Page 27 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

13. Twenty-two respondents (92 per cent) were of the opinion that the Specific Objectives of the
syllabus clearly indicated the breadth and depth to which the knowledge and skills in each section
should be covered. The other two respondents who did not agree stated that the objectives stated in
the syllabus are often vague and do not accurately reflect the depth which the teacher is expected to
teach. One of the two respondents cited Unit2, Module 1, Specific Objective 2.5, “explain the process
of oxidative phosphorylation with reference to the electron transport chain”, as an example. The
members of the Panel agreed and revised the Explanatory notes. Respondents were further asked to
identify by Unit and Module any Specific Objectives which needed to be more clearly stated and to
suggest how they might be clarified. One respondent pointed out that in Unit 1, Module 1, Specific
Objective 1.7, the suggested practical activity did not relate to that objective alone. Therefore, the
suggested practical activity should be stated as a separate objective. The Panellists agreed and this
became Specific Objective 1.9. Another respondent indicated that for Unit 1, Module 1, Specific
Objective 3.2, for the Suggested Practical activity, student could be asked to make a wet mount of red
onion epidermal cells to allow them to see the changes of the protoplast. The members of the Panel
agreed and this activity was included. One respondent was of the opinion that Specific Objectives 3.4
and 3.5 in Unit 2, Module 3, which relates to the viral diseases dengue and AIDS should be deleted as
this is done in lower school. The members of the Panel disagreed since these are covered at a higher
level in CAPE® Biology. It was pointed out that the Explanatory Notes of Unit 1, Module 2, Specific
Objective 4.2, mention should be made of the new genome editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 which enables
scientists to directly remove, add or change sections of the DNA sequence in a living cell much faster.
The Panellists welcomed this suggestion and added it to the Explanatory Notes. One respondent
stated that in Unit 1, Module 2, Specific Objective 1.3, in the Explanatory Notes, rRNA should be
identified together with tRNA and mRNA since rRNA acts not only in its role in the production of
ribosomes but as an enzyme in the condensation reaction of amino acids in the large subunit. This was
included in the Explanatory Notes. It was suggested by another respondent that the processes of the
nitrogen cycle shoold be included in Unit 2, Module 1, Specific Objective 3.3. The members of the
Panel disagreed and stated that this was extensively covered at the CSEC level. For Unit 2, Module 2,
Specific Objectives 1.3 and 3.5, the Suggested Practical Activities from respondents were included as
suggested.

14. The respondents were asked to list any topic included in the syllabus which they thought
should be included. One respondent indicated that the importance of local and global vaccination
programmes in the eradication of disease should be included in Unit 2, Module 3, Immunology. The
members of the Panel agreed and this was included in the Explanatory Notes of Specific Objective
2.10.

15. When asked if they were satisfied with the School-Based Assessment (SBA) requirements for
the syllabus, ten respondents of 16 (62 per cent) to this item on the survey were in agreement. One
respondent who did not agree stated that the Council should do away with SBA and offer candidates
a practical examination as part of the assessment of the syllabus since in his/her opinion, it would be
easier to have a scheduled practical examination and this would also force schools to have adequate
equipment and supplies. Another of the persons who was dissatisfied recommended that more
guidance was needed for assessing the SBA. The members of the Panel agreed with this respondent
and the entire section on the SBA was revised to ensure that the instructions were unambiguous. The
Panellists supported the recommendation of the Working Committee for CAPE® Sciences and Review
Committee for the subject that the SBA for the CAPE® Sciences should follow the same format as the
CSEC® Sciences. They were of the view that the inclusion of the project would enable the students to
experience authentic learning and would be better prepared for further education and real life. They
supported the decisions of the CAPE® Chemistry Panel that candidates would be required to do a
research project in any one Unit of the CAPE® Sciences. As in Chemistry, a student may opt to carry
out either an observational research-based project or an experimental research-based project. The

5