Development of The Salters-Nuffield
Advanced Biology Curriculum
(SNAB): the importance of
evaluation
Jenny Lewis
Centre for Studies in Science and
Mathematics Education
University of Leeds
UK
Salters Nuffield Advanced Biology (SNAB)
• An Advanced Level biology course for students
aged 16-18
• Development began in 2000
• Piloting began in 2002 (52 schools; ~1500
students)
• Approved qualification available from 2005
Advanced level courses in England
• The full A Level is designed for students aged 16-18 and
takes 2 years
• Each year ends in an exam which leads to a qualification:
– Year 1 leads to AS (a ‘stand alone’ qualification)
– Year 2 builds on AS and leads to A2
– AS + A2 give the full A level qualification
• Only some of the students who take AS will go on to take
A2
• But students cannot normally take A2 if they have not
successfully completed AS.
The traditional A level biology course
• Content is organised around broad subject areas and
processes, for example: genes and genetic engineering,
microbes and disease.
• The full concept is usually taught once, to the required
depth.
• Social and ethical issues are often treated as an ‘add on’, if
there is time.
• The approach is teacher led and content driven with an
emphasis on factual recall rather than understanding.
The SNAB A level biology course
•
Content is organised around real world contexts, drawing biological content from across
traditional areas, supplemented with additional content, to provide an integrated explanation;
for example:
–
a forensic investigation of 2 dead bodies draws on pathology, physiology, immunology and
microbiology to determine whether or not there has been a murder.
•
Biological concepts are only taught to the depth required to understand the context; this
means that the full concept might be developed across several contexts; for example, meiosis.
•
Relevant social and ethical issues are routinely integrated into the teaching of the context.
•
The focus is on the development of conceptual understanding through the active engagment of
students in their own learning; this has an impact on the SNAB approach to practical work.
•
There is a reduction in traditional content – to allow time for a more student centred approach;
to make room for more relevant and up-to-date content.
•
There is an extensive range of resources and activities to support this novel approach, mainly
ICT based; ICT is integrated across every aspect of the course.
Approach to Evaluation
• To implement SNAB as intended, teachers
had to make substantial changes to their
usual classroom practices.
• To take this into account 2 different
approaches to evaluation were used:
– A broad approach, drawing data from as many
sources and participants as possible;
– An in depth approach which looked explicitly
at implementation in the classroom.
The broad approach
• Monitoring of the e-networks (for teachers, for
students, for technicians)
• Queries and questions from individual teachers
• Group feedback during training workshops and
feedback meetings
• School visits
• Questionnaires (teachers, students and
technicians)
The in-depth evaluation of implementation
Sample:
3 centres; 8 teachers
Approach:
3 phases;
Each teacher was interviewed and observed in each phase; their students
and technicicians were interviewed to provide supporting evidence
Phase 1: the start of the pilot
(baseline data – usual teaching approaches; understandings and
expectations of SNAB)
Phase 2: at the end of the first year
(development of understanding and actual use of SNAB)
Phase 3: at the end of the second year
(teachers, own perceptions of the changes in practice which they needed
to make).
Outcomes: the build up of concepts across contexts
• Biological concepts are built up across topics and across
the the two years
• Teachers needed to teach the whole of the course before
they could see how these concepts were built up and to get
a good understanding of the correct breadth and depth
needed for each particular context.
• Without this the teachers tended to over-teach - to provide
too much in depth explanation too early in the course
• Most of these teachers shared the teaching of the course so
never got the full picture.
Outcomes: the teachers’ own subject knowledge
• In a traditional curriculum, related concepts are presented
together within topics such as inheritance, biochemistry
etc.
• In SNAB each context required teachers to draw on a wide
range of biological concepts, including some which were
new to them.
• Mostly they coped well with this, but when the concepts
were very removed from their area of expertise they
sometimes felt stressed.
‘we can’t be expected to be all-singing, all-dancing
biologists …. I’m a biochemist’
Outcomes: reduction of traditional content
• To make way for new, topical, content and to allow
students time to take more responsibility for their own
learning, some traditional content was dropped
• Some teachers found this very difficult to accept – it
offended their sense of what it meant to be a biology
teacher:
‘I thought « Oh, they’ll have to know (colour vision)…..
How can you teach biology without teaching that? »’
• Others found it very helpful:
‘Although there is less content overall, SNAB students are
better equiped to find additional information for
themselves.’
Outcomes: selection of resources
•
SNAB provided extensive resources, with the expectation that teachers (and
students) would select as approrpriate to their needs.
•
Initially, most teachers didn’t know they needed to be selective and tried to use
everything.
•
Initial selection of resources was pragmatic based on cost, time and availability.
•
With more experience, teachers began to take more account of educational
purpose and to recognise that the way they presented an activity influenced its
effectiveness:
‘I think I’ve used the Carbon Cycle sheet much better this year … We got into
discussion much more… the first time, I didn’t make enough of the activity, I was
in a bit of a rush [and then] I was back to my traditional, on the board, approach’
•
When teachers couldn’t identify the intended purpose they were reluctant to use
the activity:
‘some activities seem to lack a clear educational purpose – they may be fun but
they feel like‘add-ons’ and leave you with a sense of ‘so what?’.’
Outcomes: approaches to practical work
• Traditionally, practical investigations had become routine, with an
emphasis on getting the right answer; in SNAB the emphasis was on
critiquing the methodology and explaining the results;
• Initially this was challenging – for teachers, but especially for students,
who were unused to having to think about their work in this way.
• With more experience, teachers developed more effective ways of
supporting and encouraging their students:
‘[we don’t waste time on write-ups] students now refer to the details …
one line – ‘we’re referring to the method on Sheet X (attached)’
‘I don’t mark their practicals, I give them feedback – ‘you’ve done this
well … next time, think about this question’
• Most teachers appreciated this change in approach:
‘it’s great to see them doing individual projects …rather than just
jumping through hoops’
Outcomes: the use of ICT
•
SNAB produced an incredible range of ICT resources, particularly to support
student learning.
•
Many schools were poorly equipped to support these ‘state of the art’
resources but those that teachers and students could access were extremely
well received:
‘the ICT is really, really good … to do something in September, to be revising it
in June and to have it on the screen, just as it was in September is amazing!’
‘I keep saying to them ‘you know, you should be using these for revision …
going back through the activities, using them like a resource, just as you would
a book’.
‘I know I’ve taught that section [nerve impulse/action potentials] much better
than I’ve evertaught it before’
•
Because ICT was such an integral part of the course, biology teachers found
they were treated very favourably when new resources were being allocated,
often ending up with excellent resources.
Outcomes: approaches to teaching and learning
SNAB requires teachers to change their usual classroom practices, and
this presented teachers with some challenges.
• Discussion:most teachers were unclear about the purposes of
discussion and uneasy about enaging with social and ethical issues;
there was little recognition of the need to structure a discussion and
anxiety about losing control and losing respect when they couldn’t
give the ‘right’ answer; many teachers foudn ways to avoid or ‘contain’
these areas of the curriculum
• ICT: when integrating ICT into whole class teaching, teachers had to
re-learn how to manage the class in this new situation.
• Active Learning: some teachers felt quite threatened by the idea that
students should take more responsibility for their own learning; even
teachers who explicitly wanted to make this change found it more
difficult than they expected:
• Trusting that students will take responsibility.
• Developing monitoring and management strategies to
support students.
• Giving the students time to think things through for
themselves.
• Extending their questioning technique: giving students
time to think; encouraging students to explain their
answers; asking extension questions; not responding when
students say ‘just tell us!’.
• One teacher described it as a process of evolution, not
revolution; 4 years later he felt he had finally evolved!
References
• Lewis, J. and Scott, A. (2006) The Importance of
Evaluation During Curriculum Development: the
Salters-Nuffield Advanced Biology (SNAB)
experience School Science Review 88 (323) p119126
• Lewis, J. (2006) Bringing The Real World Into
The Biology Curriculum Journal of Biological
Education 40 (3)