Leaving Cert to be overhauled soon

jumpguy

The State Examinations Commission is to carry out an analysis of Leaving Certificate exam papers to see if questions and topics have become too predictable.

The study is one of several recommendations made in a report published today by the Department of Education and Skills.

The report, which was compiled by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and Higher Education Authority, looks at the current points and Leaving Cert systems and examines the need for change.

It cites reports of candidates memorising pre-packaged answers and essays in order to gain maximum marks and points and was critical of media commentary which it says tends to equate predictability in the exam with quality.

The report recommends an analysis of this issue and includes proposals for change if necessary.

Among other proposals is a recommendation that colleges reduce the number of first year courses by offering one general entry Engineering or Law programme, for instance, instead of several.

This report says such a step would help reduce competition for points.
This report says there is agreement that assessment systems affect learning and there is consensus on the need for reform.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, the Minister for Education agreed with the thrust of the report, but added that consultations with universities were taking place.

Ruairi Quinn said one of his first meetings last March was with the seven heads of the universities.

He said he told them he had been critical of the Leaving Cert examination and if it was going to be changed, they would have to be part of the solution.

Mr Quinn said this was the first time there had been a joint effort between second level and third level and was hopeful there will be changes implemented in time for the exams in two or three years.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1222/exam.html

These times are a-changin'. I'm definitely in favour of most of the proposals, especially the one to amalgamate denominated courses (eg. electrical engineering) into undenominated courses (eg. general engineering). Makes a lot more sense - that way, taking the engineering example, students must compete at engineering to get their place in whatever denomination of engineering they wish to do, rather than Leaving Cert subjects like history or geography.

Predictability should never have been introduced to the LC and has only allowed grind schools and teach-to-the-exam styles prosper.

However, what I'm definitely not liking the sounds of is this "lottery" thing, which is bound to be more prevalent if they reduce the number of grades (as more people will have the same grades.) I'm not a fan of random selection even in the current system - it picks the luckiest candidate rather than the best candidate. I think once it comes to random selection, colleges should look at individual grades and try to decide which candidates are best. For example, a student who's on random selection for engineering because they got a D in English but an A1 in maths and physics would be considered over someone in the same position with an A1 in English and German but a D in maths, because maths and physics are more important in engineering. Even interviews of the individual tying candidates would be better.

What do y'all think?

ciara1052

I don't see why they don't just eliminate the predictability of the exams by changing the marking schemes. ( like in English, where they don't give you good marks in the PURPOSE section of it's clearly just learned off, and your Mark in purpose then affects the other marking. Or ask more specific questions...) they could alternatively increase the marks going for orals, aurals, and projects.

Maybe the above isn't possible but I agree with the OP regarding this luck based element.

Canard

The fact that its predictable shows that they must be doing some kind of cycle? Just be more wild in choosing the exam questions!

I think thats a ridiculous idea though. A "B" grade could be 70 or it could be 84, how the hell is it fair not to recognize that? And whoa, candidates memorise answers?! Breaking news, students learn information for the leaving cert :eek:

I dont see the problem with the current system tbh, its not like the exams could ever be perfectly predicted, but I dont care because I'm already in 6th year :P

donvito99

Bit fuppin late...

Chuchoter

I think they're all really good suggestions. I'm not too keen on the lottery but I suppose theres only so many places. Maybe an interview would be better or a project as to why you want to do the course.

Slow Show

Most of that is grand really, though I don't get the fuss being made over predictions - Let the SEC deal with that in their own way tbh, put up a Manufacturing Account two years in a row on Accounting or whatever the equivalent of that is in other objects, job done, let people know predicting and leaving stuff out because it came up twice in the last three years or whatever is a waste of time.

Amalgamating courses, grand I suppose, don't courses like Engineering already have that sort of thing in place in most colleges though? At least that's what I found when I was looking up a few months ago.

However, the changes to the points system are just unnecessary and silly in my opinion. Points system is graaaand, it's fair as it is. I don't get why they want to scale it back to less grades? Surely it's fairer to have more grades, I mean there's a big difference between someone getting 84% and someone getting 71%?...Andd the mere mention of a 'lottery system' sounds hideously unfair.

Also I found this quote mildly amusing:

In a statement, the TUI said such a move would "potentially clear the deck of much of the clutter and confusion in relation to the CAO process for Leaving Cert students".

It's hardly rocket science like... :P if you can't figure out how the CAO works then you probably shouldn't be applying to it...

Togepi

I did the Leaving Cert last year, and am doing it again this year, and I definitely feel that the points system is completely unfair (by the way my reasons for repeating don't involve not getting enough points the first time)!

It just rewards rote-learning, which
is totally useless as a form of education. It takes the fun out of subjects, because although you might be actually interested in different topics, you have to learn what sort of stuff comes up in exams, and how to get the most marks, not things that are in anyway interesting.

Not only that, but even if you work hard, and deserve, let's say, an A1, and do an A1-standard exam on the day, the person marking the scripts might have already given their 'quota' of A1s to people doing the same paper, and will have to take marks off you anywhere they can, just to make sure you get 89.9%. Best case scenario: You don't even notice, are delighted with you're A2, and the points loss makes no difference to you. Worst case: You miss out on your dream course by 5 or 10 points (or 0.1%).

Is that fair? In my opinion - no.

It's not even just that, but the whole system is fairly useless for finding out whether people are suited to a course or not. More points just means you're either more hard-working or you're better at memorising lots of information, or maybe just got lucky with some predictions. Which is great but it doesn't say you'll be a good doctor, lawyer, teacher, nurse or engineer. More interviews for courses would be an improvement, but I definitely think its about time the points system was done away with and more emphasis was placed on subjects relating to particular courses.

Rant over.

al28283

thread title is misleading. they're reviewing it, doesn't neccessarily mean they are going to overhaul it

lorcan122

They are just trying to make it less predictable, not overhaul it, that means they will probably just try and mix up the questions more, change the format of the exam, and maybe add more topics to the course, and replace some of the old ones, nothing drastic.

spurious

Slow Show wrote: »

It's hardly rocket science like... :P if you can't figure out how the CAO works then you probably shouldn't be applying to it...

Every year this forum is full of people who make a mess of their CAO forms.
It might not be rocket science, but that doesn't make it user-friendly.

Quite a number of CAO forms are filled out by mammies, though the people involved would never admit it.

Eathrin

A completely necessary reform imo, I hugely spite those who just learn off large amounts of information and whole answers, rather than using logic and intuition to answer questions. I welcome this change.

For example look at how they tried to change Irish oral to 40%. People are still learning off conversational pieces instead of having an actual ability to speak the language. There should be NO scope for those who are just learning off things.

dambarude

Slow Show wrote: »

Most of that is grand really, though I don't get the fuss being made over predictions - Let the SEC deal with that in their own way tbh, put up a Manufacturing Account two years in a row on Accounting or whatever the equivalent of that is in other objects, job done, let people know predicting and leaving stuff out because it came up twice in the last three years or whatever is a waste of time.
.

I think it needs more change than that though. It's not just about the topic which comes up, and whatever pattern of years it comes up in, but the type of question asked.

Subjects like Geography and Chemistry often ask the VERY same question in exam papers. No twist in the question, no application of knowledge, just a straightforward 'write an account of XYZ'. There's no thinking involved. And that's why it takes students so long to adjust to third level ways of thinking, which actively discourage this type of learning.

The idea of using a lottery is just plain unfair, and I hope it never materialises. Those few students who miss out on courses because of the dreaded asterisk find it bad enough. Were this to happen on a wide spread basis there would be a lot of ill-feeling (and that's putting it mildly).

prettygurrly

well my main gripe with the LC is the sort of students it produces. 1st year college teaching is completely different to school. you're not spoon fed, you need to do your own reading, you need to have your own drive. the LC doesn't get anyone to do their own work. you're set homework, you get it marked, you sit an exam, the end. there's no decent continuous assessment or critical thought. i was just saying to my phd supervisor on tues that a 9 year old is capable of critical thought and this should be introduced earlier than when someone is in 2nd or 3rd year college. the continual acceptance that if the book says so then it must be right makes students like sheep and never questioning what they are being taught. no wonder we've ended up in the state we are when the common joe soap has never been introduced to the concept of thinking for themselves.

the sooner the better the LC is overhauled. I think some sort of a college situation where there's more discussion and individual progression would suit students better and ease them into the responsibility that comes with going off to uni at 18. it will only make things easier for us lot who are trying to teach 1st years in uni. the grind student i have has been expecting me to spoonfeed him. i have refused and will just guide him through his course and correct him when he goes seriously wrong. at the end of the day, i'm not the one sitting his exam.

Eathrin

prettygurrly wrote: »

well my main gripe with the LC is the sort of students it produces. 1st year college teaching is completely different to school. you're not spoon fed, you need to do your own reading, you need to have your own drive. the LC doesn't get anyone to do their own work. you're set homework, you get it marked, you sit an exam, the end. there's no decent continuous assessment or critical thought. i was just saying to my phd supervisor on tues that a 9 year old is capable of critical thought and this should be introduced earlier than when someone is in 2nd or 3rd year college. the continual acceptance that if the book says so then it must be right makes students like sheep and never questioning what they are being taught. no wonder we've ended up in the state we are when the common joe soap has never been introduced to the concept of thinking for themselves.

the sooner the better the LC is overhauled. I think some sort of a college situation where there's more discussion and individual progression would suit students better and ease them into the responsibility that comes with going off to uni at 18. it will only make things easier for us lot who are trying to teach 1st years in uni. the grind student i have has been expecting me to spoonfeed him. i have refused and will just guide him through his course and correct him when he goes seriously wrong. at the end of the day, i'm not the one sitting his exam.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but saying that all LC students lack critical thought is wrong. I am more than capable of thinking for myself and I attribute any success I have in school to this. I don't study at all unlike most students so thinking creatively is absolutely key. Also I'm not the type who just accepts what they're told. I like to understand rather than just know.

From my perspective, it's actually not the best thing. I lack the work ethic many possess which has been obtained through hard study, I actually fear now that when it comes to pushing myself to work, something I've not done to date, I may find great difficulty doing so. So students learning to work hard in secondary may well be beneficial when it comes to applying themselves in 3rd level.

prettygurrly

Cian A wrote: »

I appreciate where you are coming from, but saying that all LC students lack critical thought is wrong. I am more than capable of thinking for myself and I attribute any success I have in school to this..

I didn't say that they lack critical thought, I said that they are not required to use any critical thought and therefore do not in the rest of their lives. You have chosen to use critical thought. however you can get 500 points in your LC without ever questioning what you are learning or why.

Cian A wrote: »

I don't study at all unlike most students so thinking creatively is absolutely key. Also I'm not the type who just accepts what they're told. I like to understand rather than just know.

That's great, you'll get your drive from being interested in your subject matter when you get to college. although as with anything you may have to do some subjects that dont pique your interest as much as others.

having said all that i said before there are still some subjects that require rote learning at uni level as well such as zoology in the early years. LC biology leaves students with very little knowledge of latin names and cycles of organisms which just have to be learnt!

QueenOfLeon

Its an interesting read. The collaboration between 2nd and 3rd level could be very beneficial, if done right. The idea of introducing "foundational competences such as study skills, research skills, quantitative reasoning, essay writing and critical thinking" into 2nd level would be excellent, maybe giving people an idea of what work in college is actually like along the way. It would be a good idea to know all of this before going to college, whether or not it actually seems useful at the time, as for the most part these skills aren't taught as part of your course.

Besides that though, there's a lot I wouldn't agree on...

Move to replace the current grading system of 14 points with an 8 point system (A1, A2, B, C, D, E, F and NG).

I think this would be terrible, they mention already that it was removed in the first place because of too many people on the same points. They can't make every college course a general entry sort of thing.

It would be very punishing for people hovering on the borderline between grades, for example A2/B1, if you put a lot of work into a subject and ended up with 84% it would be very discouraging, since you could have sat back, got 70% with no problems and put the time into other subjects.

A further question posed at the conference was whether the matriculation requirements might be amended to include English and Mathematics in the calculation of points for all students, and all courses.

I think there should never be this much emphasis on one or two individual subjects. And for every course? Ridiculous. The bonus points for maths are controversial enough. Denying someone a place in a language/politics/law course because they don't score highly in maths or a science/engineering course because of their English ability...its very unfair.

Maybe it would stop people from dropping down to OL to save time for other subjects even if they're capable of doing it. But at the same time, if a subject isn't taught well in someone's school, I think they should be allowed to play to their strengths and not be put under pressure in one particular subject.

deferring entry to professional courses, including health-care courses, until after a foundation year (or years) have been completed by students.

As if university isn't expensive enough. A lot of international students study in Ireland in the first place to avoid the 7/8 years it would take in their own country to finish a health-care course. Making medicine etc even longer than it already is would only serve to drive Irish students out of the country to avoid paying for 8 years of college. Alleviate the points race, maybe, but the competition after this to get to graduate courses would be immense and end up, imo, with a lot of emigration.

Coeurdepirate

Cian A wrote: »

A completely necessary reform imo, I hugely spite those who just learn off large amounts of information and whole answers, rather than using logic and intuition to answer questions. I welcome this change.

For example look at how they tried to change Irish oral to 40%. People are still learning off conversational pieces instead of having an actual ability to speak the language. There should be NO scope for those who are just learning off things.

That's not realistic at all though. It's all good and well for people who remember things without studying (not naming names!) but for the vast majority of students, myself included, rote learning is pretty much the only way of doing well in the Leaving Cert. I'm not say it's a good system or efficient, but after having learnt stuff off I know the chapter/topic/whatever. Also in things like the orals, particularly the French oral, whenever I learn notes everything in them is French I know, but I still learn them because although I know the French, it takes me too long to formulate good answers in a foreign language off the top of my head.

Edit: One thing I do disagree with though is learning off essays for English. Those who learn off their composition in particular should be killed with fire.

Eathrin

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

That's not realistic at all though. It's all good and well for people who remember things without studying (not naming names!) but for the vast majority of students, myself included, rote learning is pretty much the only way of doing well in the Leaving Cert. I'm not say it's a good system or efficient, but after having learnt stuff off I know the chapter/topic/whatever. Also in things like the orals, particularly the French oral, whenever I learn notes everything in them is French I know, but I still learn them because although I know the French, it takes me too long to formulate good answers in a foreign language off the top of my head.

Edit: One thing I do disagree with though is learning off essays for English. Those who learn off their composition in particular should be killed with fire.

I think on the introduction of this new system, independent thinking will be developed from a younger age in order to cope with the exam. It wouldn't be forced upon us because such a large amount of people are used to rote-learning, that's just the way the exams have forced us to work!

prettygurrly

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

That's not realistic at all though. It's all good and well for people who remember things without studying (not naming names!) but for the vast majority of students, myself included, rote learning is pretty much the only way of doing well in the Leaving Cert.

you're forgetting that the alternative is more continuous assessment and independent thinking. if the homework and self-maintained learning that you do throughout the year actually amounted to something you wouldn't need to "remember things without studying", you would just know it. I'm in my second year of phd, a masters behind me, four year degree and the leaving cert. Trust me...having a more rounded basis for learning and having a point to putting work in over the year makes students know things better. life isn't a memory test. how can you possibly understand something if you haven't had to apply it? in my masters thesis i had to use a number of equations and models...i had learnt them for exams but i only really knew them when i applied them in a project and experienced them. the same can be said in humanities, for example being asked to do projects where you apply certain political science theories (marxism, leninsim etc) to a community and try to understand the consequences of high taxes and social insurance but also people's life work balance etc etc the possibilities of individual thinking and critical thought are endless.
there's so much to learning than just remembering stuff. you wont remember any of these facts when you're in your late twenties so what's the point? and a lot of them are simply incorrect, you only have to watch an episode of QI to know that.
i still see a point to exams however. it is important to know if the person really understands what they have been doing over the year and exams should reflect what a student should know as a result of doing continuous assessment. in my contaminated land module in my masters our continuous assessment set us up really well for the exams but because we had already applied the theory to a project we could talk objectively about whether the theory was any good or not.
considering that people will have to adjust to continuous assessment and critical thought when they go to university (bearing in mind 2/3 of LC students will progress to third level) I think it should be brought in as soon as possible for anyone not already in the senior level matric.

DepoProvera

prettygurrly wrote: »

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

That's not realistic at all though. It's all good and well for people who remember things without studying (not naming names!) but for the vast majority of students, myself included, rote learning is pretty much the only way of doing well in the Leaving Cert.

you're forgetting that the alternative is more continuous assessment and independent thinking. if the homework and self-maintained learning that you do throughout the year actually amounted to something you wouldn't need to "remember things without studying", you would just know it. I'm in my second year of phd, a masters behind me, four year degree and the leaving cert. Trust me...having a more rounded basis for learning and having a point to putting work in over the year makes students know things better. life isn't a memory test. how can you possibly understand something if you haven't had to apply it? in my masters thesis i had to use a number of equations and models...i had learnt them for exams but i only really knew them when i applied them in a project and experienced them. the same can be said in humanities, for example being asked to do projects where you apply certain political science theories (marxism, leninsim etc) to a community and try to understand the consequences of high taxes and social insurance but also people's life work balance etc etc the possibilities of individual thinking and critical thought are endless.
there's so much to learning than just remembering stuff. you wont remember any of these facts when you're in your late twenties so what's the point? and a lot of them are simply incorrect, you only have to watch an episode of QI to know that.
i still see a point to exams however. it is important to know if the person really understands what they have been doing over the year and exams should reflect what a student should know as a result of doing continuous assessment. in my contaminated land module in my masters our continuous assessment set us up really well for the exams but because we had already applied the theory to a project we could talk objectively about whether the theory was any good or not.
considering that people will have to adjust to continuous assessment and critical thought when they go to university (bearing in mind 2/3 of LC students will progress to third level) I think it should be brought in as soon as possible for anyone not already in the senior level matric.

Alright we get it - you're doing your PhD. You'd think you would have learned how to capitalize and paragraph properly. You're just using buzz words like "critical thinking" and not really achieving anything bar condescension.

Anyway, as the saying goes, one must master the basics before trying to experiment. The Leaving Cert rewards work ethic and develops a core understanding of each subject(in my opinion). What's wrong with leaving it to Third Level to challenge these things?

I do,however, think the system needs a revamp...

prettygurrly

DepoProvera wrote: »

Alright we get it - you're doing your PhD. You'd think you would have learned how to capitalize and paragraph properly.

i love how you pick on someone who has a high level of education to point out that they haven't been bothered to capitalize or paragraph their responses on a forum. afaik all of us learn this before age 12...so great point there, you really showed me up, well done, bravo etc. etc. etc.

i'm more than well able to capitalise and paragraph my work when i feel that someone with a brain will actually read it (purposefully leaving out a full stop to annoy you )

and just finally, i wasn't actually mentioning the phd etc. to gloat but more to make the point that i've been in the system for a really really really long time. i'm now on the other side of the fence with teaching first years who come in with the notion that they do not need to do anything for themselves.

back to the point of conversation (this being a conversation and not a submittance to a journal), you're basically saying that only people that either are capable or have the want to go to university should be taught to think critically and to question information that they are fed?

DepoProvera wrote: »

What's wrong with leaving it to Third Level to challenge these things?

my point at the very beginning was that it is this refusal to allow people to formulate their own opinion that has allowed us to end up with the situation that people just accept what the government tells them and that people who may not be any more educated than them (e.g. Bertie Ahern) are right in their manner of running the country. it doesn't sound like an educated country IMO.