Education & Careers Field Work New ETCC Chair index2 resources issue36 issue35 issue32 issue33 Issue 34 teg Index of Past TEG news articles by Author Contributing to TEGNews Article index List of book reviews Issue ten30 Issue ten29 Issue ten28 Issue 27 Issue 26 Issue 25 Issue 24 TEG Issue 24: Book review: 'The antidote to self spoon-feeding?' TEG Issue 24: Book review: Animal Behaviour TEG Issue 24: Book review: Biodiversity - An Introduction TEG Issue 24: Book review: Global Warming - The Complete Briefing. 2nd edition TEG Issue 24: A Week in Belarus by David Slingsby and Susan Barker TEG Issue 24: Profile: The Instituto de Investigaciones Ecologicas Chilo, by Juan J. Armesto and Ricardo Rozzi TEG Issue 24: Educating Ecologists by Malcolm McElhone TEG Issue 24: The Trouble with Ecology in 16-19 Education by Jonathan Hughes TEG Issue 24: Book review: Nature Conservation in Europe TEG Issue 24: Book review: Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology TEG Issue 24: Book review: Environmental Science TEG Issue 24: Book review: Our Changing Planet. 2nd edition TEG Issue 24: Book review: Ecology of a Changing Planet TEG Issue 24: LifeScience 2000, University of Warwick TEG Issue 24: LifeScience 2000, University of Warwick TEG Issue 24: Book review: Understanding Environmental Pollution TEG Issue 24: Book review: The State of Food and Agriculture 1997 Issue 23 1998 1997 1989 1996 1995 1994 1992 1990 Curriculum material Ecological Project Compendium Instructions for Authors Careers information Education grants Courses for the Student Teacher Keeping in Touch with Ecology

Electronic TEG

Published in TEG news issue 24, 1998, by the British Ecological Society.
Category: Philosophy of ecology and ecological education

The Trouble with Ecology in 16-19 Education

by Jonathan Hughes

As I will be asking you to fill in a questionnaire (or two) once you have finished reading this issue of TEG news, I thought that I should outline the research that I am pursuing. I am conducting a survey of the provision for ecology in 16-19 education, that is primarily A level Biology, but also other A Levels, and qualifications such as BTECs, the International Baccalaureate and GNVQs. My first task was to ascertain the amount of theoretical ecology contained by the various syllabuses. I wanted quantitative data, so I used the famous list of Cherrett's Key Concepts (1989) as a reference for the survey. This, for those of you haven't come across it, lists, in descending order, the 50 most important concepts in ecology as determined by 645 BES members - hence it was authoritative at time of writing, (many think it a little out of date today). Cherrett worked out the relative importance of each concept by calculating its average position on the "favourites" list of the respondents, hence in the original paper there is a handy numerical score next to each concept which reflects just how key it is (was).

I read each published syllabus that I thought should contain some theoretical ecology and scored it for the representation of each of the concepts from Cherret's list. Being as objective as possible, the syllabus scored zero if it failed to mention or hint at the inclusion of the concept; one if it did mention or hint at it; and two if the concept was well represented as, perhaps, a key concept of biology should be.

After some spreadsheet fun it became apparent that the gut feelings I had experienced during my teaching career had foundation, i.e. that:

1. the representation of ecology throughout 16-19 education is patchy and varied;
2. the A level cores do little to avoid the effects of board bias regarding ecology;
3. ecology suffers from its apparent position between the Earth and Life Sciences;
4. there is an over-representation of community ecology and aspects of ecosystem structure at the expense of other areas;
5. much of the ecology taught at "Advanced Level" is similar in depth to that of "Intermediate Level";
6. ecological concepts are often misinterpreted by the boards.

I presume that these results will not surprise anyone with a good understanding of ecology teaching in 16-19 education. We all know that ecology, as a science, is poorly represented for this age group of students, both in terms of quality and quantity, and this seems likely to continue (see Slingsby 1997). Most UCAS applicants regard ecology as Global Warming and food chains, and have no understanding of the determinants of biodiversity, the science of population dynamics, the nature of selection or the even the outcomes of succession. Their UCAS forms tend not to include applications for ecology-based courses because Global Warming and food chains hold little interest for them.

I presented my findings in more detail than above at the BES Winter meeting last December, and taking the opportunity, gave out 400 questionnaires asking the attendees to give their opinions on the provision for ecology in 16-19 education. The response was poor, but not uninteresting. For starters, the occupation and experience of the respondents varied tremendously. The majority were lecturers, but many were students, others were teachers and a few employed ecologists. All were clear regarding their perceptions of the current provision for ecology in 16-19 education. The majority thought that it lacked breadth and depth of knowledge, that it did not provide for practical experience or statistical application to an adequate degree, and that it did not permit an appropriate award for "good" ecology. When asked "do 16-19 students receive a good education in ecology?", not one person answered "yes".

The same respondents were then asked what they believed were important objectives for 16-19 education. An enjoyable learning experience was regarded as most important - an ideal directly opposing the food chain overdose experienced by the average life science student in England and Wales. The inclusion of field work within a course was seen as the second key objective, with 68% claiming that it was "very important" ."Exercising the mind" was the third most important aim, hence specific objectives such as delivering theory and practical skills suitable for employment and further study played subordinate roles to those concerned with personal fulfilment.

However, when put upon the spot and asked for the characteristics of a student that they would prefer to enrol, the various respondents admitted a preference for those with a broad, theoretical knowledge of ecological topics - the classic academic - so no revolutionary ideas here. Clearly for employment or higher education purposes a broad, theoretical foundation is preferable to a specific, practically-based education, and this perhaps is the trouble with ecology. I imagine that examining bodies regard ecology as a wishy-washy practical science with little solid theoretical structure, indeed, this is how they present the science within their syllabuses. You and I know that this is not the case

Ecology has one of the most sophisticated theoretical frameworks of any subject. The theories of ecology have been applied to such diverse pursuits as pure mathematics, information technology, world economics, political science, city planning and epidemiology. Far from being a "soft" science it holds the most rigorous applications of mathematics in the life sciences, (and I see this as a strong argument for its advancement in the new "key skills" atmosphere).

I may appear to be a preaching to the converted, but let me finally highlight an inconsistency that arose from the survey that may display the habituation that we can all succumb to in education. Respondents were asked, probably unfairly, to provide some idea of their ideal 16-19 syllabus, by indicating their own preference of representation for the 50 Key Concepts, (listed in alphabetical order). The 50 concepts could be either well-represented (scoring 2), represented (scoring 1) or omitted from their syllabus (scoring 0). I then averaged their ideal syllabuses and worked out how their representation would differ from a representation based upon Cherrett's list.

The respondents classified some concepts as more important for students in 16-19 education, while others had a lower ranking than on Cherrett's list. "Over-represented" in the ideal 16-19 syllabus were:

1. food webs
2. the community
3. species diversity
4. trophic level
5. the biome
6. the guild

The increased importance of "species diversity", "the biome" and "the community" may well be a product of the ten year gap between my survey and Cherrett's, and perhaps a more recent Key Concepts survey would reflect these changes. As for "food webs" and the "trophic level", I suspect these concepts appear higher on the list as a result of current educational habit.

"Under-represented" in the ideal 16-19 syllabus were the following topics:

1. energy flow
2. competition
3. niche
4. materials cycling
5. allocation theory (optimisation)
6. intrinsic regulation

These are all tricky, yet fundamental, topics. They involve more abstract thought, understanding and application than the more concrete, but imprecise, and hard-to-qualify, "over-represented" concepts. Perhaps for that very reason the latter should partially replace the former.

Theoretical ecology is hard, but that doesn't mean that it should be poorly represented in advanced level education. Food chains appear in every syllabus, and in the core syllabus. They are foundational to studies in ecology, but my A level students have encountered them virtually every year for 8 years. The foundation is laid, (and if improperly then permanently, Webb and Boltt 1990). I would suggest that a student learning less about the attributes, or rather limitations, of trophic theory, and more about evolutionary stable strategies might enjoy a more fulfilling education - that primary objective. On less altruistic grounds, perhaps we are short-selling our own science as a result of the sloppy progression now in place.

I have seen the panic on a psychology teacher's face when she realised that she had to teach optimal foraging theory. I can imagine the same reaction from countless cell biologists and physiologists if r and K selection jumped onto the syllabuses. If I thought that curriculum planners were aware of such theoretical ecology, then I would see this as a motive for not including these sorts of concepts to date. However, I fear that this science has barely reached the planning desks because ecologists are not promoting themselves within this forum. Perhaps now is the time to make known the importance and variety of ecological theory, propose adequate methods for its assessment (another characteristic failure of 16-19 education which I am looking at now), and calm the awarding bodies regarding its reception by emphasising the resources available (and in the process create a few more). The proposed AS to A Level system is not poised to benefit ecology as it stands, but I feel, with an adequate response from an authority such as the BES these troubles could be overcome.

(This is a casual summary of part of an ongoing research. I have not included details of my research into practical ecology or assessment of ecology within 16-19 education - perhaps these will appear in another TEGnews.

I have included two questionnaires within this publication should you be willing to contribute to the research.

"Ecology in the 16-19 Curriculum" is a copy of the questionnaire circulated at the BES Winter meeting and commented upon above. It is for anyone interested in ecology.

"British Ecological Society Survey of Ecology Delivery in A Level Biology" is for anyone teaching on an A Level Biology course.

I would be very grateful to receive any completed questionnaires)

References

Cherrett, J.M. (1989) Key Concepts in Ecology. Ecological Concepts (J.M. Cherrett ed.) Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Slingsby, D. (1997) Ecology in the 16-19 Biology Curriculum. TEG news (22), pp 13-17.

Webb, P. and Boltt, G. (1990) Food chain to food web: a natural progression? Journal of Biological Education 24 (3), p187.

Copyright 2007 British Ecological Society. All Rights Reserved