Transitional changes

The Higher Education Authority (HEA) of Ireland the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment have issued their report on the "From Transaction to Transition" conference which took place earlier this year and examined the transition of students from second to third level.

The Minister for Education and Skills, Ruairí Quinn, has welcomed the report and has called for an open debate on the full range of possible options for change and improvement.

Minister Quinn said: "I want in particular to publicly thank both organisations for the speed with which they have responded. In addition, their report is focused, compact and explicit in its recommendations".

The Minister said that he agreed with the overall thrust of the report. "There are a number of issues I have asked the HEA and NCCA to consider further in consultation with the State Examinations Commission (SEC) and higher education institutions.

"I have requested the HEA and NCCA, in partnership with the SEC and higher education institutions where appropriate, to now begin advancing the recommendations."

The report makes a number of important recommendations, a few of which are outlined here.

• The report reiterates the importance of completing the ongoing curriculum review for Biology, Chemistry and Physics at Leaving Certificate level to incorporate "new methods of assessing scientific knowledge and skills".

• The authors suggest e-learning and inter-school collaboration be examined as new ways to increase learners' access to a broad range of subjects at senior cycle level.

• The NCCA and State Examinations Commission will be asked (possible with the support of an independent agency) to assess and address and problems with predictability in the Leaving Certificate exams - an attempt to prevent students 'guessing' what is due to appear on the exam.

• The current 14-point system of grading exams (A1, A2, B1, B2, etc.) will be replaced with an 8-point system (A1, A2, B, C, D, E, NG).

• Research will be carried to assess what impact the compulsory inclusion of maths and english in the calculations for CAO 'points' would have.

• The academic year at third-level should be extended to accommodate the "incorporation of transversal skills without compromising discipline-specific content and academic rigour". The authors propose that since the action "does not require any changes to existing contracts" implementation at first-year should start immediately.

• There should be broader entry to undergraduate programmes at third-level with students specialising after first-year.

The full text of the short report is worth reading.

Many of the proposals fit with proposals outlined in the Hunt Report of this year, especially the movement towards a broader first-year curriculum which includes training in generic and foundational skills and are to be welcomed.

The proposal to extend the undergraduate academic year may well have some virtue but for many in the third-level sector the summer months are an opportunity to focus on research and writing which has been sidelined during the year. Any changes to the duration of the academic year, I would argue, needs to be carefully balanced to ensure research output does not suffer. Given the link between ongoing research and good teaching, this is crucial.

Science points up but we still haven't got the point!

The headline development in this year's CAO points seems to be the large rise in points for science-based courses at Irish third-level institutions.

To name just a few: Biomedical Science (a joint UCC, CIT programme) has gone up to 410 points - a rise of 80 points on last year.

Biological & Chemical Sciences at UCC has gone up 25 points to 375. Biomedical Engineering at DCU has increased by 45 points; Manufacturing & Design Engineering at DIT is up by 75 points; as is Computing, also at DIT.

Despite all the talk of a decline in maths standards, Mathematics at TCD is up 70 points. Biotechnology at NUIG is up 40 points; Electronic Engineering at UL is up 60; and Medical Biotechnology at IT Sligo is up 40 points.

'the overriding theme...is for increases across the sciences'This is just a snapshot and a more complete analysis at a later date would be helpful. Needless to say though, the overriding theme of the cut-off points is for increases across most of the sciences.

Although there will undoubtedly be people who will be dissapointed today, with courses that would have been attainable in previous years moving beyond their reach, those who teach and promote science will be pleased.

Despite the arguments against the points system, it is fair because it treats everyone the same. It is a supply and demand system and the points today tell us that the average student about to pass through the college gates are (academically at least) of a higher standard than previous year's.

This doesn't mean they are going to make better third-level students however - perhaps they've scored higher because they've learned everything by rote and can't think for themselves? Neither does it mean they are going to make better scientists than previous cohorts.

What it does mean is that there is a greater interest in the sciences and that leaving cert students (and their parents!) are seeing the sciences as a real option for an interesting, rewarding and successful carreer.

The pillars of industry who have been wheeled out in recent weeks and months to scare kids into studying science will do absolutely nothing to encourage greater interest in sciences.

What is needed is the development of new and exciting curricula for the sciences at primary level throught to third level.

A report to the Nuffield Foundation in the UK by Jonathan Osborne and Justin Dillon of King's College London in 2008 made some very interesting points on this very subject.

In Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections, the authors recommend that "The primary goal of science education across the EU should be to educate students both abouth the major explanations of the material world that science offers and about the way science works. Science courses whose basic aim is to provide a foundational education for future scientists and engineers should be optional".

'there should be two types of science course'In other words, there should be two types of science courses: one to teach everyone the basics of the scientific process and another to specifically train students to be working scientists.

Of course, this would free educators to use the first type of course to develop students with an appreciation and knowledge of the purpose, process and products of science; while reserving the detailed minutae for a later in-depth course.

Another outcome of the leaving certificate reuslts is the by-now-yearly 'Boys do better than girls' headline. I won't even begin to discuss this one but it may be interesting to look at some data from the above mentioned Nuffield Foundation report.

In a survey of schoolchildren in England, boys and girls were asked what they would like to learn about in science class. The top 5 from each camp proves, in pretty stark terms, that a catch-all approach, especially at junior levels, won't do.

Top 5 for Boys:

Explosive chemicals
How it feels to be weightless in space
How the atom bomb functions
Biological and chemical weapons and what they do to the human body
Black holes, supernovae and other spectacular objects in outer space.


Top 5 for girls:

Why we dream when we are sleeping and what the dreams might mean
Cancer- what we know and how we can treat it
How to perform first aid and use basic medical equipment
How to exercise the bodt to keep fit and strong
Sexually transmitted diseases and how to be protected against them