After a 10-year analysis of Biology’s poor performance, the president of ABE, FREDERICK DONGO-SHEMA, told Yudaya Nangonzi that the focus should shift from inadequate teachers and candidate’s poor mastery of questions to a mismatch between the demands of the curriculum and wrong assessment in national examinations.
Why the continuous poor results of Biology at all levels?
We feel the poor results in Biology do not reflect what is happening in Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics. When you look at the 2022 results, all the high-end schools that admit A-class students also recorded poor Biology results.
This poor performance that cuts across all schools cannot be entirely explained by poor teaching methods yet the learners are doing well in other equally hard science subjects. Last year, the problem at A-level was mainly with paper two; it is essay-based comprising Sections A [one number carries 40 marks] and B where out of the six questions, a candidate attempts four questions.
Uneb examined carbohydrates but the question was out of the secondary-level syllabus. In section B, question 4 (b), it was tasking learners to explain the formation of pollen grains – this was long omitted from the syllabus and Uneb brought it back.
We suspect that Uneb either picked a paper that had been set before 2013 [when revisions were made] or someone in charge was negligent and allowed the paper to come into circulation.
In the same paper, question six was about explaining how isolating mechanisms cause the formation of new species. We learned from our members who are examiners that the Uneb chief examiner of that paper ruled and they marked wrong information which did not match the demands of the question. This put students who had answered it well at a disadvantage.
In practicals, Uneb set a cockroach but if you looked at the marking guide, the drawings therein were not in tandem with the questions. At O-level, some high-order questions are not taught at this level, according to the curriculum.
You seem to suggest teachers and candidates spot questions and Uneb examines otherwise…
This is not the first time Uneb is setting questions outside the prescribed curriculum. By the time a student takes on Biology at A-level, they are brilliant enough to study hard despite the wide concepts in the subject.
For instance, in Paper Two, Uneb must be the only examining body worldwide where one question carries 40 marks at the secondary level. Elsewhere, essay questions go up to 25 marks. We are wondering why Uneb has failed to split this section of paper two such that we can have two numbers on various topics.
If a candidate can’t attempt the first question, they find something else to do. The Biology syllabus is open and does not describe content depth. As a result, you find teachers guessing and confused with teaching A-level work at O-level while those at A-level are studying university topics.
Poor Biology results are a perennial issue. Who’s to blame; teachers, candidates or Uneb?
There are many reasons for the failure but what has been advanced by Uneb is that the teaching is bad. If we are to sample the best schools holding high-caliber Biology teachers with up-to-date laboratories, their results are also poor.
This alone explains that the problem is not with teaching but with assessment. Most of the Biology teachers are also teaching Chemistry which does not record poor results.
Whereas there are issues to do with instructional materials and the lack of teachers in some schools, we want assessment not to be the leading cause for poor performance in Biology because Uneb can put things right.
How far have you gone in addressing the poor results?
Our association has been holding retooling workshops for teachers since 2017. We invite Uneb and the National Curriculum Development Center subject specialists to form part of our training team such that we help teachers gain skills in teaching Biology.
We have also engaged the association of surgeons in Uganda and Makerere University’s College of Natural Sciences had initiated research on the same. On the general performance, we have written to Uneb but have not yet gotten responses on March 13, we met the Education ministry’s top management and discussed various issues.
What recommendations have you made to reform the Biology assessment?
As the voice of Biology, the association recognizes the cardinal role of Biology education in preparing young people for the challenges that lie ahead.
We came up with both immediate and medium-term strategies to improve Biology. First; we want topics in the curriculum to be put into six to eight themes of related concepts and adopt a theme-based setting. For instance, at both O and A-levels, Uneb can set paper one questions from topics in themes one to four and paper two questions from topics five to eight.
There’s also a need to split A-level section A of paper two (P530/2) into two questions, each awarded 20 marks, to reduce the failure burden caused by one question carrying 40 marks.
The NCDC needs to introduce emerging and applied Biology, including genome manipulation, cloning, and biotechnology into both O and A-levels syllabi, while some traditional content is dropped to reduce the current syllabus overload.
What’s the way forward?
We are still waiting on the promise by the Education ministry to meet Uneb and NCDC to chat about a way forward. This time, we don’t want a meeting to enjoy coffee, but one with a basis for follow-up. We have done research to help the country but if the two bodies don’t give us an audience, we are thinking of joining aggrieved parents, schools and teachers to consider court action.
If the examining body is not interested in reforming the shortcomings that have manifested over time, the court will force them to do so.
inarticle} inarticle}
