Over 1000 people from the science community responded to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's (QCA) recent consultation on its revised criteria for GCE AS/A-levels (see Educ. Chem., 2006, 43(3), 58). The next highest subject response came from English with around 170. The massive response from the science community was, in the main, to QCA's proposal to reduce the number of assessment units from six to four coupled with a concern that the assessment of practical skills might get squeezed out of any such model. This in turn, chemists argued, could lead to an end of practical work in some schools at this level. So the message to QCA from the science community was unanimous - a four-unit model was not a realistic option for any of the main science subjects because it would not accommodate adequately assessment of theoretical and practical aspects of these subjects. QCA has taken this on board, along with other feedback, in its latest Draft GCE AS and A level subject criteria for science, published in May. 

Practical sense 

In an attempt to reduce the burden of assessment QCA proposed that the current six-unit structure - ie three AS + three A2 units - could be replaced by a four-unit structure - ie two AS and two A2 units. Three alternative models were put forward (see Educ. Chem., 2006, 43(3), 58). Model one had no direct assessment of practical skills; model two had direct assessment of practical skills at AS and A2, but would see the end of staged assessment; and model three assessed practical skills only at A2. 

In response to the feedback, including a formal response from the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), QCA proposes a six-unit structure for all science subjects except psychology, which would contain four units in line with the other A-levels. According to QCA, in the six-unit GCE sciences - biology, chemistry, physics, geology, electronics, and environmental science - one of the assessment units at AS and one at A2 would have to be internally assessed, and these would include the assessment of practical skills. The minimum weighting of each internally assessed unit would account for at least 20 per cent of the overall marks.  

According to the RSC, the case for the assessment of practical skills at this level for chemistry students is unassailable. Colin Osborne, education manager schools and colleges at the RSC, told Education in Chemistry, 'while you can examine planning, data handling, drawing conclusions etc on a written paper you can't examine what the students can do when faced with bits of apparatus that they have to put together to do an experiment, which is what all chemists need to be able to do. The only way to assess this is by getting the students to do this in front of the teacher'.  

The six-unit model would mean that staged assessment could continue, which according to QCA's feedback would suit the majority of the science community. This model would also see an end to practical exams at this level because these would be classified as external assessment. A number of practical assessments marked by the teacher throughout the year or an investigative approach would be options for the awarding bodies, but according to QCA this is an opportunity to consider other 'creative and innovative' approaches to the assessment of practical skills.  

'How science works' added 

There were other significant changes to the draft criteria in response to feedback from the science community. There is now more emphasis on 'How science works'. Peter Slade, science adviser at QCA told Education in Chemistry, 'the new GCSE specifications for September 2006 include "How science works" in the programme of study. This needs to be included in the AS/A2 criteria and specifications to allow progression from KS4. We will also be looking to include this in the new KS3 programme of study for the same reason'. So added to the 'aims', for example, are an appreciation of how science contributes to the success of the economy and to society, and the power and limitations of science to explain phenomena. Secondly, the 'essential skills for all science subjects' have been moved from an annex position (in the draft version that went to public consultation) into the specification content to give them more emphasis. The awarding bodies will now have to write the specifications in a way that will reflect the skills needed by students.  

Also new to the criteria is that the specifications should allow students to 'develop an interest in further study and careers in the subject'. 'We are all aware that the numbers of students taking the physical sciences at university have been declining in recent years', explains Slade. 'And the science community felt that there is a lack of awareness of career opportunities for students studying the sciences. We agreed that it was important for the specifications to address these issues. We are conscious, too, that AS and A2 should not be seen as qualifications that sit alone and we should appreciate their importance in terms of moving into further study or careers'. 

Other tweaks to the criteria 

As far as chemistry is concerned, the factual content of the AS/A2 specifications was generally thought to be appropriate. A few tweaks have been made in response to feedback from chemists. Entropy and electrode potentials are now included in the core, for example. And there was a call from the RSC for the use of more contemporary contexts in the specifications, which has been addressed. 

There has also been a small change to the assessment objectives. In general the science community welcomed the fact that synoptic assessment will no longer be a separate assessment objective but be assessed across the remaining objectives - ie AO1 (Knowledge and understanding of science), AO2 (Application of knowledge and understanding .) and AO3 (How science works, which covers essentially what scientists do and how science operates). In addition to the inclusion of 'How science works' here, is the use of 'extended prose' - basically individual questions that have more depth. According to Slade, this fits in with QCA's remit from the Government to incorporate elements of advanced extension material. 'The use of extended prose should assist in this and should also allow the question developers from the awarding bodies to incorporate questions which have a more synoptic element as well as providing further opportunities to assess aspects such as the quality of written work', he said. 

According to QCA, feedback on the Advanced Extension Award (AEA) suggested that the science community favoured AEA-level questions to be additional and optional to the A2 papers and, in general, done in separate sessions. However, to date there has been little uptake of these qualifications by students and virtually no interest in them from universities. And QCA acknowledges that there is a fine line between introducing questions, such as the extended prose type, and making the specifications appear even more difficult than they are currently perceived to be. 'We at QCA are aware that science subjects are perceived by students as "difficult", and we don't want to add to this', explains Slade. Taking all these factors together, QCA has decided that AEAs won't stand as separate qualifications, but rather the specifications will have elements of this award incorporated into them without increasing the demand on these subjects.

Next steps

Once QCA executive and its partner regulatory authorities in Wales (DELLS, formerly ACCAC) and Northern Ireland (CCEA) have approved the criteria, the awarding bodies will start to develop the new specifications. These are expected to be accredited by QCA by April 2007 and in schools for September 2007. First teaching of the new specifications will start in September 2008. 

Kathryn Roberts