Competence-based education (CBE) is central to modernizing and Europeanizing education. It addresses labor market and societal demands by emphasizing both theoretical knowledge and practical skills for success in a complex world (European Commission, 2018). The competency approach connects academic learning with real-world application, focusing on problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration (OECD, 2019). Its goal is to reshape how students learn and demonstrate competencies (Evans et al., 2020), requiring attention to both content and the teaching-learning process.

Learning content, rooted in European and Anglo-American traditions, provides a structured framework for integrating knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Nordin & Sundberg, 2016; Birzina, 2023). Well-designed curricula support systematic competence development (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) and align with national and international standards (Thummaphan et al., 2022). However, implementing CBE faces challenges like insufficient support, limited teaching materials, inadequate infrastructure, and a focus on formalities over meaningful outcomes (Nombo, 2022; Biesta, 2015; Gruppen et al., 2026).

In STEM education, overloaded curricula and time constraints hinder hands-on learning (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). Teachers often lack the skills to integrate competency-based methods (Honey et al., 2014). Integrating Big Ideas in STEM (Harlen, 2015) is difficult due to time limits, teacher expertise, and differing curriculum expectations (Chalmer et al., 2017). Nevertheless, introducing CBE has demonstrated improvements in biology education when the focus shifts from mere knowledge acquisition to skill and ability development (Mpate, 2023; Hubbard, 2024).

In Latvia, the competence-based curriculum has been fully implemented by 2023, requiring a shift in pedagogical approaches (OECD, 2020). 'Big Ideas' as central themes in science help to ensure that students achieve concrete learning outcomes and a deeper understanding of science, including biology. In Latvia, the biology content reform aims at modernizing the curriculum, improving teaching methods and assessment to promote students' understanding and critical thinking. Biology is taught at an optimal and advanced level in secondary education. For the optimal level, Skola2030 has developed the Biology I Model Programme (Skola2030, 2019).

As the model programme did not provide biology teachers with full methodological materials, then a set of methodological materials was developed in 2023. It was developed within the framework of the sub-project "Digital authoring solutions for the development of learning strategies for acquiring the STEM content to mitigate the impact of the pandemic (Biology I)" (Identification No VISC 2023/2) funded by the European Social Fund "Support for the development of individual competences of learners" (No 8.3.2.2/16/I/001).  In collaboration with faculty and practicing teachers from the Faculty of Biology (now Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences) of the University of Latvia, a restructured alternative Biology I curriculum was developed. This curriculum covers seven topics aligned with the Latvian Education Standard and Big Ideas, comprising 105 lessons. Each lesson includes a detailed plan, methodological commentary, flexibility for adjustments, and supplementary materials. Two versions of end-of-topic tests were developed for each topic. These resources, uploaded to the Skolo.lv platform, are accessible to biology teachers and currently have 413 registered users (as of January 3, 2025).

The aim of the study was to investigate how the competence- based approach is implemented in biology education. To do this, a number of research questions were set:

1. To what extent does the model Biology I programme developed by Skola 2030 meet the learning outcomes set in the Latvian Secondary Education Standard?

2. What are the opinions of biology teachers on the implementation of the model Biology I programme developed by Skola2030?

3. What should be the content of the teaching methodological material of the Biology I programme in order to achieve the learning outcomes set in the Latvian Education Standard?

To achieve the goal of the European Social Fund project implemented by the University of Latvia in 2023—to develop teaching/learning content and 105 interactive lessons for the Biology I programme at the optimal level—it was necessary to determine the compliance of the Skola2030 model programme with the learning outcomes defined in the education standard and to analyze the developed content. 1. To assess the extent to which the Biology I model programme of Skola2030 meets the learning outcomes set in the Latvian Education Standard, a mapping of learning outcomes (LOs) was performed. All the outcomes included in the themes were mapped against the learning outcomes set in the standard. Subsequently, a content analysis was carried out to determine whether a full achievement of outcomes set in the standard was expected, as well as to identify the missing issues. 2. To find out how the model Biology I programme developed by Skola2030 is being implemented in schools, a survey was carried out with the participation of secondary school biology teachers in Latvia. The survey consisted of six demographic questions, 10 Likert scale questions with a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and 3 open-response questions. It was structured in two parts. The first part summarized the respondent's profile (sex, age, type of school, length of service and subject taught). The second part evaluated the Biology I programme in the context of the competence-based approach, paying particular attention to the relevance of the content to the core principles of the competence-based approach. The survey was posted on the QuestionPro e-platform and a snowball method was initially used to collect respondents. A link to the survey was then placed on the authorized Skolo.lv site for teachers, next to the Biology I methodological material. The participants of the survey were 97 biology teachers from Latvian gymnasia (28%) and secondary (72%) schools (length of service: 1/2-10 years - 23.3%; 11-20 years - 17.1%; 21-30 years - 29.5%; 31-45 years - 21.9%). Of these, 11% were male and 89% female teachers, with the majority (49%) aged between 51 and 65 years. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis test and correlation analysis were used for data processing. 3. Teachers' responses to open questions were summarized to identify the content needed in Biology I methodological material to achieve learning outcomes. Based on this, an alternative set of Biology I teaching/learning materials was created.

1. The analysis of the learning outcomes showed that in the programme, 24% of the standard learning outcomes were fully covered, 41% were partially covered and 35% were not covered. 2. In evaluating the model programme, the highest mean score was given to its relevance to the education standard (M=3.44, SD=0.975), while the lowest was for insufficient teaching hours (M=2.18, SD=1.156). Limited lessons hinder research skills development (M=2.40, SD=1.241), and gaps in sub-topic sequence and scope (M=2.82, SD=1.187) affect content logic (M=2.55, SD=1.272). Teachers appreciate that the programme covers all the topics included in the Big Ideas (M=3.12, SD=1.255), but the standard deviations show diverging views. The 51–65 age group gave higher scores, particularly for learning outcomes meeting the standard (M=3.60). The Kruskal-Wallis test showed differences between age groups (p=.004), but not for other questions. Correlations indicate factors like lesson number (r(97)=.671, p<.01) and topic structuring (r(97)=.686, p<.01) influence biology content effectiveness. The implementation of the model programme was evaluated differently according to age, length of service and type of school. Older and more experienced teachers are often more satisfied with the learning outcomes of the programme, while younger teachers focus more on structural problems. 3. Teachers' responses regarding difficulties in teaching certain topics in biology provided diverse statements. Their difficulties are not only related to certain topics with complex content (Immunity and Evolution), the sequence of acquiring topics (Secrets of DNA and Inheritance of Traits), but also to insufficient number of lessons, lack of materials and resources, as well as the lack of guidance on the level of depth of topics. These challenges highlighted the need for a better set of methodological teaching material, which was developed.

Biesta, G. (2015). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge. Birzina, R. (2023). Some issues concerning the use of didactics of biology. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 22(3), 376-380. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/23.22.376 Chalmers, C., Carter, M., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9799-1 Elster, D. (2009). Biology in Context: teachers’ professional development in learning communities. Journal of Biological Education, 43(2), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2009.9656152 European Commission. (2018). Key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://education.ec.europa.eu Evans, C. M., Landl, E., & Thompson, J. (2020). Making sense of K‐12 competency‐based education: A systematic literature review of implementation and outcomes research from 2000 to 2019. The Journal of Competency‐Based Education, 5(4), e01228. Gruppen, L. D., Burkhardt, J. C., Fitzgerald, J. T., Funnell, M., Haftel, H. M., Lypson, M. L., ... & Vasquez, J. A. (2016). Competency‐based education: programme design and challenges to implementation. Medical education, 50(5), 532-539. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12977 Harlen, W. (2015). Towards big ideas of science education. School Science Review, 97(359), 97-107. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. Hubbard, K. (2024). Plant biology education: A competency‐based vision for the future. Plants, People, Planet, 6(4), 780-790. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10503 Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-11. Mpate, H. (2023). Biology teachers’ implementation of the competence based curriculum in Tanzania: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Biological Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2023.2282428 Nombo, U. (2022). Competency-based curriculum in the teachers colleges: The challenges. European Journal of Alternative Education Studies, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.46827/ejae.v7i1.4179 Nordin, A., & Sundberg, D. (2016). Travelling concepts in national curriculum policy-making: The example of competencies. European Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 314-328. OECD. (2019). Future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning compass 2030. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org Skola2030 [School 2030]. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.skola2030.lv/lv (in Latvian) Thummaphan, P., Sripa, K., & Prakobthong, W. (2022). Competency-based school curriculum: A development and implementation framework. Rajabhat Chiang Mai Research Journal, 23(3), 185-205. https://doi.org/10.57260/rcmrj.2022.261665 Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.