DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLICATION/CITATION

Teaching and learning at A level within a modular context:

a collaborative projectwith biology teachers

Jane McNicholl Department of Education, University of Oxford (OUDE)

Michael Noone The MarlboroughSchool, Woodstock, Oxon

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007

Rationale

Two previous pieces of work underpin the rationale for his research project: firstly, Hayward and McNicholl (2007) in a recent paper argued that despite there being some genuine educational aspirations associated with the initial experimentation with a modular qualification design for science A levels, these aspirations do not seem to have come to fruition. Rather, increasing returns to key actors such as ever improving grades at AS and A level have driven the modularisation bandwagon down a pathway that has produced educational disadvantages for teachers and learners (also see Taverner & Wright 1997; Hargreaves 2004; Hodgson & Spours 2004). Secondly, studying teachers’ professional learning and the role that the school subject departments play in this (McNicholl and Childs 2006; Childs and McNicholl 2007), it became clear that within the typically large school science departments in our ITE partnership where specialist biology, chemistry and physics teachers work together there are opportunities for collaborative working. However, the capacity and opportunities for such collaboration for many A level science teachers is much reduced; indeed, learning and acting independently, and even in isolation, is not uncommon for many A level teachers of science. Drawing on the findings and insights from this work, a collaborative project involving a group of local A level biology teachers was undertaken, the A Level Biology (ALB) Project. The two main aims for this project were, through collaborative work, to develop and enhance the teaching and learning of biology at A level within the constraints of a modular curricula and assessment regime and, to provide insights into new and innovative models of professional development for teachers. This paper reports on the second of these concerns where the following research questions were investigated:

  • What are the affordances of a collaborative inquiry approach for teacher learning?
  • What impact, if any, of such an approach is there on teacher thinking and practice?

Teaching and learning at A level within a modular context

Background

At the start of the twenty first century governments in most OECD countries are involved in ongoing debates about the structure and form of the senior secondary[1] school curriculum. Typically such debates are linked to growing concerns about maintaining economic competitiveness in the face of the pressures of globalisation, and the need to develop a ‘knowledge economy’ in response to such pressures. This has resulted in two clear trends in arguments about the development of the upper secondary curriculum, with a growing use of learning outcomes to specify assessment models for qualifications and an increased use of m modular or unitised qualification designs.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was an increasing take up of modular A level syllabuses by schools and colleges, particularly in mathematics and science (Wessex scheme[2] and the University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (UCLES) scheme). The reasons for mathematics and science to be the first A level qualifications to be offered as modular courses has not been critiqued nor fully explained; as the Royal Society of Chemistry (1996: 9) pointed out in their discussion paper on standards, comparability and modular assessment, “Modular A-levels seemed to appear without much consultation. They are now very much a fait accompli.” Some authors suggest that a reason for the growth of modular A levels might have been to make these A level courses more attractive to students.

The proportion of students specialising in mathematics and science had declined (Sharp et al 1996) and this trend prompted concerns that there would not be sufficient young people qualified to take-up higher education courses in science, mathematics and engineering. Taverner and Wright (1997) suggest that modular mathematics might be more attractive to students than the traditional linear courses;“the ability to spread the assessment process over a wide period, is perceived to make it more attractive” (Taverner and Wright 1997: 105). Another factor at work could have been largely been market driven.

Since schools no longer paid registration fees to examination boards but instead paid fees for every examination taken by their students a market economy between the examination boards arose where examination boards competed for students’ fees (Hoyles et al 2001). Making less popular subjects like science and mathematics a modular option was perceived by examination boards as one way to attract schools to sign up to their specification and examination;

‘None of those (representatives from four major boards) had a clear idea of the reasons underpinning the various changes, other than the hope that the board would attract more candidates…. It appeared that increasing the market share of examination fees was almost the only arbiter: one board’s success in increasing numbers resulted in other boards following suit.’ (Hoyles et al 2001: 836).

Further, the publication of school league tables and the pressure on schools to improve examination results meant that having the chance to retake the modular examinations meant that summative assessment could be used, it was argued, in a formative way, so helping students to pass the examinations with higher grades. Whatever the reasons, the popularity of modular A levels grew at a rapid rate. In 1996 the uptake of modular A levels was mainly confined to mathematics and science accounting for about 20% of candidate entries, by June 1998 the number and range had grown to over 50% of A level candidates being examined on modular course (Richardson et al 1995; Ofsted 1999; Hodgson and Spours 2004: 456). Further, A survey in two LEAs found that 90% of respondents had changed their examination board for mathematics between 1989 and 1997 and that in every case this change was to a modular A level course (Hoyles et al 2001).

Concerns about the comparability between modular A level courses and the more traditional linear, terminally examined courses arose (Dearing 1996, Pinnell 1996; Stobart 1995; Taverner and Wright 1997). The Dearing Review (Dearing 1996), followed by Qualifying for Success (DfEE 1997), which adopted most of the recommendations made by Dearing, led to the development of the Curriculum 2000 initiative. Overall its aim was to provide flexible 16-19 education that encouraged broader study at A level and a unified academic and vocational qualification system. Specifically, all A levels were split into six-units of assessment with an examination for each unit. Thus, a modular approach, both in terms of the curriculum structure and assessment regime, now lies at the heart of A level study in England.

Impact on teaching and learning

Firstly, it is worth noting, that while biology courses in the past have had an underlying philosophy (ultimately derived from A Course of Elementary Instruction in Practical Biology carefully developed by T H Huxley in the late 19th century), the ad-hoc addition of a plethora of new fields (biochemistry, genetics, microbiology to name but a few) in the 20th century has meant this is no longer the case (Slingsby, 2006). Arguably modularisation of the curriculum has caused further fragmentation of the knowledge base of A level biology. It is surely also the case that the present modular regime at A level also has implications for curriculum planning by teachers. Given the constraints of regular assessment dates, the taught curriculum is much more governed by the examination board’s specification with its modular structure, heavy content base and module tests. As a consequence of this, teachers now have much less opportunity and, indeed less autonomy, to develop their own curricula approaches to meet the needs of their students. This situation does little to calm the concerns about the loss of teacher professionalism. The financial costs of this modular assessment regime are now quite staggering; secondary school head teachers spending on average £150 000 on examination entrance fees which is more money than they spend on text books (Tomlinson, 2004; TES, 2006).

However, it is the implications for student learning that are perhaps the most worrying. There is growing evidence to suggest that the learning experience of A level students has been compromised by the approach to modularisation that underpinned the introduction of Curriculum 2000. For example, in one study, teachers and students in reported that Year 12 (the first year of A level study) was both rushed and superficial;

Many teachers resented the fact that they were not able to build in the types of skills, exemplification and underpinning knowledge for which they had found space when teaching the old A-levels. (Hodgson and Spours 2004: 447):

Priestley (2003) reports the effects of modularisation of A level study to be more didactic teaching, teaching to the test, and to what Hargreaves (2001, p.3) terms a ‘climate of cramming’ (see also Taverner and Wright, 1997). Such problems Priestley (op. cit.) suggests are exacerbated by the fact that many A level course specifications are content heavy. However, Hodgson and Spours (2001) suggest that most of this ‘overload’ was associated with modular assessment rather than excessive content; a regime of regular formal assessment meant teachers spending much valuable learning time preparing for examinations. Tomlinson (2004), for example, estimated that a typical young person who goes on to study for three A levels will lose overall about two terms’ worth of learning preparing for and taking examinations. This increased assessment load also has other implications: increased workloads produces student stress leading to dropout, and less opportunity for enrichment, such as taking part in extra-curricular activities (Priestley, 2003; Coll, 2002; McVeigh, 2002; Hodgson and Spours, 2001). Students may be working harder in terms of learning their subjects because they are more extrinsically motivated, but this may have been bought at the expense of other sorts of learning experiences of equal value in forming a person.

An over emphasis on assessment can also lead teachers to adopt teaching styles that emphasise the learning of factual information (Black, 2004). Evidence from the literature on teaching science in Higher Education indicates that qualitatively different approaches to teaching are associated with qualitatively different approaches to learning. Other evidence from students’ learning in higher education in the US also suggests that such fragmented approaches to teaching and assessment lead to short term and ‘episodic’ learning (Bereiter 2002). Set against this is repeated expressions of concern from Higher Education Admissions Staff in focus groups run by the Nuffield 14-19 Review (Wilde et al., 2006; Hayward and Wright, 2006) about the fragmented nature of new student’s knowledge of science, a highly instrumental and surface approach to learning, a lack of understanding and critical engagement with ideas.

Further, Trigwell et al. (1999) report that in classes where teachers describe their approach to teaching as having a focus on what they do and transmitting knowledge, students are more likely to report that they adopt a surface approach to the learning of that subject. In the classes where students reported adopting deeper approaches to learning, teachers reported that they were adopting approaches to teaching that were more oriented towards students and to changing students’ conceptions.If a purpose of teaching science at A level is to help students to understand at a deeper level than previously the subjects they are learning, to form a relationship with the conceptual artefacts – the theories, ideas and concepts that constitute a body of knowledge - in order to act intelligently with those artefacts (Bereiter, 2002), then the sorts of surface approaches to learning identified by Trigwell et al. (op. cit.) are unlikely to achieve this outcome. Hayward and McNicholl (2007) argue that subjects like biology do not consist of disparate material but rather of interlocking conceptual artefacts. To develop an understanding of these artefacts, and to act intelligently with them, requires a teacher to help learners build connections between them from the beginning of a programme of learning, not trying to force them together towards the end.

However, all is not doom and gloom; it needs to be pointed out that national statistical evidence consistently shows improving examination scores in science A levels over the last ten years, coincident with the shift to modular assessment. For example, the proportion of candidates gaining the top grade in biology increased by 9.3% between 1996 and 2005 (DfES, 2006). Given that the modular examinations are assessing validly across the four assessment objectives for the A level, which include evaluation, synthesis and application of knowledge, then this data suggest an improvement in understanding. Thus, even if teachers are teaching to the test, and are apparently getting better at so doing, then that is to be applauded as it is, according to the examination data, leading to improvements in the ability of students to synthesise, evaluate and analyse information. Developing these skills in a knowledge domain such as science must involve, one assumes, the development of understanding, i.e. forming a relationship with the conceptual artefacts – the theories, ideas and concepts that constitute a body of knowledge - in order to act intelligently with those artefacts at least in terms of answering examination questions.

The A Level Biology Project

Given the ‘state’ of teaching and learning of biology at A level, major aims of this project were to gain a better understanding of the context in which A level biology teachers work and then to investigate collaborative working as an effective vehicle for teacher learning.

Research Strategy

Unlike teachers of the sciences at Key Stages 3 and 4, when teaching A level, biology teachers are more likely to be acting independently and even in isolation. It is not at all unusual for a pair of biology teachers to plan and teach separate parts of the A level specification and, as a consequence of this, they often act alone having limited opportunity for curriculum development with colleagues. Thus, it was decided that this project would involve a number of biology A level teachers from different schools working together and collaboratively. It was felt that any advances could be written into schemes of work at their school and thereby shared with other colleagues.

While the Finnish developmental work tradition informed the A LevelBiology Project (ALBP), drawing upon activity and other sociocultural theories (CHAT) of learning and collaboration to develop practice; it also draws upon research on practical enquiry as a means of professional development as well as professional learning communities (Anders & Richardson 1994; Cochran-Smith & Lytle 1999). In line with previous teacher development projects, the ALB Project was based upon the assumption that teachers possess what Cochran-Smith and Little (1999) refer to as ‘knowledge of practice’, where knowers and knowledge are connected to larger political and social agendas. Furthermore, the joint enterprise involved a HEI tutor and teachers working collaboratively, where the university teacher educator functioned not as a university expert but as a colleague engaged in a process of learning that hinged upon constructing and reconstructing the ‘practical arguments’ (Fenstermacher 1994) that guide practice and consequently experimenting with alternatives practices (Richardson 1994). Huberman (1995) argues that networks of schools can be an effective way in which teachers engage with professional development. It is said that the natural resistance to change and innovation, particularly by experienced teachers can be reduced by learning in networks. Indeed, many top down approaches to educational change are largely have been shown to be unsuccessful in altering what teachers do in the classroom. Further, unlike the usual top down CPD usually on offer, characterised by vertical learning, these networks provide a forum where teachers can learn from each other, a form of horizontal learning.

Research on professional development has also been critical of traditional approaches and argue for more collaborative models (Ball & Cohen 1999; Stein et al 1999; Putnam & Borko 2000; Edwards et al 2002; Cobb et al 2003). Indeed in a recent OFSTED evaluation in England acknowledged that the narrow perception that professional development involves one-off workshop models is changing (OFSTED 2002). Some research has shown that learning in networks may be particularly effective when teachers share similar tasks, but have different experiences in their own school (Clement & Vandenberghe 2000). For many years there have been arguments that one of the most effective professional development models for teachers is one that involves teachers conducting professional inquiries into their own practice. Much of the early thinking in this area has come work such as Elliot’s and Stenhouse’s curriculum development projects (Elliot 1991; Stenhouse 1975). Furthermore, this project draw upon the work of Ellis (2007) and the DETAIL Project conducted at OUDE. It is entirely understandable for teachers to focus on their own professional practice given that for many teachers their priority is to benefit their teaching and the learning of their students (Denscombe, 1998; Kemmis ??). Such enquiry might involve the trying out of an idea in practice with a view to changing or improving something. Thus, the chosen methodology for this professional project was that of action research because it meets many of the requirements for professional inquiry: it aims to investigate a problem that is highlighted by the teachers themselves, it deepens the teachers’ understanding of the problem, and looks at and interprets what is going on from the participants’ point of view (McTaggart, 1991). Further, the specificity of action research is perhaps what appeals to practitioners; it is often about developing specific knowledge for specific problems in a specific context. In a nutshell then, the aim of this action research project was to yield practical, applicable results for professional purposes (Noffke 1997).

One of the main criticisms of action research, however, is that teachers are not competent researchers and any research produced might lack any credible academic status. Hammersley (1993), for example, asserts that understanding educational phenomena in their wider context may be difficult for those closely associated with them. However, he also accepts that most of his arguments about the bias of teacher researchers have equally valid counter arguments. It could be argued, for instance, that teachers have a deeper understanding of their own behaviour than an outsider ever could. Moreover, in this study, a university biology teacher education lecturer with research expertise acted as a facilitator (e.g. Ball 1995; Palinscar et al 1998 and others). The major role of this facilitator was in developing the teachers’ research knowledge and skills, but this person also took overall responsibility for the organisation of the group. Figure 1. below shows how the ALB Project was devised to try and overcome some of the perceived weaknesses of many models of CPD: