject. Only 7 per cent disagreed with this view. Studentswere reluctant to propose removal of anytopics from the course, in spite of their clearpreferences, described earlier.

Of the students, 45 per cent felt that there wasan over-reliance on memory recall. Set alongsideother responses, as described above, this seemsto be a comment on teaching, learning andassessment than the factual content itself.Theresults suggest that many students enjoy thefactual and descriptive nature of biology A level,and that this is a feature which makes itaccessible to a wide range of students. It alsomay contribute to its perception by some asbeing ‘easier’ than other sciences. For example,chemistry was seen as being more ‘analytical’and involved more scientific thinking.

“I think biology is a lot about memory, more sothan chemistry. People who do well are the peoplewho are going to work hard. Revision is a valuableskill.You learn how to do it and go over things.Youcan build up the connections.”

A2 biology student

A majority of students believe that biology A level should continue to provide a broadfoundation in the subject, and that specializationshould come later. At the same time, there wassupport for the availability of options to allowmore detailed investigations of certain topics.However, some students doubted the capacityof schools or colleges to provide specialist

Biology A level providesa good foundation fordegree-level studies.

14


Students were asked to identify the topics they felt were current priorities for bioscienceresearch.The most frequent references includedgenetics, gene technology, human health.GM foods and environmental issues were alsoprominent.A majority of students took the view that biology A level did not give muchopportunity to find out about current research,and would welcome more of this. Some studentsfavoured a move towards an A level in whichinvestigations were developed in greater depth to give more experience of a research approach.However, others prefer a ‘safer’ approach basedon factual information and established knowledge.

Students did show strong interest in controversialissues in bioscience. Almost half of all students(48 per cent) believed that more attentionshould be given to social and ethical issues in bioscience.

The research identified considerable differencesin the amount of practical work undertaken bystudents. A substantial majority enjoyed practicalwork, and were positive about its value as alearning approach. Of students, 44 per centagreed that there was sufficient opportunity forlaboratory practical work overall. However, thismasks the finding that while AS students arequite satisfied with the amount of practical, theA2 students were not, as practical work seemsto reduce in the A2 year. Students were dividedabout whether there should be moreassessment of practical work. Some feel this is agood way to develop and display critical thinking,but others felt this was not a reliable method ofassessment, because “things can go wrong”.

While some students had significantopportunities for fieldwork, many did not.Of students, 57 per cent disagreed with thestatement “there is enough opportunity for

options, and the point was made that it is theschool or college which chooses the option,rather than the students.

Assessment, both internal and external, featuresprominently throughout the A-level course.Most students had either just been assessed or were preparing for assessment. Studentswere often critical of assessment practices.In particular, some expressed difficulty in relatingthe questions to the learning they had done.It is, of course, possible that this is sometimesdue to the students not appreciating that theyare being asked to apply their learning in anunfamiliar context. On the other hand, somestudents expressed concern about a perceivedhigh proportion of marks awarded for purefactual recall.

“You need to learn lots of names. It is unfair torecall the exact word.This does not show that youunderstand.”

A2 biology student

Assessed coursework aroused some strongfeelings in focus group sessions, presumablybased on personal experiences.There wasconcern expressed about the amount of timecoursework takes up. Positive views tend torelate to the opportunity provided for studentsto demonstrate capability in a different contextas exemplified by one student:

“Coursework is an opportunity for those not goodat exams to show their capabilities.”

Among those students who were critical, onehad no doubt that coursework did not add anyvalue to the A-level course, saying:

“Coursework should go!”

...more attentionshould be given tosocial and ethicalissues...

15

biological study outside the classroom,e.g. visits and field work”.Those that didcarry out field work reported differentexperiences. Some were inspired andexcited, but others criticized the actualtasks they had carried out as being dullor tedious. Further research would beneeded to identify the factorsinfluencing these perceptions. Someevidence from focus groups suggestedthat students from the independentsector may have more opportunities forfield work than those from themaintained sector.

Views on progressionA substantial (and unrealistic)proportion (24 per cent) of all studentsstudying AS or A2 biology express thehope to study medicine at university.A relatively low proportion of biologystudents (14 per cent) plan to studyother sciences at university.

Of students who planned to studybiosciences at university, 55 per cent feltthat biology A level had strengthenedtheir commitment to the subject ingeneral. (Less than 10 per centdisagreed with this proposition.)However, while biology A level seemssuccessful in strengthening ormaintaining general interest, fewerstudents (42 per cent) who plan totake bioscience degrees reported thattheir experience of AS/A2 level hashelped them make up their mind aboutwhich kind of biological science theywant to take further.This confirms theview that the A-level courses are notwholly effective in helping students tochoose between higher biology courses.


16

What motivates students to choose biology A level?As reported by the students themselves,teachers identified interest in the subject (93 per cent) and aptitude (83 per cent) as key motivators.They also identify potentialprogression and employment prospects as an important factor (73 per cent).Of teachers, 64.4 per cent agreed with thestatement that “some students find biologyeasier than other subjects”.

Teachers recognized biology as a popular choiceat A level, with a high conversion and retentionrate from AS to A2.

What are teachers’ topicpreferences and perceptions of importance?The topics identified by teachers as the mostinteresting parts of the A-level course were verysimilar to those identified by A-level students,and reinforce a leaning towards human, medicaland related fields, and away from plant biology.The highest levels of interest, as percentageresponses from teachers, for ‘very’ or ‘quite’interesting topics were for human biology (98.3per cent), brain and neuroscience (98.3 percent), growth and reproduction (96.6 per cent),animal biology (96.6 per cent), medical biology(94.9 per cent) and genetics (94.9 per cent).Thelowest levels of interest, (percentage responsesfor ‘very’ or ‘quite’ interesting) were in plantbiology (50.8 per cent), food production andagriculture (52.5 per cent), classification (55.9per cent) and ecology (71.2 per cent).

Teachers also showed very similar responses to A-level students when asked to rate theimportance of biology topics for society, althoughthey were more ready to attach high importanceto topics which they may not rate very highly in

terms of interest. Human biology, medical biology,and genetics were all rated as important by 100 per cent of teachers. Most other topics wereregarded as ‘very’ or ‘quite’ important by morethan 90 per cent of teachers. Some topicsregarded as less interesting were acknowledgedas important, e.g. food production and agricultureis rated ‘very’ or ‘quite’ important by 86.4 percent of teachers, but ‘interesting’ by only 50.8 per cent of teachers.

The topic rated least important by teachers wasclassification and the variety of living things. Only72.9 per cent of teachers rated this as ‘very’ and‘quite’ important. Almost a third of teachers(27.1 per cent) rate classification as ‘not very’,or ‘not at all’ important.These results aredisplayed in Charts 3 and 4 (opposite).

Teachers seemed to show a greater appreciationof the importance of topics which they may notfind very interesting than is the case with A-levelstudents. However, teacher preferences for certaintopics may be communicated to students, even ifunintentionally. It is difficult to generate the sameenthusiasm and excitement for topics in which theteacher has less interest. In addition, relatively fewbiology teachers seemed to have a strongbackground in plant biology.These factors maytend to reinforce the preferences already displayedby students, and maintain this situation over time.

What are teachers’ views on the curriculum content,teaching and learning?The research identified a range of views amongteachers of biology A level, which it suggestscould be divided into:

• ‘traditionalists’ – who tend to disagree withthe proposition that the A level is overloadedwith content, are reluctant to support the

The views of A-level teachers

17

Views of A-level teachers

Chart 3: Topic interest levels for A-level teachersHigher mean score corresponds to higher level of interest on a scale of 1–3

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

biotechnolog y


food produ ction

plant bi ology

ecolog y

genetic s

microbiolo gy

medical biolog y


brain and behaviour

animal biology

human biolog y

living o rganisms

cell biolog y

biochemistr y

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

biotechnolog y


food produ ction

plant bi ology

ecolog y

genetic s

microbiolo gy

medical biolog y


brain and behaviour

animal biology

human biolog y

living o rganisms

cell biolog y

biochemistr y

Chart 4: Perceptions of importance – A-level teachersHigher mean score corresponds to higher perception of importance on a scale of 1–3



18


removal of traditional topics, and regret theloss of essay-style assessment;

• ‘moderates’ – who tend to be concernedabout volume of content, and to favour moreinvestigative work. However, they also tend tobe cautious about disruption caused by change,and are reluctant to name topics which couldremoved to make more space for investigation;

• ‘radicals’ – who tend to feel strongly that theA level is overloaded with factual knowledgeand support radical change, removing topics(or making them options) to make space formore investigative work, and current issues.

These descriptions summarize the range ofviews expressed by teachers, but furtherresearch would be needed to test the validity of this type of classification. Some of therelevant research findings are described below.

Teachers were divided about whether thebiology A-level curriculum was overloaded withcontent. At AS level, 39.7 per cent of teachersagree that there is too much content, but 32.7 per cent disagree.The results are similar forA2, with slightly more teachers (44.8 per cent)believing there is too much content, but stillmore than 30 per cent disagreeing.

A majority of teachers (60.2 per cent) felt thatthe A level should provide a broad foundationin the subject, while only 12 per cent disagreed.Just under a third (30 per cent) of teachersbelieved that there were topics which could bedropped, but there was little consensus aboutwhich topics these might be, although 9 percent suggested a reduction in plant biology. Onthe other hand 50 per cent of teachers believedthat there were topics which should be addedor developed further. However, there was no

clear consensus about which these might be.The 26 teachers who made specific suggestionsnamed 16 different topics.

There is a wide range of opinion amongteachers of biology A level.Views are split on the need for change and the content of the curriculum, while strong support exists forthe ‘broad foundation’.This suggests the value of involving stakeholders in a curriculum analysisleading to a definition of a broad foundationwhich is fully up to date. It could then beargued that the range of additional topics couldbe covered through further development ofoptions. A majority of teachers (59 per cent)favoured “a further development of the core plusoption structures for biology A level in order toallow greater choice and specialization in specifictopics”.This would, however, raise other issues.The degree of choice offered by the options maybe largely illusory, in that they tend to be chosenby the school, according to available resource(equipment costs etc.) and staff expertise.Another factor influencing choice of options isthe degree of popularity with the students.Schools will not select an option unless themajority of students find it interesting.This couldtend to reinforce the bias towards human andmedical biology at the expense of plant biology.

Given the fact that a substantial proportion ofpresent and former A-level students, and A-levelteachers express broad satisfaction with thecontent of the current A level (e.g. about a thirdof teachers see no need for change), anyproposals for change will need to be supportedby a strong rationale.

Of the teachers surveyed, (56 per cent) agreedthat ‘learning facts seems more important thandeveloping understanding or critical skills’, while29 per cent disagreed with this statement.

...should provide abroad foundation in the subject

19


something like the Human Genome Project withinthe course.”

Almost all teachers valued practical work and felt that it added greatly to students’understanding. However, most teachers believedthey have less time for practical work than theywould like. Experienced teachers confirmed thatthey were doing less practical than they havedone in the past. Of the teachers surveyed,52.5 per cent disagreed with the statement“there is sufficient opportunity for laboratorypractical work”.The situation for fieldwork is even more marked, with 64.7 per centdisagreeing with the statement that there is “sufficient opportunity for fieldwork”.

Teachers expressed concern and reservationsabout current coursework, with doubts aboutwhether it was adding value to the course.Over half of teachers (50.8 per cent) felt thatrecent changes in assessment of courseworkhad not been beneficial. In one teacher’s view:

“Jumping through hoops does not developinvestigative thinking.”

Most teachers felt that there was too muchassessment in the course overall.

“There should be less assessment.They should not sit so many exams and do so much coursework.We have to teach and assess every unit.There is nofreedom to learn in a more investigative manner.”

What experience do teachers have of continuing professionaldevelopment related to teachingbiology A level?Rapid advances in the biosciences present amajor challenge for biology teachers in keepingtheir own scientific knowledge up to date.

In response to the statement “the course relies too much on memory”, 46 per cent ofteachers agreed, while 29 per cent disagreed.This diversity of views encompasses strongfeelings on either side. In one teacher’s view:

“There is an awful lot of memory involved.The ASbiology could be passed by anyone with a decentshort-term memory.”

Other teachers believe that memorization isimportant:

“Lots of university work does depend onmemorization. I did so myself in my recent MSc.”

A majority of teachers (67.2 per cent)expressed the view that future development of biology A level should place greater emphasison scientific skills and understanding. Many feltthat the current A level offers insufficient scopefor these skills.

“…not well developed in our students, and thereshould be more opportunity to raise theirunderstanding.”

Teachers were divided on the extent to whichbiology A level can or should cover currentresearch priorities. Some teachers believed that more should be done to include currentresearch. Others adopt a more cautiousposition, wanting to protect the broadfoundation. One teacher argued that:

“There is a tension. It is important that people inA level are aware. But there is not time to get togrips – to fully understand those issues – not inplace of doing foundations. Demands of researchcan call the need for more (not less) foundationalknowledge. Genetics must be set in a broaderbiological understanding. It is difficult to fully teach

...any proposals forchange will need to besupported by a strongrationale

20


Continuing professional development must playa vital role in supporting teachers, giving themconfidence, and ensuring that their teachingreflects modern biology. However, teachersclearly did not feel that current provision forprofessional development is adequate. Only29.8 per cent of teachers agreed with theproposition that they had sufficient opportunityfor professional development, while 57.9 percent disagreed. Furthermore, a substantialmajority reported that the professionaldevelopment they received was focused onspecific course delivery and assessment issues.Professional development which focuses onexpanding the biological skills and knowledge of teachers was rare.

Most teachers (62.1 per cent) felt that theywere aware of current research priorities inbioscience, although 62.7 per cent of teachersagreed with the proposition that it was difficult to keep up with current research in their subject.

Teachers were divided in their views aboutemphasis on social and ethical issues.Theyacknowledged the importance of these issuesand the strong interest shown by students, butsome teachers felt there is already adequateopportunity in the current A level to deal withthis. Others felt more should be done.A number of factors may have influencedteachers’ response to this question.There may be concerns that discussion of these issues could become too time-consuming in a crowded course, and that a lack of depth ofknowledge of the relevant science could lead to rather uninformed debate, which contributeslittle to scientific learning. On the other hand,it could be argued that it is also important toconsider how science is influenced by ‘lay’opinions. Another factor likely to influence

teachers’ views, is the extent to which they feelcomfortable engaging in debate on controversialissues, rather than dealing with scientific facts.A detailed investigation into how schools dealwith controversial scientific issues was carriedout in previous research commissioned by theWellcome Trust (‘Valuable Lessons’).8

Views on progressionA substantial majority of teachers (82.8 per cent)believed that biology A level provides a goodfoundation for degree-level studies in bioscience.In general, the A level was seen as good‘currency’ for progression into higher education;69 per cent felt it was good preparation formedical degrees and 60 per cent felt it was goodpreparation for any degree course.

While a majority of teachers (76.3 per cent)claimed to have a good understanding of theexpectations of bioscience degree courses ingeneral, many teachers felt that they lacked up-to-date knowledge of the options for biosciencestudy in higher education. Interviews withteachers and with higher education biosciencetutors suggested that contact andcommunication between teaching staff in schools and HE is limited.

Rapid advances in thebiosciences present amajor challenge forbiology teachers.

8 The Wellcome Trust (2001) ‘Valuable Lessons:Engaging with the social context of science in schools’.

21

Why did undergraduate and postgraduate students studybiology A level?Undergraduate and postgraduate studentsreported the same key motivating factors asthose identified by current A-level students.For over 90 per cent of students, intrinsicinterest in the subject was a key motivator.Aptitude was important for over 80 per cent of students and career or progression prospectswere also rated as important motivators,especially for the postgraduate students (72.5 per cent compared to 59.3 per cent for undergraduates).

In the focus group discussions, the capacity ofsome biology A-level teachers to inspire andmotivate students was also emphasized.

A number of students had previously aspired to careers in medical or related occupations,but had subsequently followed a different areaof interest within the biosciences.

Topic preferences and perceptions of importanceWhile the sample was not fully representativeacross the full range of biosciences, studentsfrom a range of different areas were asked toreflect on their preferences as former A-levelstudents.The preferences expressed byundergraduate and postgraduate students were very similar to those expressed by currentA-level students and teachers. Human biologyand medical biology were regarded as ‘very’ or‘quite’ interesting by about 90 per cent ofundergraduates and postgraduates. Cell biologywas also highly rated for interest (about 86–90per cent), and genetics was scored at a similarlevel. As with current A-level students, the topicswhich were reported as least interesting werefood production and agriculture (‘very’ or ‘quite’

interesting for 45.3 per cent of undergraduates,and 34.7 per cent of postgraduates) and plantbiology (‘very’ or ‘quite’ interesting for 49 percent of undergraduates and 45.8 per cent ofpostgraduates).

Undergraduate and postgraduate studentsattached a high level of importance to topicsalmost across the breadth of the subject. Mosttopics were rated as important by more than85 per cent of the students.The lowest levels of importance were assigned to classificationand the variety of living organisms, by both theundergraduates and postgraduates, with onlyabout 70 per cent regarding this as important.Food production, agriculture and plant biologywere rated as important by about 75 per centof undergraduates. Although this is relatively low compared to other topics, this came fromstudents who expressed low levels of interest in these topics. Postgraduate students, who also expressed low levels of interest in foodproduction, agriculture and plant biology, ratethese topics higher for importance (80 per cent for undergraduates, 92 per cent for food production and agriculture).These resultsare displayed in Charts 5, 6, 7, and 8 (on the next page).

Views of undergraduate and postgraduatebioscience students

22

Views of undergraduate and postgraduate bioscience students

Chart 5: Topic interest levels for undergraduatesHigher mean score corresponds to higher level of interest on a scale of 1–3

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0biotechnolog y


food produ ction

plant bi ology

ecolog y

genetic s

microbiolo gy

medical biolog y


brain and behaviour

animal biology

human biolog y

living o rganisms

cell biolog y

biochemistr y

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

biotechnolog y


food produ ction

plant bi ology

ecolog y

genetic s

microbiolo gy

medical biolog y


brain and behaviour

animal biology

human biolog y

living o rganisms

cell biolog y

biochemistr y

Chart 6: Topic interest levels for postgraduatesHigher mean score corresponds to higher level of interest on a scale of 1–3



23

Chart 7: Perceptions of importance – UndergraduatesHigher mean score corresponds to higher perception of importance on a scale of 1–3

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0biotechnolog y


food produ ction

plant bi ology

ecolog y

genetic s

microbiolo gy

medical biolog y


brain and behaviour

animal biology

human biolog y

living o rganisms

cell biolog y

biochemistr y

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

biotechnology

environmental biology

food production

plant biology

ecology

genetics

microbiology

medical biology

growth and reproduction

brain and behaviour

animal biology

human biology

living organisms

cell biology

biochemistry


Chart 8: Perceptions of importance – PostgraduatesHigher mean score corresponds to higher perception of importance on a scale of 1–3



24

How well did biology A level prepare for progression tohigher level study in biosciences?Undergraduates and postgraduates stronglysupported the role of biology A level inproviding a broad foundation in the subject.Of respondents, 90 per cent agreed with thispoint. A substantial majority of undergraduates(70.2 per cent) felt that biology A level issuccessful in providing a good preparation forbioscience degree studies. About 50 per cent of postgraduates also agree that the A level was a good preparation for degree studies.About 30 per cent of postgraduates are more ‘neutral’ on this point. It may be that thetime elapsed make it more difficult for them to judge.

Some students did report a degree of surpriseabout the demands and levels of difficultyencountered when they took up degree studies.Also some topic areas proved to be very differentin their nature when A level was compared withundergraduate study. A frequently cited examplewas genetics where some students who hadenjoyed the topic at A level found that it wasvery different (and not necessarily to their taste)at degree level.

Students reported very different experiences inpractical work and fieldwork in their A-levelcourses. Some felt they had had sufficientopportunity, some had not, and others felt theamount of practical work was about right.Theresults for fieldwork, however, were weightedtowards those who felt they had not hadsufficient opportunity. In the focus groupinterviews, these differences came out strongly.Some students had had extensive opportunitiesfor fieldwork, including residential courses, while

others had none.The evidence (albeit from asmall sample) suggested greater opportunity forfieldwork for students in the independent sector.

Students were asked for their views on thebalance between learning and memorizing factsand developing analytical skills in biology A level.About half of the students felt that the A levelrelied too much on memorizing facts and thatlearning facts was more important to them thanunderstanding biological principles.While somestudents did feel that A level contributes to thedevelopment of analytical and thinking skills,greater emphasis was needed on this.

“Critical thinking is the fundamental job of A level.Students need to understand why people mightdisagree… This is also about issues of uncertaintyand risk, which are common to science.”

The students were asked for their views oncurrent research priorities in the biosciences.A range of priorities was identified, dominatedby topics with immediate and directconnections to human wellbeing.There wassupport for attention to research priorities in A-level work, and for the inclusion of socialand ethical issues. In the focus groups, this led to discussion about the extent to whichdiscussion of social or ethical issues needs to be underpinned by sound biological andscientific understanding.

Some students commented on the need forsound mathematical skills for degree-level work.Also there was a need for ability to produceextended writing. Biology A level had notcontributed much to the development of these skills.


25

These findings were based on qualitativeanalysis of interviews conducted with

21 university tutors in a range of biosciencedisciplines.

What do university tutors consideras the reasons for students choosingto study bioscience at A level?Higher education tutors shared the view ofother stakeholders that the main motivators for students choosing biology and bioscienceare interest, aptitude and career aspirations.

They saw the popularity of biology as enhancedby its perception as a relatively ‘soft’ sciencecompared to physical sciences. Students areoften surprised by the ‘harder’ analytical andmathematical demands of degree-levelbiosciences.

How well prepared are students entering degree courses in biosciences?Higher education tutors were almost unanimousin their support for the proposition that biologyA level should provide a broad foundation inthe subject.While the A level has traditionallyprovided this foundation, some concern wasexpressed about pressures leading to somefundamental aspects of biology becomingneglected in favour of concentration on popularareas of interest. In particular, over a third oftutors interviewed believed that plant biologywas losing out to human biology, and thatstudents come into higher education with very little interest in, or knowledge of, plants.The perceived lack of balance was described by one tutor as:

“...the single most irksome thing for teachers ofbiology generally.There is a perception from bothstudents coming in, and from the staff who teach

them, that A-level biology teaches you that allanimals are fascinating, as long as they arehuman, all diseases are fascinating, as long as theyare human diseases, physiology is fascinating aslong as it is human physiology… Most of thethings they learn are related to man.”

University tutors were almost unanimous inbelieving that biology A level should provide a good foundation across the subject.

More than a third of tutors interviewed felt thatA-level students did not seem to be developinga good understanding of ‘whole organisms’.The subject focuses more at the cellular andbiochemical level, and while this reflects somekey developments in modern bioscience, theperceived result was that students’ knowledgetends to be rather fragmented.

Many of the tutors interviewed (more than 75 per cent) commented on gaps orweaknesses they perceived in undergraduateentrants in supporting subjects, especiallymathematics and chemistry.This hindered theprogress of some students, and there is anincreasing use of additional courses or modulesin universities to address some of these gaps.The wider choice of A levels now available tostudents may well have exacerbated thisproblem, with significant numbers taking biologyalongside non-science subjects, and withoutmathematics.

Tutors were asked for their views about thedegree of development of a range of skills instudents coming through A level. Laboratorypractical skills were found to be very variableand, in many students, not well developed. Somestudents appeared to have limited experience ofpractical work. However, some tutors did notnecessarily regard a lack of practical skills as

Views of tutors in higher education

26

a significant problem, since these skills could be taught in higher education.There wasrecognition that schools could not be equippedto offer a level of practical activity which iscomparable to that offered in universities.

In addition to weaknesses in numeracy andmathematics skills, a number of tutors identifieda lack of ability in extended writing.This washeld to be an important skill, which is needed in order to structure a scientific argument.Thecurrent biology A-level courses do not requireextended writing.

Some other skills were felt to have improved,notably oral skills, the ability to contribute todiscussions and make presentations. Someaspects of information research skills hadimproved, especially in the use of the Internet.However, the ability to use some other moretraditional sources (e.g. library) were consideredless well developed.

Tutors were asked about the extent to whichbiology A level should change or adapt toreflect current research priorities.While it wasagreed that the A level should keep in touchwith key developments, caution was advised.It often takes time to confirm what constitutesa ‘key development’.There was no strong feelingthat the current A level is out of date.One tutor commented:

“For such a fast moving subject, I think the currentspecifications are remarkably up to date. It isimpossible to keep pace… The emphasis of the specifications is on the areas which aregrowing fastest.”

A number of tutors felt that the purpose of the A level was not completely clear. Somepotential tension existed between biology

A level as a popular versatile and accessiblesubject offering a broad range of progressionopportunities, and an academic preparation forprogression to higher level work in bioscience.Whilst these two aims are not mutuallyexclusive, they could present different prioritiesfor future development and this was worthy of further consideration.

Most tutors felt that biology A level had little influence on whether students chose toprogress to postgraduate research in bioscience.Most students seem to make this choice duringtheir first degree course. It was felt that the A level had an important role in maintaining and developing interest in the subject.

Views of tutors in higher educationBiology A level shouldchange or adapt toreflect currentresearch priorities.

27

The biosciences are served by a largenumber of learned societies and

professional associations. It was beyond thescope of this research to undertake a detailedsurvey of their views. Some views weresampled, although these cannot be regarded as fully representative. Of 21 organizationscontacted, seven provided responses.

Knowledge and contentRespondents expressed various concerns aboutthe content on biology A level. It was felt thatsome topics receive insufficient attention, andthat coverage was sometimes too superficial.The topics named varied, but included aspectsof genetics, immunology, microbiology andbioprocessing.There was significant backing for an increase in coverage of neuroscience.

“As far as I am concerned, I should like to make a plea for more neuroscience in the biologycurriculum. In my experience (from giving talks inschools and at A-level conferences), sixth formersare fascinated by the brain, and it is not difficult to teach neuroscience in an interesting andconvincing way, without great technical detail.”

(This view connects well with the viewsexpressed by A-level students themselves.)

Several respondents expressed concern aboutexcessive fragmentation of knowledge in A-level(and undergraduate) studies.

“Students seem to be used to small chunks ofwork, e.g. a unit in physiology, a unit in geneticsand so on.Therefore, it is sometimes difficult forthem to see the whole picture.”

The importance of knowledge of othersupporting subjects was emphasized by somerespondents, especially with regard tomathematics and chemistry.

Views were divided on the extent to whichbiology A level reflects current researchpriorities. One respondent thought:

“Research priorities are properly reflected in thecurrent A-level curriculum regarding genes andmolecular biology, but perhaps not in the case of neuroscience…”

Another reported the view of colleagues that:

“Current research priorities were not properlyrepresented in current A-level syllabuses, and A-level specifications were slow to catch up. It was thought that existing coverage is uninspiringand limited.”

SkillsSome respondents expressed concerns aboutskills in laboratory practical work.

“Use of basic laboratory equipment such asbalances, pH meters, and microscopes is poor,and the ability to make up basic molar solutionsor dilutions is also lacking.”

Other skills which were regarded by somerespondents as insufficiently developed by A level included data handling, organizationalskills, problem solving and independent learning.Concerns were expressed that many studentsdid not develop the ability to structure acoherent argument based on facts, recognizethe limitations of science, and critically analysethe strengths and weaknesses of an argument.

A number of representatives of the learnedsocieties expressed concerns about assessment andtesting. Some felt that there was too much testingand that formal assessment could restrict anddevalue other kinds of learning. It was suggestedthat assessment had become too dominant.

Views from learned societiesand professional bodies

“Due to time pressures, etc. It was also thoughtthat students were only learning what was neededto pass exams, and that the ability to think hadbeen seriously eroded.”

There was also some concern about the natureof assessment with recommendations that somemore extended, essay style questions should be brought back. Another suggestion was toimprove practical assessment, so that studentsare clearly required to apply scientificknowledge and make decisions independently.

The current approach in which courses andassessment are becoming more modular wasfelt to contribute to the tendency for learningto become fragmented:

“A modular system inevitably tends towardspackaged learning.There needs to be more creditgiven for ability to think across modules. Emphasison understanding rather than rote learning wouldprepare pupils better for higher education.”

28

Views from learned societies and professional bodies

“...students were onlylearning what wasneeded to pass exams...”

Research conclusions

29

1. Most stakeholders agreed that biology A level should provide a broad foundationfor progression to higher level studies andcareers in the biological sciences. However,some university tutors identified significantimbalance (e.g. deficiency in plant biology and in understanding of whole organisms)and some learned societies identified otherareas of neglect, e.g. neuroscience.

2. Stakeholders were divided in their views of the structure of AS and A2 biology.Most valued the extensive descriptive andtraditional content while a minority ofrespondents were critical of the burden of knowledge and the way this impacts uponlearning and assessment.The descriptivenature of the subject was seen as a factor in the subject’s ‘general’, rather than its‘scientific’ appeal. However, a number ofuniversity tutors expressed the view thatsome students achieving a good grade inbiology A level can struggle with the ‘harder’scientific content at degree level.

3. A majority of stakeholders supported theprinciple that biology A level should providea broad foundation in the subject, and supportthe notion of greater choice through, forexample, the inclusion of specialist options,an increase in topical scientific issues andmore attention to social and ethical issues.

4. Biology A level is effective in maintaining anddeveloping the interest of students intendingto continue their studies in biological sciencesand also attracts significant numbers of studentswho do not intend to continue studies in thesubject. However, a variety of stakeholdersvoiced concerns about how well existingcourses inform choices about progressioninto the full range of bioscience courses.

5. Most stakeholders were broadly contentwith skills developed in biology A levelcourses. However, a majority of universitytutors and some teachers and learnedsocieties perceived that current biology A-level courses appear to be less effective indeveloping practical skills, numerical skills andthe ability to produce extended writing thanin the past. However, stakeholders reportedthat students tend to be increasinglyconfident in group work, the use of ICT and discussion work.

6. Coursework investigations were consideredby many teachers, and some sixth formers,as mechanical, time consuming and unreliableas an assessment of investigative skills. Someuniversity tutors believed that students havenot gained sufficient understanding of thetrue nature of scientific enquiry.

7. The current assessment regime has imposedtime pressures which limit the scope forscientific reflection and investigation.Representatives of all stakeholders expressedconcern about the volume, timing and impactof assessment. Just over half of teachersexpressed dissatisfaction with recent changes in the assessment of coursework.

8. There was a close correlation in the relativeinterest shown by A-level teachers, students,undergraduates and postgraduates indifferent topics in biological sciences.Thiscorrelation suggests that preferences forhuman and medical biology, and some othertopics such as genetics, are likely to bereinforced. Plant biology and, to a lesserdegree, ecology are relatively less popular.

9. Teachers felt that their opportunities forprofessional development are limited and

30

inadequate. Professional development isfocused on specific course delivery andassessment issues, with little opportunity forthe development of new subject knowledge,including recent advances in bioscience.

10. All groups generally agreed that biology A level should reflect current researchpriorities, while maintaining reasonablebalance with the provision of a broadfoundation in the subject. Most A-levelteachers and university tutors felt thatbiology A level has responded to recentdevelopments in the subject. Most studentswelcomed opportunities to find out moreabout current research and to learn aboutcontroversial issues in the biological sciences.The challenge is to find a balance whichtakes account of the diverse ‘claims’ ofpriority in rapidly advancing biosciences,and the widely held support for a ‘broadfoundation’ in biology A level.

11.The changing nature of bioscience researchis also significant, with an increase ininterdisciplinary approaches, which requirephysical sciences, information technology and mathematics in addition to traditionalbiology.The evidence suggested that biologyA level has made progress in responding to some of the major development areas inresearch (e.g. cell biology, biochemistry,genetics) in terms of basic content. However,current A-level courses are still provided as separate sciences, in a way which doesnot lend itself easily to an inter-disciplinaryapproach. Also a significant number ofstudents choosing biology AS or A levelcould find the subject more difficult, and less attractive if there was an increase in thephysical science and mathematics content.

12.The introduction of option choices andmodular structures in biology A level has led to variations in the topics covered bystudents.This has meant that universitiescannot assume all students have covered the same work and has contributed to theintroduction of foundation work in the firstyear of degrees.This may lead to repetitionor issues about ‘pace’ for some students.

13. Contact and communication betweenbiology A-level teachers and universitytutors (who are not admissions tutors) waslimited.This is likely to make preparation of students for degree courses less effective,and also may reduce the quality of adviceabout bioscience specialisms.

14. Detailed consideration should be given to teaching and learning styles in biology A level. Many stakeholders were concernedabout excessive reliance on factual recall andinsufficient emphasis on developing scientificunderstanding. Many felt that practical workis inadequate. It is important to acknowledgethat the evidence showed a wide diversity of views.The evaluation of different A-levelcourses offering a choice of styles andapproaches could make a valuable contributionto the debate about these issues.

Research directions

31

Notes

32

Notes

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,

in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior

permission of the Wellcome Trust.

Design and production:Wellcome Trust Publishing Department

First published 2004

© The Trustee of the Wellcome Trust, London 2004

The Wellcome Trust is a registered charity, no. 210183

Trustee:The Wellcome Trust Limited

Registered in England, no. 2711000

Registered office: 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE

Front cover image: Photodisc

The Wellcome Trust183 Euston RoadLondon NW1 2BE, UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7611 8651Fax: +44 (0)20 7611 8416E-mail: [email protected]: www.wellcome.ac.uk

MC-3057.p/14K/03-2004/JW

Documents

Life study - Wellcome · insufﬁcient knowledge and experience to enable them to make truly informed choices from the full range of bioscience degrees available in higher education